Mining and the Greens

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I think they've done pretty well to withstand the punishment they've received as it is. I'll reserve my judgement about this until the incident is over.

 

[Moses]

200,000 Japanese evacuated from within a 20km radius of the reactor. Puts a new perspective on "not in my backyard" doesn't it..

 

[sevenpointdropgoal]

I mentioned to my wife the day after the Japanese disaster that the media would start to go over the top with their reaction to the nuclear power plant damage. It has since happened. Here is an article that puts nuclear problems in some perspective:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/fearmongers-go-into-their-own-meltdown/story-fn84naht-1226021345281

I've not seen any reasonable news outlets predicting fallout in Europe, though I've not seen everything that's been written. Never the less, elements of the media, particularly online sources, talk back and tabloids, do tend to overstate the potential impact of any sort of contentious issue. The fact is that frothing at the mouth is a great way of selling copy. For another example of unnecessary panic I'll draw your attention to a little island nation surrounded by the Indian, Southern and Pacific oceans, which is currently having a ridiculous pitched battle over the impact of relatively minor piece of carbon focused taxation legislation...

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

200,000 Japanese evacuated from within a 20km radius of the reactor. Puts a new perspective on "not in my backyard" doesn't it..

Sure does, but that will be precautionary. From what I am reading at the moment, there is no imminent danger to human life with respect to fallout etc.

 

[Ruggo]

Well there is no fear mongering in this article.

Nuke plant blasts raise radiation threat
Updated 17 minutes ago

Radiation threat: Prime minister Naoto Kan urged people living within 30 kilometres of the plant to take safety precautions. (Reuters: Kim Kyung-Hoon)

Video: Trouble mounts at stricken nuclear plant (ABC News) Video: Amateur video captures tsunami carnage (ABC News) Audio: Another blast at Japanese nuclear plant (The World Today) Audio: Entire towns washed away (AM) Related Story: Call for calm as nuke crisis escalates Related Story: Japan on meltdown alert Related Story: Is Fukushima facing a meltdown? Related Story: Japan quake upgraded to 9.0 Related Story: Aussie rescuers on 10-hour journey to tsunami town Related Link: Nuclear power: when the answer becomes the problem The Japanese government says radiation levels near a quake-stricken nuclear power plant are now harmful to human health, after a further two explosions and a fire at the facility.

"There is no doubt that unlike in the past, the figures are the level at which human health can be affected," said chief government spokesman Yukio Edano.

He says radiation levels at the nuclear plant have reached as high as 400 milisieverts an hour, thousands of times higher than readings taken before the latest blasts.

Mr Edano says radiation levels as at 10.22am (local time) were 30 millisieverts between the No. 2 and the No. 3 reactors, 400 millisieverts near No. 3 and 100 millisieverts near No. 4.

Earlier prime minister Naoto Kan warned the risk of more radioactive leakage was rising and urged people living within 30 kilometres of the plant to take safety precautions.

"Depending on what happens at the power plant we would like to ask you to remain indoors at your home or in your offices," he said.

"We would like to ask you to remain indoors and avoid going outside."

Kyodo says "minute levels" of radiation have been detected in Tokyo, quoting the metropolitan government, and radiation levels in Saitama, near Tokyo, were 40 times normal levels, quoting the local government.

"We don't consider it to be at a level where the human body is affected," said Sairi Koga, an official of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government.

Radiation levels in Kanagawa prefecture, west of Tokyo, were also briefly up to nine times the normal level, Kyodo reported, quoting the prefecture government.

But the news agency says it is not immediately clear if the detections are related to the quake-damaged nuclear plant.

A single dose of 1,000 millisieverts - or one sievert - causes temporary radiation sickness such as nausea and vomiting, according to the World Nuclear Association.

A dose of 5,000 millisieverts would kill about half those receiving it within a month.

Tens of thousands have already been evacuated within a 20 kilometre radius around the Fukushima No. 1 plant, 250 kilometres north-east of Tokyo.

Mr Edano says an explosion at the No. 4 reactor, which contains spent fuel rods, was caused by a build-up of hydrogen.

"Spent nuclear fuel in the reactor heated up, creating hydrogen and triggered a hydrogen explosion," he said.

Mr Edano says radioactive substances were leaked along with the hydrogen.

Prior to the explosion the reactor was on fire but Kyodo and other local media are reporting the blaze has been extinguished.

The government also reported apparent damage to part of the container shielding the No. 2 reactor, but it was unclear whether this resulted from the blast.

Mr Edano says "damage appears on the suppression pool" - the bottom part of the container that contains water used to cool the reactor and control air pressure inside.

Similar hydrogen blasts had hit the No. 1 and No. 3 reactors on Saturday and Monday.

Buildings housing four of the six reactors at the plant, which opened in 1971, have now been hit by explosions.

Mr Edano says sea water is currently being pumped into reactors 1, 2 and 3 - all of which have experienced overheating - and pressure levels at these reactors were stable.

Officials have not reported the kind of radiation leakage that would accompany a major meltdown.

The French embassy in the capital warned in an advisory that a low level of radioactive wind could reach Tokyo within 10 hours.

However, a Japanese Meteorological Agency official says winds over the nuclear plant are blowing slowly in a south-westerly direction that includes Tokyo, but will shift westerly later on Tuesday.

Japan has already asked the UN atomic watchdog to send a team of experts to help stave off a nuclear emergency following the massive quake and tsunami.

The nuclear crisis comes as Japan struggles to deal with the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami, which are feared to have killed more than 10,000 people.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/15/3164595.htm

 

[Scotty]

I've not seen any reasonable news outlets predicting fallout in Europe, though I've not seen everything that's been written. Never the less, elements of the media, particularly online sources, talk back and tabloids, do tend to overstate the potential impact of any sort of contentious issue. The fact is that frothing at the mouth is a great way of selling copy. For another example of unnecessary panic I'll draw your attention to a little island nation surrounded by the Indian, Southern and Pacific oceans, which is currently having a ridiculous pitched battle over the impact of relatively minor piece of carbon focused taxation legislation...

You stretched pretty hard then to get a comparison between a debate on tax and predictions of a nuclear meltdown.

If it is so minor a piece of legislation then why have it at all? What do you think about norways experience?

 

[sevenpointdropgoal]

You stretched pretty hard then to get a comparison between a debate on tax and predictions of a nuclear meltdown.

If it is so minor a piece of legislation then why have it at all? What do you think about norways experience?

Hehe... sorry, I was just having a bit of a dig.

 

[Scotty]

That is what it is all about!

 

[Cutter]

I've been called an idiot and rubbish within two posts. Doing well aren't I?

Scotty I think the problem is that, irrespective of the facts in any given circumstances, you are a cheerleader for the same issues. On that basis, you shouldn't be surprised when someone pulls you up on it.

Just the most recent example of this is your posts on the Japan nuclear disaster being exaggerated by the media. If history is anything to go by, the Japanese government, which has a history of covering up nuclear accidents (albeit minor in scale compared to this), is under reporting the seriousness of the situation. Do you reckon they would seriously move 200,000 people if there wasn't an issue? They obviously have radioactivity readings which they aren't reporting. Taking a reading would be one of the first things they would do.

Events over the next few weeks and months will determine the extent to which the media is exaggerating things. If you are more circumspect in your analysis, you might find less people challenging your cheerleading.

 

[Ruggo]

That is what it is all about!

I thought it was about mining and the greens.

 

[Elfster]

Not really about mining and the greens, but I found this article both interesting and scary. I guessit shows that in terms of the environment and things we need to do, there are a hll of a lot of things that need to be considered and that as the environment is a closed dynamic system we need to consider the impact of all things on all other things. (Hmm..I could have probably written that last bit better).

Regardless, I am thinking that with the environment and such it is a far more complicated thing than a lot of people think it is.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257665/

 

[Scotty]

Scotty I think the problem is that, irrespective of the facts in any given circumstances, you are a cheerleader for the same issues. On that basis, you shouldn't be surprised when someone pulls you up on it.

Just the most recent example of this is your posts on the Japan nuclear disaster being exaggerated by the media. If history is anything to go by, the Japanese government, which has a history of covering up nuclear accidents (albeit minor in scale compared to this), is under reporting the seriousness of the situation. Do you reckon they would seriously move 200,000 people if there wasn't an issue? They obviously have radioactivity readings which they aren't reporting. Taking a reading would be one of the first things they would do.

Events over the next few weeks and months will determine the extent to which the media is exaggerating things. If you are more circumspect in your analysis, you might find less people challenging your cheerleading.

So you are on the have a pop at Scotty bandwagon as well, are you? Easy target, hey?

Can you please explain this 'irrespective of the facts in any given circumstances, you are a cheerleader for the same issues'? How does my supporting nuclear energy equate to being anti carbon tax or anti this labor government. It isn't like the Coalition are openly supporting nuclear, and it isn't like starting nuclear in this country won't lower CO2 emissions.

And you seem to imply that everyone has to be an expert before having an opinion. Not many would be having any opinions on this site if that were the case.

PS Maybe it would be easier from now on if I don't post any new articles or opinions, and I just sit back and wait to have a crack at what others say?

PPS Can you see any hypocrisy in what you are saying? Anything you disagree with that I say you are willing to jump onto, but anything that you can't argue against you leave alone.

 

[Scotty]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...s-going-offshore/story-fn59niix-1226022832982

Julia has made one step in the right direction here, but another little lie thrown in:

"The Greens are not a party of government and have no tradition of striking the balance required to deliver major reform." Ms Gillard also vowed that not one cent of the funds raised by the carbon tax would go to Treasury.

"I don't want jobs in those industries to go overseas," Ms Gillard said. "And I don't want the emissions that come with those jobs to go overseas either because that would only compound the world's carbon problems."

I'm not sure how she expects to keep jobs in high CO2 (can she please start saying carbon dioxide, rather than just 'carbon') industries, while also making a difference to Australia's CO2 output.

 

[Scotty]

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/...ily&utm_campaign=580705f35d-&utm_medium=email

GLOBAL IMPACT
The global impact of Japan's nuclear problems on climate change is impossible to judge with the plant's operators still trying to avert a major nuclear disaster.

The International Energy Agency, which advises the world's biggest industrial member countries of the OECD, warned against a knee-jerk reaction against nuclear and said it was impossible to slash carbon emissions without atomic energy.
But as the global panic around Japan's nuclear problems grew, Europe's energy chief raised the prospect of a nuclear-free future, which environmental groups say could and should be greener but others say will likely be gassier.

"The Japanese tragedy could lead to a setback for the world's nuclear renaissance (except perhaps in China)," analysts at French bank Societe Generale said, adding that gas will likely become the fuel of "no choice" in OECD countries where voters may decide against nuclear power.

SocGen estimates that if all 34 countries in the OECD, which does not include China, were to shut their nuclear power plants and replace them with gas plants before technology to capture their carbon emissions is developed, OECD carbon emissions could rise by nearly one billion tons of CO2 a year.

Whether there is or isnt a nuclear disaster in Japan, this could set back nuclear power generation and thus increase CO2 emissions significantly. Funny thing is that the Greens and Greenpeace want to have their cake and eat it too. They are happy to shut down nuclear, but don't want coal. I am yet to see them put forward any plausible base load alternatives.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

That's the problem with the Greens and their NGO friends (and frankly many political parties): they want all the authority and none of the responsibility. They are pretty good at telling other people what they should be doing but far less good at offering a practical solution to the problem.

 

[Scotty]

Anyone see Peter Harvey's closing comment on sixty minutes last night? In response to a viewers letter, it went something like this: 'If we want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by closing coal fired power stations, the only answer is nuclear, people (government?) need to get get real'. He also said something about the double hypocrisy of us a) selling coal and uranium around the world and b) saying we want to reduce CO2 emissions and also not wanting nuclear power.

A few short words that sums up the ridiculousness of Australia's current arrangement.

All we have is ideological views from the left saying that 'we have renewable power, we can do it'. When of course the reality is completely different. (We of course can do some % renewable, but not the extent that some would suggest.)

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Things are on the improve at Fukushima, which is a relief.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/21/fukushima-21-march-update/#more-4211

So one of the biggest natural disasters in Japan's history and that 40 year old nuclear plant survived it. A testament to the engineering capabilities of the Japanese I think. Hats off to them. I have to remark on the absolutely hysterical reporting from the mainstream press. It's been terrible and I decided to stop following it and look for other, calmer sources of information. There really is nothing to be gained by scaring people to death. Of course, this puts the cause of nuclear energy back a few years until people forget about the fear they faced in the last week.

 

[Scotty]

Reading some of the reporting you could be forgiven if you didn't realise an earthquake and tsunami just occurred. Seemed to be all about the power station. Once again though I want to commend Peter Harvey for being part of the msm and speaking so strongly for nuclear.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Some perspective on the loss of life for various sources of power:

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/03/chart-of-day-deaths-per-energy-source.html

 

[Scotty]

Some perspective on the loss of life for various sources of power:

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/03/chart-of-day-deaths-per-energy-source.html

Just thinking about that the other day. There is a lot of burying heads in the sand to the real facts going on.