Some Japanese Nuclear Rescuers believe they may die within weeks. True Heroes

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by puckluck

How doesn't it make sense? You agree that they do care and want to stay alive don't you? well that's what my post said as well.

I said:

"If they didn't care they wouldn't take 15 minute rotating shifts and just work with no protection."

responding to

"they are brave to endure the work to save others but most don't care as they lost their familys,houses..etc. "

Meaning they do care about staying alive.

You said:

"They work in shifts with protective gear with a clear acknowledgment that they may lose their lives as a result of the exposure to deadly radioactive materials. They are willing to lose their own lives to protect everyone else.
They wear the protective gear and work in short shifts so they can prolong their existence since it is unlikely someone else can fill their shoes.
I am not sure how a body reacts to high exposure rates, but if you want someone to think clearly and be able to do a job, then you minimize the ill effects that the radiation has."

How is that any different from what I said? I never claimed that they shouldn't be wearing the protective suits or take breaks.

I was simply responding to the claim that they don't care if they die or not.

You seem to be arguing with yourself. You said that if they did not care about their lives they wouldn't wear protective equipment. Nothing in this thread warranted such a nonsensical remark.
I don't think anyone implied that they did not care about their lives; I interpreted the posts as implying that the people are heroes since they are knowingly killing themselves (or seriously putting their future health at risk) in order to save everyone else.
Someone mentioned that they may be alright with the sacrifice since everything else in their lives was destroyed.

[MacGruber]

HOly crap. Can we not derail the thread this stupidly? Really? Kamikazee pilots??

How about we show some collective respect for people who made the ultimate sacrafice for their countrys well being.

Like the kamikazee pilots of ww2.

[peter12]

This is pretty much the nail in the coffin for any sort of nuclear energy option, isn't it? I just don't see anyone considering this type of technology until we can safely assume that the chances of problems, what they may be, are reduced to nil.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is pretty much the nail in the coffin for any sort of nuclear energy option, isn't it? I just don't see anyone considering this type of technology until we can safely assume that the chances of problems, what they may be, are reduced to nil.

I doubt that... and if it is, it's a huge overreaction. Deepwater Horizon wasn't the end of oil, Chernobyl wasn't the end of nuclear. There will be lessons learned, and we'll move forward.

[fanman]

^I would say no, it isn't the nail in the coffin. They still need to replace that energy somehow, and there are still rolling blackouts in this region of Japan. Businesses are running with their lights and displays off during daylight hours and some are closing earlier than usual to help save power. Many trains are also running on 50% of their usual schedule.

Nuclear power accounts for a huge portion of the power grid in Japan, they do not have oil and coal reserves to tap into here. Many areas that were wiped out by the tsunami don't have any power yet, so when those places finally get rebuilt that will put even more strain on the grid. Something like solar just isn't going to replace all the power lost. I'm not saying there is no other way, but they need to supply affordable power to the population somehow. The options are somewhat limited.

[SebC]

Japan does have coal, but it's more economical for it to import than produce domestically.

[Jedi Ninja]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is pretty much the nail in the coffin for any sort of nuclear energy option, isn't it? I just don't see anyone considering this type of technology until we can safely assume that the chances of problems, what they may be, are reduced to nil.

It is impossible to reduce the risk to nil, complex systems like this can never be predicted completely, nor can every possible outside event be predicted. But you have to compare the risks of nuclear versus the risks of alternative technologies. Faced with the risks of global warming, or a huge curtailment in our standards of living, maybe we'll eventually decide that the radiation is worth the price. But we really don't have enough information to make that decision right now. We have complex computer models of the long term effects of carbon energy, but we don't have the same models for a long term expansion and proliferation of nuclear technology.


Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: The Lessons Of Fukishima

This leaves us with a choice between walking back from a technology that we decide is too dangerous or normalizing the risks of nuclear energy and accepting that an occasional Fukushima is the price we have to pay for a world with less carbon dioxide. It is wishful thinking to believe there is a third choice of nuclear energy without nuclear accidents.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is pretty much the nail in the coffin for any sort of nuclear energy option, isn't it? I just don't see anyone considering this type of technology until we can safely assume that the chances of problems, what they may be, are reduced to nil.

Huh

I was going through a list of nuclear accidents since the 50's, and outside of three mile Island, Chernobyl and now the current crisis there haven't been really significant accidents that match up. There have been incidences of course but they didn't seem like they had long lasting massive health or environmental incidences.

On average there have been 4 or 5 accidents per decade at most.

The incident in Japan was a perfect storm or natural disasters.

And beyond that and speaking out of my butt, I'm sure all of those incidences combined have had less of an environmental impact then burning coal or fossil fuels.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is pretty much the nail in the coffin for any sort of nuclear energy option, isn't it? I just don't see anyone considering this type of technology until we can safely assume that the chances of problems, what they may be, are reduced to nil.

We use coal when it could be easily argued that even if everything goes right, you end up with more long term pollution than what happens when a nuclear reactor has something go wrong.

[photon]

Coal puts radiation into the atmosphere 24x7 as standard operating procedure.

People don't seem to appreciate that the reactors withstood the earthquake fine, even withstood the tsunami fine, the onsite generators and fuel were destroyed by the tsunami but everything was ok for the 8 hours they had battery backup power.. then things went downhill. I believe newer setups have the generators underground, if that'd been the case here we wouldn't be having this discussion.

40 year old Gen 1 reactors that were designed to operate 25 years, one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded, and we're still talking about a limited area being affected.

Though things aren't really over or totally under control yet, so the full impact remains to be seen.

I think the public anti-nuclear sentiment will be riled up again though, and that might have an impact on new reactors going up.

[Coys1882]

Photon - quit calming things down!! The more people get hysterical about nuclear power the further the share prices of Uranium companies get pushed down which allows me to reload.

[mykalberta]

Sorry, link to story was from Fox News. 100% unbelievable. Nothing they report is at all factual.

[peter12]

I love you guys for dismantling my two line opinion.