Level 7 and beyond

[louis wu]

Playing with numbers: these are human lives.

 

Earth population is about 6,917,375,600, roughly 7 billions.

With a life expectancy of 80 years for all (that is unlikely), we can estimate that 7 billions people will die in the next 80 years, that makes an average of 87,500,000 deaths/year for mathematical reasons. Mathematics are killing more people than Chernobyl, about 3000 times more.

 

The question is that 30000 deaths is not to be allowed for an accident.

I am tired of being reassured by technocrats who got it wrong, I understand plently Jamies concerns, and IMHO the price to pay being warned by moderators here is very small in regard with deaths of innocent people.

I don't understand the point of vue of defending TEPCO and the Japanese policy. To build a nuclear power plant in a seismic region is criminal. The power plant did NOT stand, the accident happened, people will die, there are responsibilties, responsables exist, they have names and address. I don't want to be their advocate.

 

There are plans for building a nuclear power plant in Turkey, in another well known seismic region. It is criminal too.

michel123456 

You seem to be prone to the lack of rational consideration of risks that I was alluding to.

30000 people is one possible death toll from Chernobyl. This is spread out over many decades. This death toll is unacceptable to you, from an accident that occurs with a frequency of ~ 25 years: assuming that Fukushima releases about the same total radiation as Chernobyl (something that seems very unlikely).

That fossil fuel power systems cause 10 times that number of preventable deaths each and every year seems OK by you.

 

A simple, rational, risk assessment approach says that fossil fuels are far more risky; that getting the fossil fuel set-up to clean up their act will save far more lives than irrational concentration on nuclear power.

 

A consideration of the numbers shows where the most human lives are to be saved.

[swansont]

The question is that 30000 deaths is not to be allowed for an accident.

 

Why?

 

Why is it not to be allowed for one accident that occurs every 10 years, but is (apparently) acceptable if spread out to many incidents that occur every year, and result in even greater loss of life? 30,000 auto deaths happen in the US, and a similar number in Europe, every month. Is that criminal as well?

 

Why does this one area have zero tolerance, a standard not being applied elsewhere?

[insane_alien]

Its also worth pointing out that of those 30000 deaths, not all of them have happened yet.

 

Now, I don't know about you guys but, if I had been involved in an industrial accident and lived a good long life after it and eventually died of cancer that may or may not have came about due to that accident then I wouldn't exactly be very miffed about it.

 

I mean, to me it would seem, after 25 years, even though you can find a statistical relationship, any cancers contracted from now onwards may not have been caused by chernobyl.

 

There's far to much play on numbers and exagerating a statistical significance from the microbial value it is up to a giant obese hippo of a number.

[michel123456]

Why?

 

Why is it not to be allowed for one accident that occurs every 10 years, but is (apparently) acceptable if spread out to many incidents that occur every year, and result in even greater loss of life? 30,000 auto deaths happen in the US, and a similar number in Europe, every month. Is that criminal as well?

 

Why does this one area have zero tolerance, a standard not being applied elsewhere?

 

What is the probability for you to take your car tomorrow, broke your tire and kill someone by accident, I guess much more than any of the probability for a Fukushima to happen.

Well, what will you tell the judge: it is in the probability, Your Honor? No. You will be judged and condamned for homicide. For only one death. Not for 10 or 30000.

 

The ones who decide to construct Fukushima decided to take a risk, their tire broke and they killed.

 

michel123456

You seem to be prone to the lack of rational consideration of risks that I was alluding to.

 

Yes. One death is too much. It seems evident that you don't feel concerned, you are measuring deaths of other people, you are not part of it. If you had to play your own life at russian roulette, will you do it? Even in 1 chance over a billion? (actually 30000/7billions or 1 over 233 thousands if I am correct)

Edited April 17, 2011 by michel123456

[insane_alien]

What is the probability for you to take your car tomorrow, broke your tire and kill someone by accident, I guess much more than any of the probability for a Fukushima to happen.

Well, what will you tell the judge: it is in the probability, Your Honor? No. You will be judged and condamned for homicide. For only one death. Not for 10 or 30000.

 

The ones who decide to construct Fukushima decided to take a risk, their tire broke and they killed.

 

 

 

Yes. One death is too much. It seems evident that you don't feel concerned, you are measuring deaths of other people, you are not part of it. If you had to play your own life at russian roulette, will you do it? Even in 1 chance over a billion?

 

By following your logic then nobody should do anything because then there is a risk of somebody dying. BUT WAIT! if we do nothing then everybody WILL die as they won't get food, water or sanitary conditions!

 

seriously, risk-free is an unattainable ideal. the true goal is 'safe enough'

 

Fukushima was hit by a catastrophic earthquake and tsunami, and soem of the biggest ones on record. It was an unforseeable scenario. there had been no record of an earthquake that big in that area. They knew there were earthquakes in the region(what dolt wouldn't) and they designed it to handle the biggest ever recorded.

 

and you know what, I'd say that is a suitible amount of risk management. sure, a bigger one could have hit the day after it came on line but the chances were low. very low. astronomically low. and thats the point. the risks were low enough that it was deemed acceptable. just like you deem the risks of driving, walking and eating are low enough when compared with the benefits that it is a worth prospect.

 

nuclear energy is safer than EVERY other form of electricity generation. but hey, lets stop all of them then.

[michel123456]

By following your logic then nobody should do anything because then there is a risk of somebody dying. BUT WAIT! if we do nothing then everybody WILL die as they won't get food, water or sanitary conditions!

 

seriously, risk-free is an unattainable ideal. the true goal is 'safe enough'

 

Fukushima was hit by a catastrophic earthquake and tsunami, and soem of the biggest ones on record. It was an unforseeable scenario. there had been no record of an earthquake that big in that area. They knew there were earthquakes in the region(what dolt wouldn't) and they designed it to handle the biggest ever recorded.

 

and you know what, I'd say that is a suitible amount of risk management. sure, a bigger one could have hit the day after it came on line but the chances were low. very low. astronomically low. and thats the point. the risks were low enough that it was deemed acceptable. just like you deem the risks of driving, walking and eating are low enough when compared with the benefits that it is a worth prospect.

 

nuclear energy is safer than EVERY other form of electricity generation. but hey, lets stop all of them then.

 

You are misunderstanding my comments.

What I say is it would be insane to build a nuclear power plant upon an active vulcano like Etna, isn't it? So, why building upon a ridge? It is statistically sure that a seism higher than the recorded ones will happen. We don't have records that stand for that many time. The same goes for the coast of California.

[swansont]

What is the probability for you to take your car tomorrow, broke your tire and kill someone by accident, I guess much more than any of the probability for a Fukushima to happen.

Well, what will you tell the judge: it is in the probability, Your Honor? No. You will be judged and condamned for homicide. For only one death. Not for 10 or 30000.

 

Do we actually do this — convict someone for every vehicular death? No. Negligence has to be present.

 

 

Yes. One death is too much.

 

Again — why isn't this standard being held to any other activities? Why don't we plan for the worst tragedy imaginable in our safety planning? Why isn't the failure to do that considered negligent?

[Ophiolite]

Hal, I'm not sure I have confidence in your conclusions concerning radiation and the Fukushima incident. You state this:

Lemur , I have perfectly good information about radiation and the radioactivity that goes with it .

 

And yet earlier you has said this:

Radiation as I see it is what has been radiated and radioactivity is one of its properties .

Radioactivity is not a property of radiation. Radiation is a consequence of radioactivity. That's the complete reverse. I'm left pondering the reliability of all your statements.

 

Michael,

I am disappointed in your illogical approach to risk. As others have pointed out, if we wished every activity to be risk free we would find it impossible to function. Risks need to be properly measured against the reward, but they have to be accepted at some level.

 

You object to building a nuclear plant in a seismic zone. I have two points in response to that:

 

1) Anywhere on the surface of the planet could be subject to a bolide impact that could breach the reactor vessel. Do you therefore propose that no nuclear plants be placed anywhere on the planet? Should all human habitation in tornado alley now be evacuated to avoid the death and destruction that must surely follow from dwelling there?

 

2) The plant stood up to the seismic shocks with no problems. The tsunami highlighted a weakness in design philosophy that had no primary relationship to the integrity of the reactor. Each time you turn on your computer you have made a choice to accept that kind of risk. Blaming the nuclear industry when the culprits are the electricity users is dishonest and blinkered.

[swansont]

There's also the issue that the tsunami killed more than 13,000 people (with a similar number still missing). Why wasn't it negligence to have failed to build an adequate defense against that? Why have we not abandoned dwellings near the coast where a tsunami might strike?

[Hal.]

Here I will define what my view is to clear up any confusion . Radioactivity is the spontaneous disintegration of unstable nuclei with the emission of one or more types of radiation . I learned that at 12 years of age and have always thought that . Radiation is what has been emitted ( radiated ) and this radiation is radioactive ( a property of radiation ) .

 

From the point of view of safety , I would hope I don't influence some of the nuclear engineers who have a look around here now and again , causing a big bang in the process . I am only the half educated fool in a world full of even bigger fools .

 

The term ' radioactivity ' is also applied to radio receiver activity . This is when a radio receiver senses radiation . There are multiple meanings for terms .

Edited April 18, 2011 by hal_2011

[michel123456]

Michael,

I am disappointed in your illogical approach to risk. As others have pointed out, if we wished every activity to be risk free we would find it impossible to function. Risks need to be properly measured against the reward, but they have to be accepted at some level.

 

Agree. But location in this case propulsed the risk. If you go as a tourist to Japan or any other seismic region, the risk to encounter earthquake is quite low. If you stay there upon a ridge waiting for 40 years, the risk is high. Don't you agree? it is like playing the same number at lottery for 40 years, though I think the odds for the quake are bigger than the lottery.

 

You object to building a nuclear plant in a seismic zone.

Sure. I thought it was evident.

 

I have two points in response to that:

 

1) Anywhere on the surface of the planet could be subject to a bolide impact that could breach the reactor vessel. Do you therefore propose that no nuclear plants be placed anywhere on the planet?

The risk is the same for any location.

 

Should all human habitation in tornado alley now be evacuated to avoid the death and destruction that must surely follow from dwelling there?

 

Inhabitants made the free choice to live there, and to build their house in wood (why do they do that?). I guess inhabitants of Fukushiyama-town were never asked if they want a nuclear power plant next to them. Do you want the next nuclear power plant to be build next to your home? Will you agree with the risk assesment some other people will decide for you in your place?

 

 

2) The plant stood up to the seismic shocks with no problems. The tsunami highlighted a weakness in design philosophy that had no primary relationship to the integrity of the reactor.

That is a tragic euphemism.

 

Each time you turn on your computer you have made a choice to accept that kind of risk. Blaming the nuclear industry when the culprits are the electricity users is dishonest and blinkered.

 

There is no nuclear plant in the country I live . Come to Greece! The culprits are not the users. Users pay for their electricity. Japanese payed for electricity with yens, some of them will pay with death electricity they will not consume.

Edited April 18, 2011 by michel123456

[zapatos]

The probability of a catastrophic failure is roughly the same no matter where you build the plant. You determine the likelihood and impact of of an earthquake (or whatever risk you are addressing), and then mitigate that risk to an acceptable level. Let's call that level X.

 

If you are in earthquake prone areas you build in a high level of mitigation to get to X. If you are not in earthquake prone areas you build in a lower level of mitigation to get to X.

 

Doesn't matter if the plant is in Japan or the middle of the US, exceeding your risk mitigation by the same amount will lead to the same level of failure.

Edited April 18, 2011 by zapatos

[michel123456]

The probability of a catastrophic failure is roughly the same no matter where you build the plant. You determine the likelihood and impact of of an earthquake (or whatever risk you are addressing), and then mitigate that risk to an acceptable level. Let's call that level X.

 

If you are in earthquake prone areas you build in a high level of mitigation to get to X. If you are not in earthquake prone areas you build in a lower level of mitigation to get to X.

 

Doesn't matter if the plant is in Japan or the middle of the US, exceeding your risk mitigation by the same amount will lead to the same level of failure.

 

Say that to a politician and he will agree to build on an erupting vulcano.

Or was that sarcasm?

Edited April 18, 2011 by michel123456

[zapatos]

Say that to a politician and he will agree to build on an erupting vulcano.

Or was that sarcasm?

No sarcasm.

 

A nuclear plant on the coast of Japan can withstand a stronger earthquake than a nuclear plant in the middle of the US.

A nuclear plant on the coast of Japan builds in more ability to survive a tsunami than a nuclear plant in the middle of the US.

 

You evaluate your risks and mitigate them by reducing the impact or likelihood or occurrence, thereby bringing that risk to an acceptable level. The mitigation regarding an erupting volcano is probably to choose another location, thereby reducing that risk to near zero.

 

I imagine you do the same thing every day.

Is this street safe to walk down? If it is dangerous, I can drive a car instead, or maybe carry a gun. Maybe I just choose another street to traverse.

 

The big difference between you and the nuclear industry is they probably do a much better of evaluating and mitigating risk than you do.

Edited April 18, 2011 by zapatos

[michel123456]

No sarcasm.

 

A nuclear plant on the coast of Japan can withstand a stronger earthquake than a nuclear plant in the middle of the US.

A nuclear plant on the coast of Japan builds in more ability to survive a tsunami than a nuclear plant in the middle of the US.

 

We have seen that.

 

You evaluate your risks and mitigate them by reducing the impact or likelihood or occurrence, thereby bringing that risk to an acceptable level. The mitigation regarding an erupting volcano is probably to choose another location, thereby reducing that risk to near zero.

Correct.

 

I imagine you do the same thing every day.

Is this street safe to walk down? If it is dangerous, I can drive a car instead, or maybe carry a gun. Maybe I just choose another street to traverse.

Yes.

 

The big difference between you and the nuclear industry is they probably do a much better of evaluating and mitigating risk than you do.

 

No. They are doing that very scientifically and caught wrong in the specific case. I do that very empirically and still living so far.

[zapatos]

No. They are doing that very scientifically and caught wrong in the specific case. I do that very empirically and still living so far.

Huh. So if I got them and you into a room and asked you both to lay out your methodology for risk management, you believe your methodology would be shown to be better. I'm impressed.

 

Using your standard for which is the better methodology, I have determined that driving fast is safer than driving slowly. My mother was in an accident on a nearby road while driving 30 mph. I did not get in an accident driving on that same road at 60 mph.

[michel123456]

Huh. So if I got them and you into a room and asked you both to lay out your methodology for risk management, you believe your methodology would be shown to be better. I'm impressed.

 

Thank you.

 

If a client ask me to design a conference centre for a thousand people 5 floors underground, there are 2 ways to solve the security question:

1. put a fire extinguishing system, alarm system, calculate the width of corridors & staircases, put signalization, backup lighting, smoke exhaust, etc.

2. tell the client it is bad idea and propose another location on ground floor (with all the above precautions).

 

Point 2 is empirical.

 

Point 3 is to take responsibilities and refuse the job.

Edited April 18, 2011 by michel123456

[zapatos]

Thank you.

 

If a client ask me to design a conference centre for a thousand people 5 floors underground, there are 2 ways to solve the security question:

1. put a fire extinguishing system, alarm system, calculate the width of corridors & staircases, put signalization, backup lighting, smoke exhaust, etc.

2. tell the client it is bad idea and propose another location on ground floor (with all the above precautions).

 

Point 2 is empirical.

 

Point 3 is to take responsibilities and refuse the job.

 

I presume you feel those involved in all of the following projects have made a grave error.

 

Buenos Aires, capital of Argentina, has an extensive amount of underground city in its Subte (the oldest subway system in South America).

Sydney has a series of underground shopping malls around one of the city's underground stations Town Hall.

Montreal Underground city, or la ville souterraine in French, is the largest underground network in the world. Its 32 km of tunnel cover more than 41 city blocks (about 12 km²).

Toronto (PATH), comprises 27 km of walkways and 1,200 shops.

Vancouver has two shopping malls, Pacific Centre and Vancouver Centre, that are interconnected and extend over 3 city blocks, containing more than 200 stores that weaves above and below ground level.

Gibraltar has a longer length of road underground than it does on the surface. The Rock is riddled with tunnels, many built during World War II, and including hospitals, etc., but some date back to Napoleonic times.

The top five largest underground "cities" (地下街, chikagai) in Japan are all shopping districts:

Tenjin Underground City in Chūō-ku, Fukuoka, Fukuoka Prefecture, JapanCrysta Nagahori in Chūō-ku, Osaka — 81,765 m²

Yaesu Chikagai in Chūō, Tokyo — 73,253 m²

Kawasaki Azalea in Kawasaki-ku, Kawasaki — 56,704 m²

Central Park Chikagai in Naka-ku, Nagoya — 56,370 m²

Diamor Osaka in Kita-ku, Osaka — 42,977 m²

Osaka has enormous underground networks in the Umeda, Namba, and Shinsaibashi districts, in which Umeda alone includes over 1,200 retail stores and restaurants, as well as subway and intercity rail stations.

The CityLink Mall offers over 60,000 square feet of underground retail space and connects the City Hall MRT Station with Suntec City, the Esplanade - Theatres on the Bay, and other developments in the Marina Centre area. It is also linked to the Esplanade MRT Station on the Circle MRT Line.

Albany, New York - Empire State Plaza in Albany, New York features an underground city which contains banks, a YMCA, restaurants, several food courts, retailers, a police station, a bus station, and a visitor's Center.

 

Crystal City, Virginia - A residential and commercial area of Arlington County, Virginia next to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Crystal City features an extensive underground city connecting its hotels, office buildings, and apartment towers and is lined with 173 shops, restaurants, banks, medical, and other services.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_city

[michel123456]

I presume you feel those involved in all of the following projects have made a grave error.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_city

 

Yes.

 

----------------------

 

edit:

I visited The CityLink Mall mentioned above in Singapore. It is not 5 floors underground, it has a lot of escape routes very close or directly to exterior. It is well-done. I suppose the others on the list too. Architects tend to be responsible.

Edited April 18, 2011 by michel123456

[zapatos]

Yes.

 

----------------------

 

edit:

I visited The CityLink Mall mentioned above in Singapore. It is not 5 floors underground, it has a lot of escape routes very close or directly to exterior. It is well-done. I suppose the others on the list too. Architects tend to be responsible.

You said 'yes' they made a grave error, but then followed that with an edit indicating that perhaps (as I interpreted your remark) they did not make a grave error. Can you please clarify for me?

[michel123456]

I answered too fast, I am really sorry for that. I doubt any one of the list has a conference center on the minus 5 floor. Anyway I cannot judge something I have never seen the plans, it like judging a book you have not read. You can consider the "yes" answer invalid.

 

As I wrote before, the only one from the list i know something about has nothing to do with my example.

 

It is not the place here to begin a diatribe about security of underground spaces, just think that vertical distances are very different than horizontal ones (1 metre in height, that is 6 steps of stair) is very different than 1 metre horizontal (about 1,5 normal steps), that stairs are kind of bottlenecks in fire exits corridors, that smoke is the main killing factor in a building fire, and that smoke goes up faster than you.

 

After that I think that it is maybe easier to understand why seismic regions are not suitable for nuclear power plants than to explain why deep sub-basements are not suitable for public spaces.

[Ophiolite]

Here I will define what my view is to clear up any confusion . Radioactivity is the spontaneous disintegration of unstable nuclei with the emission of one or more types of radiation . I learned that at 12 years of age and have always thought that . Radiation is what has been emitted ( radiated ) and this radiation is radioactive ( a property of radiation ) .

You are mistaken. The radiation is not radioactive. The material which is disintegrating to generate the radiation is radioactive. You learned things incorrectly when you were twelve.

[Hal.]

In his book , Radio-Activity , 2nd ed. 1905 , E Rutherford , MacDonald Professor of Physics , McGill University , Montreal , Canada , clearly states while writing about Radium , Thorium and Actinium , that , " the emanations from the three active bodies all possess similar radio-active properties " .

 

 

 

 

[mooeypoo]

In his book , Radio-Activity , 2nd ed. 1905 , E Rutherford , MacDonald Professor of Physics , McGill University , Montreal , Canada , clearly states while writing about Radium , Thorium and Actinium , that , " the emanations from the three active bodies all possess similar radio-active properties " .

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. The emanations have radioactive propreties; the emanations are not radiactive themselves. Showing radioactive properties implies that the BODIES that produce the emanations ARE radioactive.

[swansont]

In his book , Radio-Activity , 2nd ed. 1905 , E Rutherford , MacDonald Professor of Physics , McGill University , Montreal , Canada , clearly states while writing about Radium , Thorium and Actinium , that , " the emanations from the three active bodies all possess similar radio-active properties " .

 

Dollars to donuts he merely meant that the kind of radiation was the same. Not that it matters very much.

 

 

It was 1905 (or earlier even, because this is a book, and it is the second edition). So it was less than five years after they had categorized radiation as alpha, beta and gamma.

 

Two years before he confirmed alphas as helium ions. Six years before he came up with a beginning of our current model of the atom, so the concept of an atomic nucleus hadn't even been established.

 

 

IOW, before they really knew what radioactivity was.