Japan Closes Last Nuclear Reactor - Polidicks

[img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/60052000/jpg/_60052379_014669123-1.jpg[/img] [quote]Japan is switching off its last working nuclear reactor, as part of the safety drive since the March 2011 tsunami triggered a meltdown at the Fukushima plant. The third reactor at the Tomari plant, in Hokkaido prefecture, is shutting down for routine maintenance. It leaves Japan without energy from atomic power for the first time for more than 40 years. Until last year, Japan got 30% of its power from nuclear energy. Hundreds of people marched through Tokyo, waving banners to celebrate what they hope will be the end of nuclear power in Japan. [B]Power shortages[/B] Since the Fukushima disaster, all the country's reactors have been shut down for routine maintenance. They must withstand tests against earthquakes and tsunamis, and local authorities must give their consent in order for plants to restart. So far, none have. Two reactors at the Ohi plant in western Japan have been declared safe. The government says they should be restarted to combat looming shortages. However, regional authorities would still have to give their approval. Ministers have warned Japan faces a summer of power shortages. The BBC's Roland Buerk, in Tokyo, says the government could force the issue, but so far has been reluctant to move against public opinion. Organisers of the anti-nuclear march in the capital estimated turnout at 5,500. Demonstrators carried banners shaped as giant fish. The "Koinobori" banners, traditionally the symbol of Children's Day, have been adopted by the anti-nuclear movement. Anti-nuclear demonstrators carried the carp-shaped banners that have become a symbol of their movement. "There are so many nuclear plants, but not a single one will be up and running today, and that's because of our efforts," campaigner Masashi Ishikawa told the crowd. Engineers began the process of shutting down the final Tomari reactor, inserting control rods to bring the fission process to an end. All operations at the plant will have stopped by 14:00 GMT, a spokesman told Associated Press. Japan will then be without nuclear power for the first time since 1970. Businesses have warned of severe consequences for manufacturing if no nuclear plants are allowed to re-start. In the meantime, Japan has increased its fossil fuel imports, with electricity companies pressing old power plants into service. If the country can get through the steamy summer without blackouts, calls to make the nuclear shutdown permanent will get louder, our correspondent says. The six-reactor Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant was badly damaged by the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Blasts occurred at four of the reactors after the cooling systems went offline, triggering radiation leaks and forcing the evacuation of thousands of people. A 20km (12m) exclusion zone remains in place around the plant.[/quote] [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17967202]**SOURCE**[/url] They are going to regret this. If it isn't for the energy shortage, it will be because they just fucked over their nationally and internationally set emission standards by switching back to coal/gas.

This is for routine maintenance, they aren't getting rid of them. Looks unlikely most of them if any will actually get out of it though.

Has Japan won the award for "Most Irradiated Country" yet?

[QUOTE=MIPS;35849951] They are going to regret this. If it isn't for the energy shortage, it will be because they just fucked over their nationally and internationally set emission standards by switching back to coal/gas.[/QUOTE] OP didn't read his own article. These are troubling times indeed.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;35849996]Has Japan won the award for "Most Irradiated Country" yet?[/QUOTE] I read that as "Most Irritated Country" and I think they would still qualify for that seeing all the shit they have been through lately.

[QUOTE=Collin665;35850000]OP didn't read his own article. [/QUOTE] Are you referring to this?: [quote]In the meantime, Japan has increased its fossil fuel imports, with electricity companies pressing old power plants into service.[/quote] Japan has some of the strictest emission standards on the planet for industry. By having to restart older low efficiency plants they have to go back on their own regulations to hopefully make ends meet.

I know it was for maintenance, but when I saw the title I just clicked it to make the "One car crashes, [B]BAN CARS[/B]" comment.

[QUOTE=latin_geek;35850340]I know it was for maintenance, but when I saw the title I just clicked it to make the "One car crashes, [B]BAN CARS[/B]" comment.[/QUOTE] While you could say I am a huge supporter of nuclear energy, it's true that Japan is a [I]very [/I]bad spot for them. I believe they should not ditch the energy, but make [B]damn[/B] sure each of these plants is as secure as it gets.

[QUOTE=latin_geek;35850340]I know it was for maintenance, but when I saw the title I just clicked it to make the "One car crashes, [B]BAN CARS[/B]" comment.[/QUOTE] Their reactor maintenance guidelines are also pretty strict. Every time a reactor goes down for maintenance in Japan (and all reactors are done so once a year), it isn't allowed to come back up until the OK is given by the local authority and municipalities. If they say no, the reactor is not allowed to restart. This is why since Fukushima reactors have been going down for maintenance and not coming back up, even if they are given a good annual clean bill of health. Through public pressure it would be unwise to return a reactor into operation.

i find it funny that japan is allowed to use nuclear power while portugal isn't because of "earthquake risks"

[QUOTE=DrBreen;35852373]i find it funny that japan is allowed to use nuclear power while portugal isn't because of "earthquake risks"[/QUOTE] Japan is it's own boss, it decides what it can and can't do. Not to mention they have quite a bit of experience with earthquakes and how to protect structures from them. Who says portugal can't have them?

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;35852747]Who says portugal can't have them?[/QUOTE] Probably the EU.

[QUOTE=latin_geek;35850340]I know it was for maintenance, but when I saw the title I just clicked it to make the "One car crashes, [B]BAN CARS[/B]" comment.[/QUOTE] More like, car crashes driving off cliff, BAN DRIVING OFF CLIFFS.

[QUOTE=Fhenexx;35852801]Probably the EU.[/QUOTE] EU said Latvia can't have sugar and other factories so they got shut down. Our economy is almost that of a third world. Thanks to EU.

I remember countless comments from users on this forum saying "It's not going to meltdown" and "It's nothing like Chernobyl" OK it didn't fully explode a gaping hole into the reactor like Chernobyl but it still made a whole area uninhabitable.

I wonder if an OP has ever been banned for not reading OP

[QUOTE=Canary;35853119]I remember countless comments from users on this forum saying "It's not going to meltdown" and "It's nothing like Chernobyl" OK it didn't fully explode a gaping hole into the reactor like Chernobyl but it still made a whole area inhabitable.[/QUOTE] Unlike Chernobyl, japanese reactor was hit by an earthquake and a tsunami. As someone said, you don't stop using cars because one crashes. Also inhabitable?

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;35853088]EU said Latvia can't have sugar and other factories so they got shut down. Our economy is almost that of a third world. Thanks to EU.[/QUOTE] The EU are fucking assholes, they might as well be named the Global Austerity Introducing Lordship Of Real Democracy (GAILORD for short) because all they ever do is impose bullshit laws that absolutely ruin economies. It's like having a fucking 2 year old running Wall Street.

Jesus christ. All of the media hysteria about this shit has gone too far. Fukushima marks only the 3rd major nuclear generating station accident since the first commercial plant in 1954. In total, from all of these 3 accidents, Nuclear Meltdowns have only killed around 7,000 people, MOST of which happened in Chernobyl, and NOT from Civilian deaths. Most of the deaths in Chernobyl were from the cleanup crew, of which the USSR kind of just threw at the reactor. ANNUALLY, Coal power plants kill about 4,000 people world wide from the contaminates it puts in the air and water. Not only that, the background radiation of a Coal Power Plant is 3.3 times worse than a properly maintained nuclear power plant (0.3 Micro Sieverts / Year versus 0.09 Micro Sieverts) With Japan switching to Coal Power, they will be doing more damage than their nuclear power plants ever will. Fukushima was a FLUKE. A freak accident of nature. The fact that it stood up so well against such a massive earthquake is in itself a testament to how safe and well built they are, considering how old the goddamn thing was.

[QUOTE=Smasher 006;35849981]This is for routine maintenance, they aren't getting rid of them. Looks unlikely most of them if any will actually get out of it though.[/QUOTE] I thought about posting this a day or two ago but didn't because of this [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] True story

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;35853303]Unlike Chernobyl, japanese reactor was hit by an earthquake and a tsunami. As someone said, you don't stop using cars because one crashes. Also inhabitable?[/QUOTE] Not just that, but it was hit by a [b]9.0 Magnitude[/b] earthquake. For comparison, the 1906 earthquake that destroyed San Francisco is most widely accepted to be a [b]7.9 Magnitude[/b] earthquake. According to this [url=http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/calculator.php]Nifty little earthquake.usgs.gov Earthquake-magnitude-comparing calculator[/url], the quake that hit Fukushima was about 13 times bigger, and released about 45 times more energy, than the 1906 quake. Take all this into account when you read that [url=http://phys.org/news/2011-03-iaea-japan-nuclear-quake-wikileaks.html]the IAEA reported that the Fukushima plant wasn't designed to handle earthquakes over a [b]7.0 magnitude[/b] scale.[/url] I can't find a legitimate source, but the most common answer I am finding for the average magnitude of an Earthquake in Japan is 6.0 to 6.3, so 7.0 is 5 times bigger and 11 times stronger than a 6.3, so the plant was [b]more[/b] than prepared for an average Japanese quake. Furthermore, according to [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/14/501364/main20043126.shtml]A CBS report on the quake that hit Fukishima[/url], the record 9.0 Magnitude made the quake the [b]fourth largest quake ever recorded[/b] since 1900. [b]NOT ONLY THAT[/b], according to this official Japanese report on the incident ([url]http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1317702304P.pdf[/url] ; apparently you can't encase PDF's in URL tags...), the Fukushima plant's walls were built to withstand waves of a height up to 5.7 meters. The waves that actually hit Fukushima were between 8 and 10 meters tall. The circumstances around the Fukushima disaster were [b]incalculably[/b] rare, and, seeing how much stronger the tsunami [b]and[/b] the earthquake were (circumstances that, by the way, were [b]never[/b] expected to be a coinciding concern; the plant was designed to handle one or the other at a time, never both) than what the plant was prepared for, all things considered, the plant held up remarkably well. So I think people should [b]really[/b] sit down and read all the evidence before they're about to start screaming murder bloody murder about nuclear power being absolutely unsafe and entirely unethical and absolutely out of the question. Just for your information.

Nuclear Power really isn't the best answer. Sure, it may be the safest (assuming everything functions as it should) and super efficient, but how about you answer this question: where are you going to store the shit? In the long run, Nuclear Power is going to be a bitch to store, especially since it has to be contained for a huge collection of years. So before you all praise nuclear energy and how it's the best, why don't you remember the huge, huge storage problem, by which nobody has found a safe and practical solution to.

[QUOTE=redBadger;35856342]Nuclear Power really isn't the best answer. Sure, it may be the safest (assuming everything functions as it should) and super efficient, but how about you answer this question: where are you going to store the shit? In the long run, Nuclear Power is going to be a bitch to store, especially since it has to be contained for a huge collection of years. So before you all praise nuclear energy and how it's the best, why don't you remember the huge, huge storage problem, by which nobody has found a safe and practical solution to.[/QUOTE] I think you're partially correct. With our current technology, nuclear power (ideally with thorium fuel) actually IS the best answer, at least until we come up with something better. The issue with waste storage is an interesting one, and it's not so much our ability to keep the waste safe as it is that while many people want nuclear power, NOBODY wants to live within a few hundred miles of a waste disposal site, even if the site is 100% secure. An excellent example is Yucca mountain, which was going to be the site where we store ALL of our civilian nuclear waste. However, public opposition was so strong that all funding was cut and we've taken a few steps back because of it. I think one of the biggest issues, especially in America, is that there are almost no campaigns telling Americans the facts about modern-day reactors. Everyone's still terrified by Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima, and there's no movement by any agency I can think of to get rid of the fear-mongering that is almost omni-present. That's not to say that everyone is afraid, far from it, but it is to say that many, many people are sorely misinformed and that it's holding us back.

That's because stopping piracy and the internet are [I]obviously[/I] more pressing issues, at the moment.

The limits the EPA placed on Yucca Mountain were so damn stringent, they defined a yearly dose limit for up to 1,000,000 years. And the yearly dose limit (100 millirem) was low enough that simply taking a flight somewhere would put you over that limit by many times.

[QUOTE=DrBreen;35852373]i find it funny that japan is allowed to use nuclear power while portugal isn't because of "earthquake risks"[/QUOTE] Earthquake risks? The only real one we had was more than 200 years ago. I remember alot of talk and people fearmongering saying it would be Chernobyl all over again about this. IMO, hopefully it would never happen, it would be better to have another Chernobyl than the truckload of "gangsta" faggots and gypsies around here that give you more probabilities of dying, or even the shitty government. TONS better.

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;35853303]Unlike Chernobyl, japanese reactor was hit by an earthquake and a tsunami. As someone said, you don't stop using cars because one crashes. Also inhabitable?[/QUOTE] Comparing a car to a nuclear meltdown? Wonderful comparison, 10/10 I finally see the light! In truthfulness the comparison you've done is stupid as fuck, a car crash doesn't even have the effect of a goddamn nuclear meltdown where it irradiates an entire area for years to come while a car crash is simply some people dead and some metal banged up.

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;35856283]Not just that, but it was hit by a [B]9.0 Magnitude[/B] earthquake. For comparison, the 1906 earthquake that destroyed San Francisco is most widely accepted to be a [B]7.9 Magnitude[/B] earthquake. According to this [URL="http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/calculator.php"]Nifty little earthquake.usgs.gov Earthquake-magnitude-comparing calculator[/URL], the quake that hit Fukushima was about 13 times bigger, and released about 45 times more energy, than the 1906 quake. Take all this into account when you read that [URL="http://phys.org/news/2011-03-iaea-japan-nuclear-quake-wikileaks.html"]the IAEA reported that the Fukushima plant wasn't designed to handle earthquakes over a [B]7.0 magnitude[/B] scale.[/URL] I can't find a legitimate source, but the most common answer I am finding for the average magnitude of an Earthquake in Japan is 6.0 to 6.3, so 7.0 is 5 times bigger and 11 times stronger than a 6.3, so the plant was [B]more[/B] than prepared for an average Japanese quake. Furthermore, according to [URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/14/501364/main20043126.shtml"]A CBS report on the quake that hit Fukishima[/URL], the record 9.0 Magnitude made the quake the [B]fourth largest quake ever recorded[/B] since 1900. [B]NOT ONLY THAT[/B], according to this official Japanese report on the incident ([URL]http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1317702304P.pdf[/URL] ; apparently you can't encase PDF's in URL tags...), the Fukushima plant's walls were built to withstand waves of a height up to 5.7 meters. The waves that actually hit Fukushima were between 8 and 10 meters tall. The circumstances around the Fukushima disaster were [B]incalculably[/B] rare, and, seeing how much stronger the tsunami [B]and[/B] the earthquake were (circumstances that, by the way, were [B]never[/B] expected to be a coinciding concern; the plant was designed to handle one or the other at a time, never both) than what the plant was prepared for, all things considered, the plant held up remarkably well. So I think people should [B]really[/B] sit down and read all the evidence before they're about to start screaming murder bloody murder about nuclear power being absolutely unsafe and entirely unethical and absolutely out of the question. Just for your information.[/QUOTE] I like this post. The more you know.

[QUOTE=Keyblockor;35856600]Comparing a car to a nuclear meltdown? Wonderful comparison, 10/10 I finally see the light! In truthfulness the comparison you've done is stupid as fuck, a car crash doesn't even have the effect of a goddamn nuclear meltdown where it irradiates an entire area for years to come while a car crash is simply some people dead and some metal banged up.[/QUOTE] 40,000 people die in car accidents every year in the United States ALONE. Coal power is responsible for about 8,000-10,000 deaths per year. For comparison, nuclear power has killed less than 8,000 in the last 58 years. Do you understand how rare a meltdown is? Between modern reactor designs and the phenomenal safety standards, catastrophic failure of a nuclear reactor is damn near impossible. Hell, it took a 9.0 earthquake and a 27' tsunami to take out Fukushima, and the plant was still standing after the fact. If that's not safe, I don't know what is.

What would be nice is if Fukushima scared Japan enough to funnel a ton of their money into thorium and fusion research.