Japanese Nuclear Leak

[Mk2Jo]

... so, please tell me, how will we be affected (if at all) by the nuclear leak in Japan following the Tsunami ?

[Vista]

In terms of radiation? Not all I wouldn't have thought. By comparison Chernobyl was a much bigger disaster and was much closer to us. Didn't really have any effect on the UK though. But in terms of energy prices possibly a lot as Japan will have to seek to replace the lost generation capacity somehow and will be looking to buy it from other sources. Gas etc for instance.

[johnny_h]

Chernobyl's fallout drifted to the UK and it would be foolish to believe it hasn't had any effect. This was mainly due to the reactor core being exposed and a raging fire that went on for days lifting radioactive material high into the atmosphere. As air pressure and wether conditions changed, radioactive material was dropped all over the place. A tiny ammount fallen on a field in the UK and injested by a dairy cow could have potentialy poisened many people. Britain wasn't checked for radiocative material as nobody really knew the dangers at the time and the Russian government played down the disaster.

As for the Japaneese plant. Until the actual cores are exposed and on fire there should be little radiation leaked. If that does happen you probably wont notice any effects, but bare in mind how many of your family and friends and thier familys and friends are diagnosed with cancer in the years to come.

 

Just make sure you get Driver to give you regular body scrubs and you'll be fine. ;p

[Vista]

Some fair points there Johnny, though it's inaccurate to say that no-one knew the dangers as by 1986 everyone was well aware of the dangers of radioactive contamination. The technology had been around for about 40 years by then in one format or another.

 

Whilst much smaller than Chernobyl, the accident at Three Mile Island preceded Chernobyl by about 7 years so the potential consequences had already been ably demonstrated. The Three Mile Island conspiracy theorists would have you believe that there was a significant effect on human health that was covered up or not properly investigated. Official studies however have been unable to conclude that there were any substantial effects on human health. Similar (re long term effects) can be said of the 1957 Windscale accident though it is acknowledged to have caused over 200 local cancer cases at the time.

 

You're right that it's probably naive to think Chernobyl didn't have any effect on the UK, it certainly affected (and continues to affect) the livelyhood of some farmers in certain regions as their meat is still monitored for radioactive contamination to this day. So I'll alter my statement to that it didn't have any tangible or recorded effect on the UK population. This remember was from a complete and totally un-contained meltdown of a plant just 1500 miles from the South Coast of England, not an incident nearly 6000 miles away that is currently rated at two levels below the Chernobyl accident.

[Mrs O/H/C]

The problem for Japan, and the rest of the world,will be if this natural disaster turns into a nuclear one.Once we start thinking in nuclear terms,the outlook for the worlds third largest economy (about $1 in every $10 of economic output generated around the world comes from Japan) and the rest of the planet is much less reassuring.

For a nuclear meltdown will trigger an economic meltdown,and at just the moment when the world least needs it.

 

Sign of the economic impact of the quake on the Japanese economy,the Nikkei share index was down 6% yesterday.Shares in Japans electric power company lost 24%

 

So, economically this disaster will affect us in the U.K

[stumax]

dont want to be alarmist,but i was talking to a joiner today,who in his spare time is a fully qualified diver.last year he assisted a dive in loch ness,wouldnt say who for but 2 feet below the loch bottom the silt showed evidence of isotopes from chernobyl.so there is good chance some of it will make its way to our fair shores.

[BIG G]

The fall out will cause people to have two heads and three arms but its like that allready round here in wales

[Mr Sam]

the end is nigh

[Badgerman85]

was upgraded to a level 6 nuclear incident today, only 1 level below chernobyl!

[FredTransit]

Did nobody see this coming though? The reactors are built on a seismic fault, it was inevitable something like this would happen.

[Boreham]

Did nobody see this coming though? The reactors are built on a seismic fault, it was inevitable something like this would happen.

excatly..

 

and that's not hindsight... it's obvious...

[Vista]

Did nobody see this coming though? The reactors are built on a seismic fault, it was inevitable something like this would happen.

 

Agreed. When Devonport Dockyard built their nuclear Submarine refit dock for the Vanguard class boats (now the only nuclear sub refit dock in the UK)it had to be made Earthquake proof in South West England (that well known epicentre of earth quake activity) so it beggars belief that Japanese Nuclear power stations aren't when sat right on the ring of fire. Or maybe they thought they were? To be fair they've been there a long time and Japan regularly suffers quake activity.

[johnny_h]

I think the reason they built nuclear power stations in Japan is because they had no other resourses available to produce the power they needed. It was a case of no other choice, sod the concequences. However if they spent as much money on tidal/wind/solar power production as they did on wars and weapons we probably wouldnt have this crisis now.

[Vista]

Ah, wind power the old "green" option that is subsidised to the tune of millions, much more expensive to produce electricity from and frequently produces no power when it's really needed and lots when it isn't.

[johnny_h]

Well I don't know why it should cost so much to create electricity from wind power once the initial cost of erecting the wind farms is out of the way. A good friend of mine is very busy at the moment building massive offshore wind farms so they must be deemed useful to someone. Anyway that was one suggestion. I'm no physisist or engineer but even I can see the MASSIVE potential of utilising the awesome power of the sea and it's tides to turn turbines for plenty of free clean and safe energy.

[Vista]

I read an interesting article on the subject (wind energy as an alternative source of power) just the other day...............now I'm buggered if I can find my way back to it.

 

Essentially, it said that it costs because for large portions of the time they sit stationary producing nothing so conventional power stations have to be operating or on standby to pick up the slack, then at other times they produce large amounts of power at periods of low usage on the grid (over night for instance) so the companies that operate them are paid large subsidies by the power companies..............to turn them off!

[johnny_h]

That makes sense. I heard of a guy that sells a design for a personal windmill using some wood and an old alternator who claims that people who have built it have been credited by thier electric company for producing more power than they actualy used.

[accord83]

I think the power stations were built to withstand and shut down in an earthquake, what screwed it up was the Tsunami knocking out the back up generators for the cooling pumps etc. I also cannot understand why we chase after wind power, we are an island and the tide comes in twice a day, so regular that you can buy tide tables and predict the heights. So why not put money into researching that, instead of inefficient windmills which WE buy back excess electricity production at above market prices.

[baz105e]

as allready said the problem i that the cooling system was ruptured causing the reactors to over heat, if neuclear reactors arnet kept cool then they overheat much like a car but unlike a car you cant really turn the reactors off so they get hotter and hotter untill they explode. i suppose thats the problem with neuclear power and thats why so many people dislike it being used.

[johnny_h]

seems Scotland has taken my ideas on board and are building the worlds largest tidal energy farm

[garyv6100e]

I am a supporter of nuclear energy in terms of emissions to the atmosphere it is one of the cleanest ways to generate energy and as long as they are operated correctly are safe

 

A type of power station that is often overlooked is energy from waste plants (incinerators) i inspect the boilers at one of these plants burning 500,000 tonnes of waste a year of which only 20,000 tonnes of waste product goes to landfil whilst generating 60 mega watts of electricity

 

The emissions of these plants are strictly monitored and put out less polutants than coal fired power stations