Former Leader of Japan: Fukushima disaster is “most severe accident in the history of mankind”

[madokie]

Former Leader of Japan: Fukushima disaster is “most severe accident in the history of mankind” — Top Regulator: Drastic steps needed due to growing problems at precarious plant

Former Prime Minister of Japan Naoto Kan, Oct. 28, 2013: The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was the most severe accident in the history of mankind. [...] I had pushed the policy of utilizing nuclear power [...] my view is now changed 180 degrees. [...] there are no other events except for wars that would require the evacuation of tens of millions of people. [...] it is technically impossible to eliminate accidents, especially if human factors such as terrorism are taken into account [...] to eliminate nuclear power plant accidents. All we need to do is to eliminate nuclear power plants themselves. [...] we are leaving the huge problem of nuclear waste for future generations to care for. There is no other way but to go down in the path toward achieving zero nuclear power, for the sake of our children and grandchildren. It is possible for mankind to get enough energy without relying on nuclear power — by using natural energy such as solar, wind, and biomass. To help curb global warming, we need to stop the use of not only nuclear power but also fossil fuels. [...]

Associated Press, Oct. 28, 2013: In their first meeting [in 13 months] the top regulator urged the head of the utility that runs the crippled Fukushima power plant on Monday to take “drastic steps” to mitigate a spate of mishaps at the complex. Nuclear Regulation Authority Chairman Shunichi Tanaka summoned Tokyo Electric Power Co. President Naomi Hirose to his office to express concerns about growing problems at the plant [...] The meeting was closed except for few minutes at the beginning. Masashi Goto, a nuclear reactor engineer and lecturer at Meiji University, was skeptical about how effective the meeting would be. “What matters is what they really talked about,” he said. “To me it seems the regulatory side was just trying to smooth things out and make it look like the situation should start improving.” [...] Hirose acknowledged that TEPCO has been cutting costs and that the precarious state of the plant has contributed to the deterioration of the plant’s operations.


http://enenews.com/former-leader-of-japan-fukushima-disaster-is-most-severe-accident-in-the-history-of-mankind-not-hard-to-stop-future-accidents-all-we-need-to-do-is-to-eliminate-nuclear-power-plants

[KansDem]

1. And it's not over yet...

Because the heavy pool in which the spent fuel rods are submerged is situated at the top of the crumbling, leaning and sinking building at Unit 4, it could, or rather it will cause the building to fall over. It is merely a question of time – and experts agree that Fukushima is running out of time.

http://nsnbc.me/2013/10/01/fukushima-develops-into-global-catastrophe/

[madokie]

4. Jimminie Christmas

We're f'd, or should I say it doesn't look good for life on planet earth in the near future.

This article just scared the hell out of me, to put it mildly
WTF Tepco get some help you morons. I know there is someone somewhere who has the know how and capability to make this kinda' go away. Your job is to find and bring them there, you idiots.

[dreamnightwind]

2. K & R for visibility

[NealK]

3. K&R n/t

[FBaggins]

5. Lol! Hyperbole much Mr PM?

It's becoming clearer and clearer that the people of Japan are fortunate that he's the former PM... as he's going rapidly 'round the bend.

"most severe accident in the history of mankind" ???

It wouldn't be close to the top ten... probably not in the top 100 (except in financial expense).

Hard to even call it an "accident" since it resulted directly from a natural disaster. Sure... one could claim that better planning could have made a difference. But then how do you ignore the tens of thousands who died in the earthquake and tsunami? Wouldn't their not-high-enough seawalls, not-strong-enough foundations, and not-quick-enough evacuation plans also count as accidents? (and in this case, accidents that actually killed lots of people rather than merely raise the possibility that a few people might get thyroid cancer in a few years).

During WWII, the Japanese had a battleship (the Mutsu) explode while in the harbor... killing over 1,000 people. The same thing happened to another battleship around the turn of the century (killing over 300). How about Mitsubishi Hōjō (a gas explosion in a coal mine that killed ~700)? How about the Kiche Maru Mr PM (~1,000 souls lost in one of over 100 ships lost in a storm)?

And that's just Japan. Need we mention many thousands lost at Chernobyl? Or the hundreds of thousands lost in the Banqiao Dam failure? The Bhopal disaster? The BP oil spill?

[madokie]

6. What took you so long

I knew you or the scientist would be along here shortly.


Hardly a battle ship blowing up is going to be the equivalent to this if they're not successful with removing the fuel rods

If this wasn't so serious I'd laugh my ass off at you. Rather I'll just shake my head and contemplate on taking bets on what you'll say when removal of the fuel rods causes an 'accident' or would you rather me call that a natural disaster too.

None of those compare to this. The difference is with explosions you have immediate deaths that can be counted right then but with nuclear you have an incubation period that makes it easy for the pro nukie to deny and for the real people hard to prove. Statistic proves me right on this too whether you want to admit it or not. Many have died due to Chernobyl with many more to come.


I take nothing you say seriously, nothing, not one thing.

[FBaggins]

7. You've fallen for yet another lie

There isn't much risk involved in removing fuel rods from pool #4. They won't catch fire if exposed to air... nor will they explode if they touch each other. The pool isn't close to collapsing nor is it sinking.

The only think that's safe to predict at this point is that a year or so from now, the usual suspects will shift over to telling us that the removal of fuel from unit 3's SFP (far more damaged) is the real most dangerous moment in human history.

None of those compare to this.

Correct. They were all much worse.

The difference is with explosions you have immediate deaths that can be counted right then but with nuclear you have an incubation period that makes it easy for the pro nukie to deny and for the real people hard to prove.

Close... but almost exactly backwards. There's nothing mysterious about the situation. No doses measured or estimated approach anything close to the levels where significant increases in cancer are expected. This was predicted here from the beginning and has been proven true (for years now). What the long incubation period actually permits is for people to lie to you (and for you to buy it and resell it) that horrible things will eventually happen... we just haven't seen them yet (despite the fact that with Chernobyl there were immediate consequences)

No doubt that corium will reach ground water any day now and the long-hoped-for explosions will occur.

Many have died due to Chernobyl with many more to come.

And as has been explained to you since the beginning... Chernobyl was much MUCH worse. Roughly 100 times the effective release... with far higher proportions of it over land... and without the level of response that the Japanese (for all their errors) exhibited.

[madokie]

8. Whatever

like I said I take nothing you say to heart, not a thing.
I do that a lot when I read some of the shit you post though.

[FBaggins]

9. Your loss.

It's your right to make yourself look this foolish.

Entertaining for the rest of us... but that can't be helped.

[madokie]

12. Just who would us be

a few nukies. Amazing in light of what this is about you still believe in the continued use of nuclear energy
Now that is fall down funny

[FBaggins]

13. Pretty much everyone who understands the subject.

Even a little bit.

Which, of course, excludes people who get their "facts" from infowars, enenews, fairewinds, nsmbc, etc.

[madokie]

14. LOL

You missed your calling

[FBaggins]

15. Feel free to back it up.

You've claimed on multiple occasions that the last few years have proven me wrong about Fukushima... yet failed to provide examples when called on it.

Alternatively... feel free to present any examples where you think you actually understood what was going on and I disagreed... yet you ended up being proven correct.

Not "an odd way to boil water" or "these guys can't be trusted"... but some actual understanding of the science involved... where you had a clue and I missed it.

This is where you obfuscate or mysteriously disappear from the conversation.

[madokie]

16. When your first round of defense is denial where does one go from there?

Time will prove who is right on this.

How many square kilometers did Chernobyl put off limits? How about Fukushima, how many there? How many square miles did any of the distractions you've mentioned today do that, how many? Best I can find out NONE. Just because you and a few others say nuclear is a safe and sane way to boil water does not the truth make.

We have no idea the truth about whats going on in Japan right now, none whatsoever and that is a perfect example of what I've been saying from day one. You want to play that down go for it but I'm not having any part of it. In other words I'm not buying any of the shit you're selling.

The truth of the matter is fukushima is a catastrophe ready to happen. We've not seen the worse of that yet. In fact no one alive today will see a good end to that. That you can take to the bank

The bullshit that one has to be a nuclear physicist to comment on anything nuclear is trash, nothing more. In so many words thats what you and the 'scientist' are saying to us. I'm not having any of it.

Using the splitting of atoms to boil water is stupid in the face of what we know today about what can happen when things don't go as planned. Do you think for a second that the powers to be at TEPCO know what to do next? I'm here to tell you from the responses they've already showed us that they don't. Whatever they do will include a lot of hope this happens and hope that doesn't. Hardly reasuring

[PamW]

19. Perspective...

Rather than the usual fact free prognostications; why not listen to what an unbiased scientist has to say, perhaps a University Professor?

Professor Richard Muller is a Professor of Physics at the University of California - Berkeley, where he teaches a physics course for non-scientists, and the textbook that he authored for the class has become a best seller, "Physics for Future President". Professor Muller wrote this about Fukushima:

The Panic over Fukushima

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332

In hindsight, it is hard to resist the conclusion that the policies enacted in the wake of the disaster in Japan—particularly the long-term evacuation of large areas and the virtual termination of the Japanese nuclear power industry—were expressions of panic. I would go further and suggest that these well-intended measures did far more harm than good, not least in limiting the prospects of a source of energy that is safe, abundant and (as compared with its rivals) relatively benign for the environmental health of our planet.

Why not listen to the scientist? Don't we criticize "climate deniers" for not listening to scientists?

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[madokie]

20. In light of what is going on in Fukushima right now

you continue this tirade.

Safe, relatively benign. Hardly

[PamW]

21. Why don't you tell us?

madokie,

Why don't you tell us what is going on in Fukushima right now...

Why don't you give us your assessment of why the events are so bad, and then compare and contrast that to what the Professor of Physics from University of California - Berkeley, Professor Richard Muller; has to say?

Is Professor Muller making errors in his presentation of the Physics that you can correct given your credentials and expertise?

Do please tell us where the good Professor is in error.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[madokie]

22. If you can't see what is going on in Fukushima right now as not good

It all sounds good on paper but when things go wrong they have a tendency to go wrong in a big way. And when they do go wrong the nuclear industry goes into cover their ass mode, denying any and all.
You like the use of nuclear energy, good for you, I don't.

[PamW]

23. When did this become a binary choice?

madokie,

Evidently, you believe this is a binary choice - there are only two responses - "good" and "bad".

It's not a binary choice; as Professor Muller points out in his article; it's a matter of degree. How bad is it?

Automobile accidents happen, and people get killed by them. Automobiles are not 100% good; but are they bad enough so that we ban them? NO!

Airliners have crashed, and people have been killed by that. Airliners are not 100% good, but are they bad enough that we ban them? NO!

Here we have a nuclear accident, the science tells us that nobody has been killed by it, and the radiation exposures are so low that we know nobody will be killed in the future. Nuclear power is not 100% good. NOTHING is. As with the other technologies, the question is how bad is it?

Just pointing at something and saying "not good" is INSUFFICIENT for considering banning it. As above, we would have to say "not good" for the technologies of automobiles and airliners, and many, many other technologies which can present harm, but we don't ban them because it's not just a simplistic "yes/no", "good/bad" evaluation.

Please present something more than a binary argument that wouldn't work on other technologies like autos and airliners.

Again, please tell us quantitatively, not just single-bit logic, but a good quantitative analysis as to why nuclear is so bad that one should ban it when we don't ban technologies like autos and airliners that have killed / injured FAR MORE people than nuclear power.

Again, the good Professor Muller gave us such an analysis.

Using your credentials and expertise to demonstrate authenticity; please tell us why the good Professor Muller is in error in his presentation of the Physics and the facts.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[madokie]

24. LOL

good bye pamw

[PamW]

25. YES!!!! EXACTLY as I predicted!!! A PASS!!!

YES!!! EXACTLY as I predicted.

When asking for a quantitative argument, or a scientific analysis above; I KNEW that such would NOT be forthcoming.

When asked to "show your work" on how conclusions / opinions were reached; the response it to take a PASS.

That's what I've come to EXPECT from the anti-nukes.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[hunter]

10. Don't forget the Texas City disaster, 1947...

A ship loaded with 2,300 tons Ammonium Nitrate exploded and destroyed the city.

"Ten miles away, people in Galveston were forced to their knees; windows were shattered in Houston, Texas, 40 miles (60 km) away. People felt the shock 100 miles away in Louisiana... A two-ton anchor of Grandcamp was hurled 1.62 miles and found in a 10-foot crater."

Tons of unaccounted for toxins and carcinogens were released into the environment in that accident; dangerous, invisible chemicals with "half lives" of forever.

Just another bad day in our glorious industrial society...

It's hard to figure people out. They willingly get in their automobiles and drive along spewing carcinogenic chemicals into the environment, willingly breathe those same chemicals (not to mention risking loss of life and limb in crashes) but then they worry about similarly toxic chemicals spilling from a damaged power plant on the other side of the Pacific Ocean?

This does not compute.

[FBaggins]

11. Goodness.. there are dozens and dozens of examples.

The accident has been (and will be) incredibly complex and expensive... and not without some risk... but that's worlds away from "most severe accident in the history of mankind"

[kristopher]

17. Kan's words are coherent

...and come from the person who actually had real responsibility for the tens of millions of people on the Kanto Plains during the crisis you ridicule. Now, if you know of another accident where, had the winds shifted they would have needed to evacuate tens of millions of people from a global economic hub at a cost of trillions of dollars why don't you share it with us? You may choose to measure "worst accident" in a different manner, but he shared his metric and you haven't the standing to discredit his choice or his belief.

You are confronted with an honest, well qualified person who has good cause for his positions. The fact that his position is "against nuclear power" is all that you need, however, to disparage his character, his courage, his sanity and his intellect.

That problem isn't one that lies with his words, it is a problem that resides entirely within you.

Former Prime Minister of Japan Naoto Kan, Oct. 28, 2013:

The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was the most severe accident in the history of mankind. At Unit 1, the fuel rods melted down in about five hours after the earthquake, and molten fuel breached and melted through the reactor pressure vessel. Meltdowns occurred in Units 2 and 3 within one hundred hours of the accident. At around the same time, hydrogen-air blasted in the reactor buildings of Units 1, 3 and 4.

Each reactor building contains a fuel pool to store spent fuel. At one point, there was a possibility of meltdowns in those fuel pools as well. If a meltdown occurs in a fuel pool, which sits outside a reactor, a tremendous amount of radioactive material would be released directly into the atmosphere. The continuation of such a release could mean the realization of the worst-case scenario: a situation where 50 million people within a 250-kilometer radius of Fukushima, including Tokyo and its greater metropolitan area, would have to be evacuated. Fortunately, the situation was prevented from developing further thanks to the tireless self-sacrificing efforts of the Tokyo Electric Power Company, the Self Defense Forces, the firefighters and the police force to supply cooling water into the reactors and the fuel pools. Indeed, we were so close to seeing the worst-case scenario unfold. Had it reached the worst-case scenario, Japan would have had to suffer from long-term chaos and the tremendous amount of radioactive material released would have impacted other nations as well.

Before the Fukushima accident, with the belief that no nuclear accident would happen as long as the safety measures were followed properly, I had pushed the policy of utilizing nuclear power. Having faced the real accident as Prime Minister, and having experienced the situation which came so close to requiring me to order the evacuation of 50 million people, my view is now changed 180 degrees. Although some airplane crashes may claim hundreds of casualties, there are no other events except for wars that would require the evacuation of tens of millions of people.

In spite of the various measures taken in order to prevent accidents, it is technically impossible to eliminate accidents, especially if human factors such as terrorism are taken into account. Actually, it is not all that difficult to eliminate nuclear power plant accidents. All we need to do is to eliminate nuclear power plants themselves. And that resolution lies in the hands of the citizens...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naoto-kan/japan-nuclear-energy_b_4171073.html

[Nihil]

18. Oh, so now *you* are playing the game of "Odd One Out"?

> Need we mention many thousands lost at Chernobyl?
> Or the hundreds of thousands lost in the Banqiao Dam failure?
> The Bhopal disaster?
> The BP oil spill?

I'd pick the only one of the above that killed less than a dozen people ...