Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Beast)   Post-Fukushima nuclear-meltdown Japan reports slight uptick in birth defects, gigantic city-destroying lizards   ( thedailybeast.com) divider line
    More: Misc, Fukushima, Japan, Tokyo Electric Power Company, Jiji Press, birth defects, Fukushima Daiichi, electrical power industry, radiation doses  
•       •       •

2590 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Sep 2013 at 2:16 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



46 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-26 11:57:22 AM  
In other words, the scientist said you were wrong, so it must be a cover up?

You could alternately look at the publicly available radiation monitoring data for the area, and realize that there's been no real change in the level of radioactivity either during or after the Fukushima meltdown.
 
2013-09-26 12:28:41 PM  
History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man.
 
2013-09-26 12:53:04 PM  

Irving Maimway: History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man.


Gamera!

/Woo-oo-oo
 
2013-09-26 12:55:55 PM  
I like how they burry the fact that the data doesn't support the hypothesis the meltdowns led to an increase in birth defects.

If you want evidence of how poorly people are educated in this country, look no further than articles like this and the predictable pile-on by the scientifically illiterate.
 
2013-09-26 12:55:57 PM  
Trite headline, but funny nevertheless.
 
2013-09-26 01:04:46 PM  
several nuclear experts in and outside of the country

Sometimes I spot the weasel words immediately, as I did in this case, other times it's not so easy.
 
2013-09-26 02:21:11 PM  
And that couldn't have anything to do with the earthquake/tsunami also completely annihilating a fertilizer plant and a refinery, could it? Nooooo, the obvious chemical dumps had nothing to do with genetic damage, let's blame radiation and pseudo-science.

/chemistry will fark you faster and more efficiently than radiation ever will
 
2013-09-26 02:22:46 PM  
 What I imagine mutants to look like in Japan:
2.media.dorkly.cvcdn.com
 
2013-09-26 02:23:41 PM  
Perhaps a bit of perspective.

Fukushima and the Misunderstood Effects of Radiation

The only issue I have with that article is the assertion that 1,600 people have died in the Fukushima evacuation process, implying that the evacuation process has actively been involved in 1,600 deaths. A better statement would be that 1,600 people who were evacuated have since died (of non-radiation related causes).
 
2013-09-26 02:24:41 PM  

b2theory: I like how they burry the fact that the data doesn't support the hypothesis the meltdowns led to an increase in birth defects.


Yep. It's tragic confirmation bias. Those people will take any data on the topic as evidence, because it's inconceivable to them that there isn't widespread genetic mutation. They've been spoon feed misinformation for decade.

A recent Stanford paper estimated that the worldwide total number of people affected (those who die or get cancer at some point in their lives) will be less than 1800, and most likely less than 180. And that's using the linear no-threshold model. They even pointed out that thier analysis should be viewed cautiously, because it's likely to overestimate the number of people affected.
 
2013-09-26 02:30:53 PM  
Russia and Japan will have super powered mutants!

techintranslation.com

Mr. President, we must not allow a super mutant gap!
 
2013-09-26 02:31:48 PM  
Didn't bother to read the blather. Current state of the genetics art shows It takes a few generations for mutations to show up. Animals because of short generations, maybe. Humans, not yet Chauncey. Come back in 10-15 years or more.
 
2013-09-26 02:38:57 PM  
Just curious -- can some of Fark's nuclear science elite sum it up?:

What were the major differences between Chernobyl and Fukushima in terms of number of deaths attributed to the actual nuclear disaster?
 
2013-09-26 02:43:51 PM  

error 303: Perhaps a bit of perspective.

Fukushima and the Misunderstood Effects of Radiation

The only issue I have with that article is the assertion that 1,600 people have died in the Fukushima evacuation process, implying that the evacuation process has actively been involved in 1,600 deaths. A better statement would be that 1,600 people who were evacuated have since died (of non-radiation related causes).


LOL

static.guim.co.uk
 
2013-09-26 02:54:34 PM  

Mudd's woman: Just curious -- can some of Fark's nuclear science elite sum it up?:

What were the major differences between Chernobyl and Fukushima in terms of number of deaths attributed to the actual nuclear disaster?


Chernobyl -

31 deaths directly attributable to the accident
~4,000 expected additional future cancer deaths (assuming LNT model)
~135,000 evacuated or displaced
~3,200 PBq of I-131 released
~280 PBq of Cs-137 released

Fukushima -
0 deaths directly attributable to the accident
~130 expected additional future cancer deaths (assuming LNT model)
~300,000 evacuated or displaced
~500 PBq of I-131 released
~22 PBq of Cs-137 released
 
2013-09-26 03:00:26 PM  

omgrtfa: error 303: Perhaps a bit of perspective.

Fukushima and the Misunderstood Effects of Radiation

The only issue I have with that article is the assertion that 1,600 people have died in the Fukushima evacuation process, implying that the evacuation process has actively been involved in 1,600 deaths. A better statement would be that 1,600 people who were evacuated have since died (of non-radiation related causes).

LOL

[static.guim.co.uk image 460x276]


I agree on that, Heartland is a poor reference and I should retract that. The WHO report is a better document.
 
2013-09-26 03:02:56 PM  

error 303: I agree on that, Heartland is a poor reference and I should retract that. The WHO report is a better document.


The WHO report says that the kids are alright.
 
2013-09-26 03:04:51 PM  

error 303: Mudd's woman: Just curious -- can some of Fark's nuclear science elite sum it up?:

What were the major differences between Chernobyl and Fukushima in terms of number of deaths attributed to the actual nuclear disaster?

Chernobyl -

31 deaths directly attributable to the accident
~4,000 expected additional future cancer deaths (assuming LNT model)
~135,000 evacuated or displaced
~3,200 PBq of I-131 released
~280 PBq of Cs-137 released

Fukushima -
0 deaths directly attributable to the accident
~130 expected additional future cancer deaths (assuming LNT model)
~300,000 evacuated or displaced
~500 PBq of I-131 released
~22 PBq of Cs-137 released


thanks - I think ;)

Not up on my nuclear fission stats, unfortunately. I will just assume that some of the huge numerical differences among those variables account for a lot of how things played out...
 
2013-09-26 03:13:59 PM  

Mudd's woman: error 303: Mudd's woman: Just curious -- can some of Fark's nuclear science elite sum it up?:

What were the major differences between Chernobyl and Fukushima in terms of number of deaths attributed to the actual nuclear disaster?

Chernobyl -

31 deaths directly attributable to the accident
~4,000 expected additional future cancer deaths (assuming LNT model)
~135,000 evacuated or displaced
~3,200 PBq of I-131 released
~280 PBq of Cs-137 released

Fukushima -
0 deaths directly attributable to the accident
~130 expected additional future cancer deaths (assuming LNT model)
~300,000 evacuated or displaced
~500 PBq of I-131 released
~22 PBq of Cs-137 released

thanks - I think ;)

Not up on my nuclear fission stats, unfortunately. I will just assume that some of the huge numerical differences among those variables account for a lot of how things played out...


There's a good Stanford white paper on this as well

Worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident

This statement from their paper may best help?

"Mortalities from Fukushima may be less than Chernobyl by much more than an order of magnitude due to a lower total emission of radioactivity, lower radioactivity deposition rates over land, and more precautionary measures taken immediately following the Fukushima accident."
 
d23 [BareFark]
2013-09-26 03:21:02 PM  

error 303: I agree on that, Heartland is a poor reference and I should retract that. The WHO report is a better document.


www.heraldscotland.com

W.H.O. Doctor.


Sorry... could not resist that....
 
2013-09-26 03:22:59 PM  
error 303

many thanks
 
2013-09-26 03:25:04 PM  
Good thing it wasn't leaking coal.
 
2013-09-26 03:29:55 PM  

Mudd's woman: Just curious -- can some of Fark's nuclear science elite sum it up?:

What were the major differences between Chernobyl and Fukushima in terms of number of deaths attributed to the actual nuclear disaster?


Sure. There are two ways that a nuclear accident impacts human life. There are immediate effects, such as fire, explosion, high pressures, and acute radiation sickness. Otherwise there are chronic effects, which manifests itself primarily as long-term radiation damage (cancer).

Just to elaborate on radiation-related issues: when certain types of radiation enter your body they can cause tissue damage. When radiation strikes a molecule, it can break or alter chemical bonds inside the body.  For example, a normally beneficial or benign molecule could transmute into something toxic, or a beneficial molecule could transmute into something benign (which deprives the person of it's beneficial effects). When radiation strikes a strand of DNA, it can break or modify that DNA. Normally the body is sensitive enough that this causes a cell to be unable to reproduce. However, once in a while the cell can survive through a modification of it's DNA and reproduce. This is a genetic mutation. Not all genetic mutations are harmful, but sometimes such a modification can cause a cluster of cells to start accumulating where they shouldn't. This is what we call  cancer, and is a chronic effect of radiation exposure.

In contrast,  acute radiation sickness is a very different danger. When a person is bombarded with enough radiation, it can cause enough tissue damage to cause immediate cell death. Your body looses the beneficial effects of these cells: your heart pumps slightly weaker, your liver processes toxins slightly slower, etc. etc. etc. This leads to organ failure and death. Enough radiation exposure can cause  radiation burns, which is essentially a sunburn through your entire body, and causes significant damage bodily organs. Hypothetically it's possible to be exposed to enough radiation so that your brain is immediately destroyed, causing instantaneous death, but as far as we know this has never happened to someone.

Contrasting Chernobyl and Fukushima:

The major difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima is that Chernobyl NPP lacked a  containment vessel. In a nuclear power plant, the containment vessel's job is to isolate the highly radioactive, highly pressurized, and extremely hot nuclear reactor. It keeps us safe from the core, and it keeps the core safe from us (i.e. if someone tried to crash a plane into the reactor).

Because Chernobyl lacked a containment vessel, there was no protection when their nuclear reactor exploded. This posed three  immediate threats to people: the explosive force collapsed sections of the plant and set debris flying, and superheated radioactive fuel was scattered over a larger area which started fires and exposed people to radiation. The majority of the early deaths were firefighters and plant staff that received thermal burns and acute radiation sickness from working to put out the fire.

Because the reactor was directly exposed to the outside world, the explosion exposed the core directly to the atmosphere, which resulted in a nuclear fire that burned for several days. The heat from this fire carried radioactive particles high into the atmosphere, where they traveled a significant distance. There's lots of debate as to the long term effects of this radiation, but it's probably safe to say that it will have induce 5-10 thousand cancers in people, and some smaller fraction of those people will die from those cancers.

In contrast, Fukushima did have a containment vessel. That structure prevented any serious release of radiation, prevented the release of radioactive fuel, and prevented a fire from occurring inside the reactor vessel. It's likely that the containment vessel was injured in some way (due to the presence of certain radioactive isotopes that wouldn't have occurred otherwise), but as a whole it functioned as intended. There were no immediate fatalities due to the incident, though several workers were exposed to elevated but nonfatal radiation levels. It's estimated that worldwide Fukushima will result in roughly 180 cancers worldwide, and will cause roughly 130 deaths.
 
2013-09-26 03:30:25 PM  
Error 303:


static.tumblr.com
 
2013-09-26 03:35:12 PM  

Fubini: This is what we call  cancer, and is a chronic effect of radiation exposure.


I should be clear here: cancer can be caused by anything that causes cellular or molecular damage in the body. It's far easier to get cancer from a carcinogen than it is from radiation. I was just explaining how radiation damage to the body can result in cancer.
 
2013-09-26 03:36:31 PM  
FRingshadow: Error 303:

Fubini is too, dammit.

Seriously, thanks for the info.

Sounds like Chernobyl's site was the Yugo of nuclear facilities.
 
2013-09-26 03:41:39 PM  
"SKREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-oooooOOOOOOOOONK!"

/surprised I am the first...
 
2013-09-26 03:52:45 PM  

d23: error 303: I agree on that, Heartland is a poor reference and I should retract that. The WHO report is a better document.

[www.heraldscotland.com image 400x266]

W.H.O. Doctor.


Sorry... could not resist that....


That's not a Who doctor.  This is a Who doctor:
 
2013-09-26 03:53:38 PM  

dittybopper: d23: error 303: I agree on that, Heartland is a poor reference and I should retract that. The WHO report is a better document.

[www.heraldscotland.com image 400x266]

W.H.O. Doctor.


Sorry... could not resist that....

That's not a Who doctor.  This is a Who doctor:


umdrinknoinferno.com
 
2013-09-26 03:55:00 PM  
There needs to be a Fark HP/nuke worker meetup someday.

That is all.
 
2013-09-26 03:56:04 PM  

Fubini: Mudd's woman: Just curious -- can some of Fark's nuclear science elite sum it up?:

What were the major differences between Chernobyl and Fukushima in terms of number of deaths attributed to the actual nuclear disaster?

Sure. There are two ways that a nuclear accident impacts human life. There are immediate effects, such as fire, explosion, high pressures, and acute radiation sickness. Otherwise there are chronic effects, which manifests itself primarily as long-term radiation damage (cancer).

Just to elaborate on radiation-related issues: when certain types of radiation enter your body they can cause tissue damage. When radiation strikes a molecule, it can break or alter chemical bonds inside the body.  For example, a normally beneficial or benign molecule could transmute into something toxic, or a beneficial molecule could transmute into something benign (which deprives the person of it's beneficial effects). When radiation strikes a strand of DNA, it can break or modify that DNA. Normally the body is sensitive enough that this causes a cell to be unable to reproduce. However, once in a while the cell can survive through a modification of it's DNA and reproduce. This is a genetic mutation. Not all genetic mutations are harmful, but sometimes such a modification can cause a cluster of cells to start accumulating where they shouldn't. This is what we call  cancer, and is a chronic effect of radiation exposure.

In contrast,  acute radiation sickness is a very different danger. When a person is bombarded with enough radiation, it can cause enough tissue damage to cause immediate cell death. Your body looses the beneficial effects of these cells: your heart pumps slightly weaker, your liver processes toxins slightly slower, etc. etc. etc. This leads to organ failure and death. Enough radiation exposure can cause  radiation burns, which is essentially a sunburn through your entire body, and causes significant damage bodily organs. Hypothetically it's possible to be e ...



This is a good post, but the containment of Fukushima is cracked (still a bit of a mystery where, exactly, because its too hot/dangerous to find out)  and spilling out some of the coolant that is continously being pumped into it.  This coolant contains various fission products from the damaged cores.  It is ending up in the ocean nearby.

This is why they've had to build hundreds of tanks to store water that's been through the cores.  What to do with this water is a big problem because it contains quite a lot of isotopes.  I've heard reports they're going to try some experimental filtration technology, though they're still left with some nasty waste precipitate to dispose of.
 
2013-09-26 04:11:38 PM  

Mudd's woman: FRingshadow: Error 303:

Fubini is too, dammit.

Seriously, thanks for the info.

Sounds like Chernobyl's site was the Yugo of nuclear facilities.


Not the just the Yugo, but mismanaged. First off, they should have known better than to build a power-generation scale reactor without containment, but that was the days of the USSR, energy shortages, and cutting corners for efficiency. Second, there was a large degree of political influence imposed on the plant operators due to the Communist party structure in those days, and this influence directly led to some poor decisions that led to the fatal events.

Technically, the Chernobyl reactor was very different from modern reactors, though I don't know exactly how it compares to Fukushima.

The fundamental difference is that the Chernobyl reactor was inherently unstable, and required continuous moderation to function safely. It's design allowed it to become stuck in a failure mode, where modern reactors are designed to self-moderate under emergency circumstances. This makes the Chernobyl "prompt-critical" event impossible (or at least extremely difficult to achieve) in modern reactors. As we saw in Fukushima, a modern reactor can still become uncontrolled and melt down, but this doesn't result in a massive explosion.

The Chernobyl plant also suffered from a design defect that caused the emergency shutdown procedure to briefly increase the nuclear reaction in the plant's core. This design happened to break in such a way that this power increase was sustained, which led to the runaway nuclear reaction and subsequent steam explosion.
 
2013-09-26 04:15:11 PM  

TheDirtyNacho: This is a good post, but the containment of Fukushima is cracked (still a bit of a mystery where, exactly, because its too hot/dangerous to find out)  and spilling out some of the coolant that is continously being pumped into it.  This coolant contains various fission products from the damaged cores.  It is ending up in the ocean nearby.


Sure, which is why I said their containment was damaged. Fukushima is leaking radioactive isotopes in measurable quantities, but not in quantities that are dangerous to human health. Hence, the containment is both fractured, yet it is still successfully serving it's role of containment.
 
2013-09-26 04:20:22 PM  
Chernobyl = poorly designed graphite moderated reactor + "Here, hold my beer while I try something"
 
2013-09-26 04:31:55 PM  

error 303: Chernobyl = poorly designed graphite moderated reactor + "Here, hold my beer while I try something"


Poorly designed? How can you say such a thing. Just because in case of a SCRAM the plant depended on the spinning down reactor to power the cooling pumps until the back up generators could be brought online, and the reactor couldn't do it, what's the problem?
 
2013-09-26 05:39:05 PM  

NightOwl2255: error 303: Chernobyl = poorly designed graphite moderated reactor + "Here, hold my beer while I try something"

Poorly designed? How can you say such a thing. Just because in case of a SCRAM the plant depended on the spinning down reactor to power the cooling pumps until the back up generators could be brought online, and the reactor couldn't do it, what's the problem?


To be fair it didn't depend on that, it was an experiment designed by someone with no experience in nuclear and pushed by politically motivated management.
 
2013-09-26 05:43:03 PM  

dittybopper: dittybopper: d23: error 303: I agree on that, Heartland is a poor reference and I should retract that. The WHO report is a better document.

[www.heraldscotland.com image 400x266]

W.H.O. Doctor.


Sorry... could not resist that....

That's not a Who doctor.  This is a Who doctor:

[umdrinknoinferno.com image 350x268]


Can't be.  The who's obviously didn't have a doctor, or they would have been able to help the Grinch with a heart transplant earlier.
 
2013-09-26 05:58:44 PM  

Mudd's woman: error 303: Mudd's woman: Just curious -- can some of Fark's nuclear science elite sum it up?:

What were the major differences between Chernobyl and Fukushima in terms of number of deaths attributed to the actual nuclear disaster?

Chernobyl -

31 deaths directly attributable to the accident
~4,000 expected additional future cancer deaths (assuming LNT model)
~135,000 evacuated or displaced
~3,200 PBq of I-131 released
~280 PBq of Cs-137 released

Fukushima -
0 deaths directly attributable to the accident
~130 expected additional future cancer deaths (assuming LNT model)
~300,000 evacuated or displaced
~500 PBq of I-131 released
~22 PBq of Cs-137 released

thanks - I think ;)

Not up on my nuclear fission stats, unfortunately. I will just assume that some of the huge numerical differences among those variables account for a lot of how things played out...


In simple terms, the scale of the events was similar, but the exposure to damaging radiation was entirely different.  Thousands of people in russia were exposed (DIRECTLY) to dangerous levels of radiation.  Both at the site itself and in the nearby areas.

Fukashima doesn't have that issue, only a handful of people were exposed directly, and the environmental impact has been heavily moderated by the giant ocean that most of the radioactive materials ended up in.

They have another odd similarity.  In both cases, the host government took the opportunity to come clean about certain critical safety issues related to ongoing nuclear operations.  The difference being, Japan has a long and distinguished history of lying through their teeth about these sorts of things.  Meanwhile the Russians are all "None of your concern" in relation to their shady past of nuclear operations.

It's also worth noting that this shiat is far from over.  Fukashima has no long term plans in effect to deal with the contaminated plant, or the materials held within.  At some point, someone is going to have to go clean that reactor up, and that's going to be a nasty job.  That is assuming they don't just dump the whole building into the ocean and call it good.  (which would be ironic given their past history of complaining about radiation issues related to fish and testing done in the pacific by the USA)
 
2013-09-26 06:11:43 PM  

Kahabut: Fukashima has no long term plans in effect to deal with the contaminated plant, or the materials held within.  At some point, someone is going to have to go clean that reactor ...


Well, assuming TMI is an example, eventually they'll have to open that bad boy up. The buildings will have to be put into a condition where work crews can safely traverse and work, with loads. That'll mean in this case some structural analysis and a lot of decon, because a contaminated area's one thing, constantly being in a highly contaminated area is another. Once they get the head off the reactor, they can start tearing down the entire vessel and the fuel. The vessel and fuel waste can be broke down as far as possible and stored in specialized containers. From there, they'll have to go to an internment facility.

This will follow for a reasonable portion of the planet. Once they've got it as cleaned up as they can, they'll close it up and install beta shielding at the relevant doors. Leave the rest standing and do quarterly surveys on it.

/now just do this for every damaged reactor
 
2013-09-26 06:29:02 PM  

Fubini: TheDirtyNacho: This is a good post, but the containment of Fukushima is cracked (still a bit of a mystery where, exactly, because its too hot/dangerous to find out)  and spilling out some of the coolant that is continously being pumped into it.  This coolant contains various fission products from the damaged cores.  It is ending up in the ocean nearby.

Sure, which is why I said their containment was damaged. Fukushima is leaking radioactive isotopes in measurable quantities, but not in quantities that are dangerous to human health. Hence, the containment is both fractured, yet it is still successfully serving it's role of containment.



I'm going to have to disagree with you there.  The coolant stored in those ever growing number of tanks is very radioactive, as is what is flowing into the ocean.  A couple of months ago one of the tanks was leaking, a level 3 spill.  Direct contact with that water would be ill advised.  The ocean will dilute it, but we'll be picking up its traces at a distance.

There's real danger of these temporary tanks failing should another earthquake occur and that would be very bad - the vast amount of water would rush into the ocean and into the ground.  Ground water penetration is already such that they are attempting to create a massive containment wall of frozen earth that surrounds the site.

I'm not being alarmist, these are just the facts.  It's pretty serious when the Japanese govt actually took over the tank operations from TEPCO in August.
 
2013-09-26 06:52:59 PM  
TheDirtyNacho:  The coolant stored in those ever growing number of tanks is very radioactive, as is what is flowing into the ocean.  A couple of months ago one of the tanks was leaking, a level 3 spill.  Direct contact with that water would be ill advised.  The ocean will dilute it, but we'll be picking up its traces at a distance.


Aaaand pet peeve. The water isn't radioactive, the contaminants in the water stream are. Water isn't capable of being so radioactive it will give you dose. The fuel byproducts and activated products IN the water? Oh yes, that'll jack your shiat up, and those are mostly heavy metal particulates. They're settling out into the bottom of the tank, that's why they're starting to get the banging dose rates. Eventually they'll pump the tank out into something like a resin storage vessel, most likely. Or a FRAC tank, for the less-hot stuff.

www.oilfield-auction.com
 
2013-09-26 10:37:36 PM  
 
2013-09-26 11:29:55 PM  
Those Japanese need to cut back on the

www.topnews.in
 
2013-09-27 12:26:11 AM  
Giant city destroying lizards? I'm on the case, nothing to fear
 
2013-09-27 12:55:31 AM  

Micronaut: Put your money where your mouth is.

http://esa21.kennesaw.edu/activities/nukeenergy/nuke.htm


Fascinating little game.

Day 130
Avg: 1652 KW
Near maximum output
Very light damage.

A bit simple really.
 
2013-09-27 01:44:05 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Those Japanese need to cut back on the


Gel bananas?
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report