What is going on with the Japanese nuclear reactor is certainly bad news, but it is by no means a major catastrophe. Loss of life and damage caused by the actual earthquake and tsunami is far, far, far greater even under a worst-case scenario (and the most likely scenario is essentially zero effect on Japanese people and minimal effect on even the workers themselves).
It is very distressing to me that Americans so fear-oriented about nuclear matters. The greatest risk of this incident to humans and the environment has nothing to do with the nuclear incident itself but rather the higher use of coal, petroleum, and other dirty energy sources that nuclear power could otherwise displace. For example, coal electrical generation kills thousands of people per year via pollution, and the economic cost is estimated at $500 billion dollars [source].
(The situation w.r.t. terrorism is very similar -- e.g., the TSA has unquestionably caused a net loss of life because they make people more likely to drive, which is riskier than flying, and their procedures do little to actually protect us from terrorism.)
Anyway, if you're interested in facts, not fear, about the nuclear incident (which I hope you are), here are a couple of sources which I am finding extremely helpful and easy to understand. They both have RSS feeds.
OTOH driving kills 40K/year through crashes and 30K/year through respiratory pollution in the US alone.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that's crazy about the nuclear situation in Japan is the inability of the Japanese gov't / TEPCO to do anything about it. They can't get near enough to actually try and fix anything, and have to resort to dumping 30 tons of wind-blown water from 300 m up. It's kind of like the near-complete lack of options that the US had during the BP blowout. Even with all the science and resources in human society at your fingertips, you just have to sit and watch a disaster unfold.
So, for me, these two incidents provide lessons in technological hubris. We're not as capable as we think we are.
useful link on this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/business/20risk.html?hp
ReplyDeleteHi Bill,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response.
However, "inability ... to do anything about it", "near-complete lack of options", etc. mischaracterize the situation. The reactors have numerous redundant safety systems, most of which worked, and these systems are why the true risk to average citizens is quite minor. All the response work being done is fact- and evidence-based and carefully planned, not random acts of desperation as you seem to imply
In the case of the water drops and water spraying, the reasoning is that the water which normally submerges spent fuel storage is low. Solution? Add water! The lack of power and/or damage to pumps which would normally fill the pools is why water is being added in the dramatic ways you describe.
Take a look at the links to learn more about exactly what is going on and why they are doing it.
Now, it is true that modern reactors are better designed. For example, we don't put spent fuel pools on the roof any more, and modern reactors are cooled passively, so pumps to circulate cooling water are not needed. But we cannot update our nuke plants because we don't have the political will.
Reid