Rapport: Folkene bag Fukushima-katastrofen troede på en myte
more_vert
close

Få de daglige nyheder fra Version2 og Ingeniøren. Læs mere om nyhedsbrevene her.

close
Ved at tilmelde dig accepterer du vores Brugerbetingelser, og du accepterer, at Teknologiens Mediehus og IDA-gruppen lejlighedsvis kan kontakte dig om arrangementer, analyser, nyheder, job og tilbud m.m. via telefon og e-mail. I nyhedsbreve, e-mails fra Teknologiens Mediehus kan der forefindes markedsføring fra samarbejdspartnere.

Rapport: Folkene bag Fukushima-katastrofen troede på en myte

Både japanske myndigheder og Tokyo Power Electric (Tepco) - firmaet, som drev atomkraftværket ved Fukushima - kan få røde ører af at læse en nyligt udkommet rapport.

Rapporten, som er bestilt af den japanske regering, giver nemlig begge parter en stor del af ansvaret for, at det gik så galt, som det gjorde.

»Det basale problem bestod i, at elselskaberne - heriblandt Tepco - og den japanske regering ikke havde en realistisk vurdering af, hvor stor risikoen var. Det bunder i, at de troede på myten om, at atomkraftværker er sikre, og at der ikke sker alvorlige ulykker ved atomkraftværker i vores land,« lyder det blandt andet i den 450 sider lange rapport.

Rapporten, der er udarbejdet af et panel bestående af forskere, journalister, advokater og ingeniører, slår desuden fast, at mandskabet på Fukushima-værket var dårligt uddannet i, hvordan de skulle reagere under en nedsmeltning som den, der skete i værkets reaktorer sidste år.

Nedsmeltningen startede efter at et jordskælv, som målte 9,0 på richterskalaen, sendte en tsunami ind over værket, som beskadigede de nødstrømsgeneratorer, som drev reaktorernes kølesystem.

I rapporten vurderer undersøgelsesudvalget, at både Tepco og den japanske myndighed, som varetager atomar og industriel sikkerhed, var dårligt forberedt i forhold til sådan en type ulykke.

»Nødberedskabet for en kompleks katastrofe var for dårligt, og de var uforberedte på, hvordan man skulle forholde sig, hvis store mængder radioaktivt materiale skulle slippe ud i det omkringliggende område,« konkluderer rapporten.

Dokumentation

Den endelige rapports konklusioner

sortSortér kommentarer
  • Ældste først
  • Nyeste først
  • Bedste først

Og ikke kun inden for kernekraft.

Parallelen til formanden for jernbaneforbundet der bestemt ikke kunne se nogen gavn af mere detaljerede køreinstrukser for lokoførene er meget svær at overse.

Alle kan have brug for en der står bagved og hvisker "Husk, du er dødelig", men ingeniører måske i højere grad end andre.

  • 0
  • 0

Er der noget overraskende ved Fukushima? Hvis generator-rummet bliver oversvømmet, kan det da ikke undre, at kølingen sætter ud, hvorefter der sker en overhedning. Ulykken siger noget om japansk kultur, men den siger da ikke noget om atomkraft.

  • 0
  • 0

Er der noget overraskende ved Fukushima? Hvis generator-rummet bliver oversvømmet, kan det da ikke undre, at kølingen sætter ud, hvorefter der sker en overhedning. Ulykken siger noget om japansk kultur, men den siger da ikke noget om atomkraft.

Det er banalt vrøvl. Ulykken siger intet om japansk kultur, det siger noget om menneskets natur.

Hvordan kan det være, at indtil et uheldet sker, så har man intet at udsætte på operatøren, men i det øjeblik at ulykkener sket, så kunne "enhver" have indset hvor fejlagtigt de kørte værket.

Nu har jeg ledt i ing.dk´s arkiver og før ulykkenfor et år siden har INGEN haft noget at udsætte de japanske atomkraftværker. Tværtimod har de været fremhævet som veldrevet, herunder blandt andet fordi de er jordskælvssikret. Mit bud er, at havde nogen af os, både modstandere og tilhængere af atomkraft besøgt Fukushima før ulykken, så ville vi nok have spurgt ind til sikringen ved jordskælv og tsunamier, men også stillet os tilfredse med forklaringen af de mange sikkerhedsforanstaltninger.

Når det først er muligt at påpege af at kultur X (russisk overdrevne tiltro til egen tekniske formåen, japansk aversion imod kritik af overordnede) har været afgørende årsag til en ulykke EFTER det er sket, så har man intet opnået. Så er dagens sikkerhedsfokuserede svenskere, finnere, tyskere, amerikanere og franskmænd morgendagens autoritetstro svenskere, vinterdepressive finnere, grønthysteriske tyskere, profitjagende amerikanere og arrogante franskmænd.

Problemet er mennesket, ikke vores kultur. Vi laver fejl, uanset nationalitet. Og når jeg læser hvordan bekymringen omkring svensk reaktordesign så nemt blev fejet af bordet i vinters FØR nogen overhovedet havde set rapporten, så kan jeg se, at selv danske ingeniører ikke er overmennesker, der kan sætte sig ud over deres natur.

  • 0
  • 0

Jeg har læst uddraget (rapporten er ikke blevet udgivet, kun executive summary). Avisoverskrifterne er mere eller mindre sensationsoverskrifter. Det meste af rapporten handler om, hvordan dårlig bureaukrati var med til at forværre problemet. Der er ikke særlig meget om japansk kultur i uddraget. Det er ret tvivlsomt når aviserne skriver hvad de gør. Jeg tror slet ikke, at de har læst uddraget. Det tager jo ikke så lang tid, og kræver ikke nogen særlig baggrundsviden om a-kraft eller anden matematisk eller fysisk baggrundsviden.

Det er noget vrøvl når aviserne skriver, at japanerne troede på en myte om sikker atomkraft. Vi har her tale om et gammelt a-kraftanlæg fra sidst i 60'erne, som ikke blev ordentligt udviklet med tiden pga. noget dårlig bureaukrati og nogle tvivlsomme venskaber på tværs af kontrolmyndigheder.

  • 0
  • 0

Heldigt at vi ikke har det lort :-) Vind er nu bedre or uskadeligt

  • der er skam flere dødsulykker ved vindenergi end med reaktorulykker i den vestlige verden - den "uskadelige" vind er farligere end atomenergi?
    I Japan er der ca. 20.000 døde af tsunamien - 0 døde ved Fukushima.
    Så vi er da glade for ikke at have tsunamier her i landet.
    Bor du på Sjælland/Bornholm? her leverer Ringhals en meget stor del af den anvendte el!
  • 0
  • 0

Ulykken siger intet om japansk kultur..... japansk aversion imod kritik af overordnede

Sjovt at du først giver mig uret, og så længere nede giver mig ret (i at ulykken har kulturelle snarere end tekniske årsager).

Kunne du ikke generelt holde din tone mindre ophidset og reviewe dine indlæg så der ikke er selvmodsigelser? Hvis du reducerede tekstens volumen, vile det også være lettere for dig selv at overskue den.

  • 0
  • 0

[quote]Ulykken siger intet om japansk kultur..... japansk aversion imod kritik af overordnede

Sjovt at du først giver mig uret, og så længere nede giver mig ret (i at ulykken har kulturelle snarere end tekniske årsager).[/quote]

Måske skulle du tage at læse mine indlæg en smule bedre.

Jeg skriver at når man først argumenterer med en kulturel komponent EFTER at uheld sker, så har man ikke slet ikke argumenteret med noget som helst, for så er ens teori for fejl på atomkraftværker slet ikke testbar. Eksemplet med “aversion imod kritik af overordnede” var den forhåndværende stereotypiske fordom om japanere jeg lige kunne komme på i farten, ligesom man kan komme på fordomme om alle folkeslag (jeg nævner i forbifarten stereotypiske fordomme om svenskerne, finnerne, tyskerne, franskmænd og amerikanere), som man EFTER uheldet altid kan komme og give hele skylden. Men derved mister det fuldstændigt dens forklarende kraft.

Havde du eller en anden sagt “atomkraft er grundlæggende en god idé, dog strider den japanske arbejdspladskultur imod det sikkerhedsregime, som er nødvendigt for at drive sikker atomkraft” FØR uheldet var sket, så kunne jeg respektere din argumentation lidt mere. Nu er jeg kun helt sikker på, at var uheldet f.eks. sket i Finland, så var blandt andet japansk ingeniørkunst blevet fremhævet i modsætning til finnerne, der jo er kendt for at være depressivitet halvdelen af året.

Kunne du ikke generelt holde din tone mindre ophidset og reviewe dine indlæg så der ikke er selvmodsigelser? Hvis du reducerede tekstens volumen, vile det også være lettere for dig selv at overskue den.

Gennemargumenteret er ikke det samme som ophidset. Og at længden gør det sværere for dig at forstå sammenhængen i teksten er virkelig ikke mit problem. At der i min tekst giver eksempler på fejlslagen argumentation betyder selvklart ikke at jeg mener at den er korrekt, hvilket klart fremgår af sammenhængen.

  • 0
  • 0
  • der er skam flere dødsulykker ved vindenergi end med reaktorulykker i den vestlige verden

Smart spin, ikke sandt?

Spørgsmålene må så være:

1) Er der flere dødsfald ved vindmølle[b]haverier[/b] end ved reaktorulykker (inklusiv følgesygdomme, dødsfald i.f.m. evakuering af hospitaler o.s.v.)?

2) Er der flere dødsulykker (faldulykker, biluheld, el-ulykker o.s.v.) ved opførelse, drift og nedtagning af vindmøller end af akraftværker?

3) Kan Per henvise til sådanne relevante opgørelser over begge teknologier, og er de nogenlunde up to date (op til 2008-2010)?

4) Hvorfor kun "i den vestlige verden"? Er vi bedre end Japan?

Førhen sagde man ellers "indenfor OECD-landene" og "siden 1960". (Dermed hørte Tjernobyl hørte jo til en helt anden verden og windscale til en helt anden tid).

Det er da godt at Japan ikke er en del af den vestlige verden - for så gælder myten jo stadig her. ;-)

  • 0
  • 0

stereotypiske fordom om japanere

Nu handler artiklen rent faktisk om nogle kulturelle problemer i Japan, e.g.

...de troede på myten om, at atomkraftværker er sikre, og at der ikke sker alvorlige ulykker ved atomkraftværker...

Der er garanteret ikke een ing.dk debattør eller andre i Vesten der er enig i den holdning. Os der er for KK tror jo ikke at værkerne PER SE er sikre, men at sikkerhed udspringer af en forståelse af hvad der potentielt KAN gå galt.

  • 0
  • 0

Aug 1, 2012, Fukushima residents say resounding "no" to nuclear energy:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/...

July 20, 2012, Fukushima Watch: Study Suggests up to 1,300 Could Die From Radiation Effects:
http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2012/07...
Citat: "...
The radiation toll from last year’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident could eventually result in anywhere from 15 to 1,300 deaths, according to a study by Stanford University scientists.
[ http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobso... ]
The researchers also calculate that about 24 to 2,500 cases of cancer illnesses could someday be attributed to the accident. Plant workers who were exposed to radiation on-site may account for another two to 12 cancer cases.
...
About 27% of the health effects expected in Japan will occur sometime in the next 50 years, the study said.
...
they mapped out the spread and concentration of the radioactive nuclides — iodine-131, cesium-137 and cesium-134.
..."

August 09 2012, Fukushima truth still elusive even after inquiries:
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/08...
Citat: "...
All the inquiries suffer from a lack of first-hand examination of the evidence, since the risk of radiation prevents investigators from entering the Fukushima plant. Conclusions in the reports thus fall into the realm of conjecture and contradict one another.

Another disturbing outcome is that while some blame has been pinned on Tepco and the bureaucracy, so far no heads have had to roll.

One crucial question that all the inquiries failed to answer was whether the quake, or the tsunami, was responsible for crippling the reactors at Fukushima.
..."

August 6, 2012, Fukushima's Children Facing High Rate of Thyroid Irregularities:
http://thyroid.about.com/b/2012/08/06/fuku...
Citat: "...
According to government research released in Japan, 36 percent of children from Fukushima Prefecture -- the area around the March 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant meltdown -- who were exposed to radiation now have abnormal growths on their thyroid glands.

The survey examined more than 38,000 local children, and found that more than 13,000 had thyroid cysts or nodules, a rate that is much higher than the average population, where an estimated 0.5-1.0% of children have thyroid cysts. According to Japanese authorities, while they don't know that the radiation exposure is the cause, they will be monitoring the effects on the area's children in upcoming years.
...
The Japanese authorities' downplaying of the risks to children is controversial, and is being covered by the English-language Fukushima Voice website, the Fukushima Voice site.
..."

August 09, 2012, Lead shields masked radiation readings up to 30%:
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/...
Citat: "...
Lead radiation shields forced on workers at the stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant to cover their dosimeters masked radiation readings by about 30 percent.
..."

July 16, 2012, Fukushima: West Coast cesium slam ahead, hair falling out, Tepco data flaw:
http://www.examiner.com/article/fukushima-...
Citat: "...
As hair falls out of a Fukushima victim's head, a new German study reports that North America’s West Coast will be the area most contaminated by Fukushima cesium of all regions in Pacific in 10 years, an "order-of-magnitude higher” than waters off Japan, [b]according to a new German study followed by a former New York Times journalist going inside the no-entry zone and reporting radiation levels over 10 times higher than Tepco’s data.[/b]
...
[b]"I didn’t know still some people remained in the town. "One of them told me, 'My hair fell off,' with tears in her eyes.[/b]
...
[b]Hair falling out is one of the most common of the eight signs of radiation poisoning.[/b]
..."

August 5th, 2012, 20,000 Bq/body from a man in Fukushima:
http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/08/20000-b...
Citat: "...
Official radiation measurement is not trust worthy, and they don’t measure all kinds of radionuclide.
...
They liked to eat local root vegetables or mushroom. They were aware of that mushroom easily concentrates cesium, but they thought the mushroom from his local area is exceptionally safe with no solid basis.
..."

Jul. 25, 2012, Exec admits falsifying N-data / Lead-shielded dosimeters carried by workers in high-radiation areas:
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T1207...
Citat: "...
"I came up with the idea to use covers because the dosimeters' alarm repeatedly sounded" when he first entered the site, said Teruo Sagara, a director at the subcontractor, Build-up, during a press conference Monday at its office in Koriyama, Fukushima Prefecture.
..."

July 23rd, 2012, 13,200 Bq/Kg from riverside in Ibaraki, 178km from Fukushima:
http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/07/13200-b...

Aug 1 2012, Mainstream Rhetoric on Nuclear Power Far From Reality:
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/08/mainstream-...
Citat: "...
But for independent experts, these optimistic forecasts are typical of the sustained delusions of both agencies.
...
“Even after the accident of Chernobyl, in 1985, the NEA forecast an installed nuclear capacity of 497-646 GW for the year 2000, still between 40 and 80 percent above reality,” Schneider added.
...
In addition, the report notes that, “Installed worldwide nuclear capacity decreased in the years 1998, 2006, 2009 and again in 2011, while the annual installed wind power capacity increased by 41 GW in 2011 alone.”
...
Schneider said that such contradictory developments show that “renewables and natural gas energy sources increasingly are more affordable and much faster to install” than nuclear power.
..."

  • 0
  • 0

[b]Erfaringer fra Chernobyl:[/b]

Linköping University (2007, May 30). Increase In Cancer In Sweden Can Be Traced To Chernobyl. ScienceDaily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...
Citat: "...
The cancer risk increased with rising fallout intensity: up to a 20-percent increase in the highest of six categories. This means that 3.8 percent of the cancer cases up to 1999 can be ascribed to the fallout. This increased risk, in turn, is 26 times higher than the latest risk estimate for the survivors of the atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whose exposure was many times higher.
The increase in Tondel’s studies came a remarkably short time after the disaster, since it is usually assumed that it takes decades for cancer to develop. The dissertation discusses the interpretation of the research findings from the perspective of the theory of science.
The conclusion is that there is scientific support for a connection between the radioactive fallout and the increase in the number of cancer cases.
..."

Federation Of European Cancer Societies (2001, October 26). Cutting The Cost Of Fall-Out From Chernobyl 15 Years After The World's Worst Nuclear Accident. ScienceDaily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/...
Citat: "...
Nearly 2000 cases of thyroid cancer have been linked to the world's worst nuclear accident which occurred in Ukrainian city 15 years ago - and the number is still rising.

Professor Dillwyn Williams, of The Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge University, told the meeting: "Four years after the accident, an excess of thyroid cancers was noted among children who had been exposed to fall-out from the disaster. That increase has continued and new cases are still being seen in those who were children at the time of the accident".
..."

JAMA and Archives Journals (2009, April 24). Radiation Exposure Associated With More Aggressive Thyroid Cancer, Worse Outcomes. ScienceDaily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...
Citat: "...
The average age at first exposure to radiation was 19.4 years, and cancers were diagnosed an average of 28.7 years later.
..."

Aug. 17, 2007 Chernobyl fallout hurt Swedish infants:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2007/08/17/Che...
Citat: "...
The report by researchers from Stockholm University and New York’s Columbia University found that children born in the eight municipalities experiencing the highest levels of radiation were 3.6 percent less likely than others to qualify for high school, The Local said Thursday.

The researchers said it appears prenatal exposure to radiation levels previously considered safe was actually damaging to cognitive ability.
..."

7 January 2012, Science with a Skew: The Nuclear Power Industry After Chernobyl and Fukushima
http://www.truth-out.org/science-skew-nucl...
Citat: "...
“The media are saturated with a skilled, intensive, and effective advocacy campaign by the nuclear industry, resulting in disinformation” and “wholly counterfactual accounts…widely believed by otherwise sensible people,” states the 2010-2011 World Nuclear Industry Status Report by Worldwatch Institute.
...
The waste produced by reactors does not “dilute and disperse” and disappear, as industry advocates would have us believe, but is blown by the winds, carried by the tides, seeps into earth and groundwater, and makes its way into the food chain and into us, adding to the sum total of cancers and birth defects throughout the world. Its legacy is for longer than civilization has existed; plutonium, with its half life of 24,000 years, is, in human terms, forever.
...
The ABCC studied but did not treat radiation effects, and many survivors

were reluctant to identify themselves as survivors, having no wish to bare their health problems to US investigators and become mired in bureaucracy and social stigma.
...
The Japanese physicians and scientists who’d been on the scene told horrific stories of people who’d seemed unharmed, but then began bleeding from ears, nose, and throat, hair falling out by the handful, bluish spots appearing on the skin, muscles contracting, leaving limbs and hands deformed. When they tried to publish their observations, they were ordered to hand over their reports to US authorities. Throughout the occupation years (1945-52) Japanese medical journals were heavily censored on nuclear matters.
...
When Tokyo radio announced that even people who entered the cities after the bombings were dying of mysterious causes and decried the weapons as “illegal” and “inhumane,” American officials dismissed these allegations as Japanese propaganda.
...
Nobody in the 1950s wanted to hear that a fraction of the radiation dose “known” to be safe could kill a child.
...
Her studies of childhood cancer had found that children incubating cancer became 300 times more infection sensitive than normal children.
...
Stewart’s studies of the Hanford nuclear workers were turning up cancer at doses “known to be too low” to produce cancer, too low as defined by the Hiroshima data: “This is the population you ought to be studying to find out the effects of low-dose radiation,” she maintained
...
It took her another two decades to build a case strong enough to persuade the US government, in 1999, to grant compensation to nuclear workers for cancer incurred on the job. (It helps, in this area, to be long-lived, as she commented wryly).
...
Twice, she has demonstrated that radiation exposures assumed “too low” to be dangerous carry high risk—two major blows at the Hiroshima data.
...
Yet this 60-year old RERF data set continues to be invoked to dismiss new evidence—evidence of cancer clusters in the vicinity of nuclear reactors and findings from Chernobyl.
...
Fairlie describes this as a “mass of evidence difficult to contradict”—yet it continues to be contradicted, on the basis of the Hiroshima studies.
...
Generally when a cancer cluster is detected in the neighborhood of a reactor, the matter gets referred to a government committee that dismisses the findings on the grounds that radioactive emissions from facilities are “too low” to produce a cancer effect—“too low, according to RERF risk estimates.
...
The investigators—who were not opposed to nuclear power—anticipated they’d find “no effect... on the basis of the usual models for the effects of low levels of radiation.” But they found, to their surprise, that children who lived less than 5 km from a plant were more than twice as likely to develop leukemia as children who lived more than 5 km away. This was inexplicable within current models of estimating radiation risk: emissions would have had to have been orders of magnitude higher than those released by the power stations to account for the rise in leukemia. So the investigators concluded that the rise in leukemia couldn’t have been caused by radiation.
...
Fairlie points out a further problem with the Hiroshima data: its failure to take into account the dangers of internal radiation.
...
But this argument misses the fact that background radiation is from an external source and so is a more finite exposure than radioactive substances ingested or inhaled, which go on irradiating tissues, “giving very high doses to small volumes of cells,” as Helen Caldicott says.
...
When new evidence comes into conflict with old models, reinvoke the old models rather than looking at the new evidence. The world is flat. So is it flat in Chernobyl.
...
Comparing contaminated areas of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia with the so-called “clean areas,” the studies document significant increases in morbidity and mortality in contaminated regions: not only more cancer, especially thyroid cancer, but a wide array of noncancer effects — ulcers, chronic pulmonary diseases, diabetes mellitus, eye problems, severe mental retardation in children, and a higher incidence and greater severity of infectious and viral diseases.
...
Perhaps we would rather not know that 57% of Chernobyl contamination went outside the former USSR; that people as far away as Oregon were warned not to drink rainwater “for some time”; that thyroid cancer doubled in Connecticut in the six years following the accident; that 369 farms in Great Britain remained contaminated 23 years after the catastrophe; that the German government compensates hunters for wild boar meat too contaminated to be eaten – and it paid four times more in compensation in 2009 than in 2007.
...
Not to worry: “The effects of radiation do not come to people that are happy and laughing. They come to people that are weak-spirited, that brood and fret.” So says Dr. Yamashita Shunichi
..."

  1. Chernobyl’s Radioactive Contamination of Food and People
    Alexey V. Nesterenko, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Yablokov:
    http://www.neuro.fsu.edu/~dfadool/Chernoby...
    "...
    but also cheese from West Germany and Denmark) exceeded the I-131 level of 1,000 pCi/kg.
    ...
    12.2.2. Other Countries
  2. DENMARK. Sr-90 and Cs-137 contamina- tion occurs in humans, with Sr accumulating along with Ca and Cs occurring in the same tissues as K. The Sr-90 mean content in adult human vertebral bone collected in 1992 was 18 Bq (kg Ca)^-1. Whole body measurements of Cs-137 were resumed after the Chernobyl accident. The measured mean level of Cs-137 in 1990 was 359 Bq (kg K)^-1 (Aarkrog et al., 1995).
    ...
    12.3. Conclusion
    ...
    in many Belarussian locations have demonstrated a high correlation between Cs-137 food contamination and the amount of radionuclides in humans and, most importantly, in children.
    ...
    Many people suffer from continuing chronic low-dose radiation 23 years after the catastrophe, owing primarily to consumption of radioactively contaminated food. An important consideration is the fact that given an identical diet, a child’s radiation exposure is three- to fivefold higher than that of an adult. Since more than 90% of the radiation burden nowadays is due to Cs-137, which has a half-life of about 30 years, contaminated areas will continue to be dangerously radioactive for roughly the next three centuries.

Experience has shown that existing official radioactive monitoring systems are inadequate (not only in the countries of the Former Soviet Union). Generally, the systems cover territo- ries selectively, do not measure each person, and often conceal important facts when releas- ing information. The common factor among all governments is to minimize spending for which they are not directly responsible, such as the Chernobyl meltdown, which occurred 23 years ago.
...
We have to take responsibility not only for our own health, but for the health of future generations of humans, plants, and animals, which can be harmed by mutations resulting from exposure to even the smallest amount of radioactive contamination.
..."

28 March 2011, Chernobyl's legacy.
Twenty-five years after the nuclear disaster, the clean-up grinds on and health studies are faltering. Are there lessons for Japan?:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110330/ful...
Citat: "...
So far, the Fukushima accident is less severe. Radiation levels measured near the Japanese power plant have been less than those at Chernobyl after the blast there (see Table 1). And although radiation has spread from Fukushima, it does not match the amounts that rained down in the region around Chernobyl.
...
In some ways, the connection between the two accidents may yield the biggest benefits for Chernobyl. For a brief window of time, [b]the world has again focused attention on the largely overlooked work there.[/b]
...
[b]"In recent years, Chernobyl has been neglected by funding agencies and, to an extent, the scientific community," says Jim Smith, a radioecologist at the University of Portsmouth, UK, who has studied the consequences of the accident for 20 years. "But there is still more to learn from Chernobyl about decommissioning and the effects of the radiation," says Smith, who is touring the site with a group of other scientists.[/b]
...
Although all those reactors have been shuttered, the plant continues to generate large amounts of radioactive waste — partly because of persistent flooding in some of the waste-storage buildings and reactor 4's turbine hall. Every month, at least 300,000 litres of radioactive water must be pumped out of the structures and stored on site.
...
[b]More than 5,000 cases of thyroid cancer have so far been seen in people who were children at the time of the accident and lived in contaminated areas of the former Soviet Union — a more than ten-fold increase from normal levels (adults were mostly unaffected by the disease). Most of these cases were caused by drinking milk contaminated with radioiodine. Fewer than 20 of these people have died, but the sheer number of cancers, and their rapid onset within 5 years of the accident, surprised many epidemiologists.
...
The latest results from the Ukrainian section of this cohort1 confirm previous findings that the incidence of thyroid cancer is proportional to the size of the dose, with a particularly high risk seen in younger people and in those who were iodine-deficient due to poor diet. The research is having a direct impact in Japan, where those at risk of exposure are being given potassium iodide tablets to prevent the uptake of radio-iodine in their thyroid.
...
But what was the impact on the wider population? Various studies have tried to estimate how many deaths Chernobyl will eventually cause across the whole of Europe, but their answers range from a few thousand to hundreds of thousands3. Cancer causes about a quarter of all deaths in Europe, so teasing out Chernobyl's far-reaching influence would probably be impossible, say epidemiologists.
...
[Den fissionsbaserede kernekraft skulle betingelsesløst give de nødvendige penge til undersøgelserne - det er en del af udgiften ved kernekraft!:]
Further research could provide convincing evidence that Chernobyl's radiation did not significantly harm the wider population, but "we won't know unless we look", says Dillwyn Williams, a cancer researcher at the Strangeways Research Laboratory in Cambridge, UK.
...
It's too early to say how the Chernobyl health studies will help those affected by the Fukushima accident. But Chernobyl has already given the world a lasting lesson on the importance of clear communication during a nuclear disaster, and in the years afterwards.
[/b]
..."

  • 0
  • 0

@Søren,

4) Hvorfor kun "i den vestlige verden"? Er vi bedre end Japan?

Førhen sagde man ellers "indenfor OECD-landene" og "siden 1960". (Dermed hørte Tjernobyl hørte jo til en helt anden verden og windscale til en helt anden tid).

Det er da godt at Japan ikke er en del af den vestlige verden - for så gælder myten jo stadig her. ;-)

Der er grund til at sondre mellem den "vestlige" reaktorteknologi, idet man i Rusland/USSR havde en anden sikkerhedsfilosofi end i Vesten, bl.a. menet de ikke det var nødvendig med en gastæt indeslutning - containmentet. Der sondringen.
At Japan så ikke kommer med selv om de anvender vestlig teknologi kan man da godt stille spørgsmålstegn ved - men tæl dem blot med Søren. Så vidt vides døde ingen jo ved reaktorulykkerne ved Fukushima, mendes dødsulykker med vindmøller er mange.
Egentlig synes jeg sev, at det er ret irrelevant at stille det op på den måde, men vind-folk borer ustandseligt i farerne ved atomenergien - de har endnu ikke opdaget at både vind - og atomenergi reelt er alternativer til fossil energi - "en vindmølle om dagen holder atomkrraften borte" var parolen dengang - og jeg kan se den lever endnu.
Søren, hvornår begynder du at høre efter i timen? Du nævner Windscale endnu engang - Windscale har aldrig været et atomkraftværk, det var en militær plutoniumproducerende reaktor, der brændte i 1957! i de forløbne 55 år siden dengang skulle der være tid nok til at finde ud af denne ene ting.
Jfr. Japan, så snakker ingen om Onagawa-værkerne, som også var udsatte for stort set det samme scenarie som Fukushima.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Onaga...

  • det kunne så sikkert besvare spørgsmålet - å manger vil blot at Søren Lund røber hvor mange, der døde ved Fukushimas havari for at have regnestykket på plads - medens Glenn løber løbsk i Tjernobyl, hvor man er ved at bosætte sig igen i omegnen.

Havde man i stedet haft 20.000 vindmøller på stedet ved Fukushima, så.............?
Gæt selv - du vil jo gerne se vind som alternativ til atomenergien - både i blæsevej og vindstille - ikke?

  • 0
  • 0
Bidrag med din viden – log ind og deltag i debatten