Trailer: Fukushima 50

January 31, 2021

11 Responses to “Trailer: Fukushima 50”

  1. grindupbaker Says:

    “quickly turn into hydrogen bombs at the brink of explosion” LOL LMFAO. Bloody tripe. Does a team of U.S. of American Navy Seals save the day ? I absolutely decline to watch this smashing actioner unless a team of U.S. of American Navy Seals saves the day.

  2. indy222 Says:

    We love heroes of course… but this is likely to be another gut punch to the prospects for sane nuclear power. Stupid design of a stupidly placed plant, and the stupid result is more anti-nuke hysteria. How is that any more forgivable than the Climate Crock BS we’ve watched Peter debunkd for 10 years? Progressives can be their own worst enemy…. when they’re acting stupid and emotional, just like Conservatives.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      you put your finger on it.
      Stupid design and botched deployment is the tragic story of nuclear power, and we need to learn from that really quickly if we want to be successful deploying clean energy in the next 3 decades.

      • grindupbaker Says:

        Redundancy leading to graceful degradation for 999 out of every 1,000 years costs more money than not having it. The cost saving of forgoing it is precisely the same of those externalized costs of burning carbon that have made it (I’m not sure recently) cheap energy. If more redundancy leading to graceful degradation was incorporated then the cost to supply, install & connect would be more properly compared with other energy supply type costs.

      • John Oneill Says:

        The management of Tepco must have figured that such a tsunami happened about once every thousand years, and that the devastation from it would dwarf any harm from the reactor. Objectively, they were right. The volatile radionucleotides cooked out of the three reactors, and deposited on Japan, totalled about 45 grams of iodine 131 and four kilograms of cesium 137. (Strontium and plutonium have much higher boiling points, and the containment vessels remained intact, unlike at Chernobyl, where the 1300 ton lid of the containment was blown right off. The hydrogen explosions were far smaller than that, and only destroyed the light gauge steel roof cover, not the metre-thick concrete containment.)
        The earthquake and tsunami combined killed nearly twenty thousand people. Radiation killed nobody. The Japanese were much more conservative about exposing their workers to radiation than the Soviets had been, and fallout in the zone was only a fraction of that in Ukraine. Nobody drank the milk tainted with iodine 131, so the crop of thyroid tumours the Soviets experienced never happened. But by mounting an over-vigourous immune response, the Japanese managed to do themselves additional harm, during an already immense crisis. The evacuations, in the middle of winter, of thousands of elderly people, probably caused about a thousand deaths. The worst they risked from staying put was maybe a one percent increased cancer risk over the next twenty years.
        In addition, by turning off, eventually, all their other reactors, which had survived unscathed, the Japanese had to rely on coal and gas, which kill hundreds per year from PM10 particulates, and put about a ton of mercury per year into the environment.
        Japan had planned, in accordance with their climate commitments, to go from about 25% of their power from nuclear to about 50%, by 2030. Current plans call for 20%, with 24% from renewables.

        • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

          While the 2011 tsunami washed exceptionally high, some of the backup generators were set low enough to fail with a more common tsunami height (10-13m above sea level). TEPCO based safety on models of mag 7.5 earthquakes when quakes > 8.0 were plausible in the studied area.

          There’s always a human tendency to cheap out on safety designs once the cost of protecting against the high-end disasters becomes clear. This is why I prefer abandonment over defense (protective sea walls, etc.) for most communities along the US Atlantic and GoM coasts: They spend the money up front for an expensive project, but not quite high enough (costs rise faster than the height of the bulwarks), then end up losing the community (and tax base) when a plausibly high-end event happens. Yes, a few communities will beat the odds, but the overall losses along the coast will be money wasted that could have been spent on migration support.


        • Excellent comment John. Radiation can certainly be harmful and should be limited, but it also needs to be put in perspective. Chernobyl had three other reactors that they somehow managed to keep running for a decade. According to the 3D diagram in the book, Midnight at Chernobyl by Adam Higginbothem, reactor number 3 was in the same building! I suspect Fukushima is being overcleaned.

  3. redskylite Says:

    Peter – Many thanks for drawing attention to the trailer on “Crocks”, which shows some aspects of the catastrophic events that happened on March 11 2011. I would like to watch the first Japanese film to directly depict the disaster, which was directed by Setsurō Wakamatsu and written by Yōichi Maekawa, based on the non-fiction book by Ryusho Kadota, titled On the Brink: The Inside Story of Fukushima Daiichi, and hopefully gain valuable insights to the events.
    —————————————————————————————————
    “Japan Times: Fukushima 50′: A disaster film with real-life roots”

    “Does the film fudge or elide facts? I will leave detailed answers to experts, but other than not naming certain names, “Fukushima 50” strives, boldly for a mainstream film, to tell certain home truths, from the profits-first mindset of the plant’s operators to the panic and confusion that, unseen by the general public, nearly overwhelmed workers when plant roofs blew sky high. That they went on to avert a Chernobyl-like apocalypse is why I can still write this review in Tokyo instead of a thankfully never-used evacuation zone. Or why I can write it at all.”

    https://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2020/03/05/films/film-reviews/fukushima-50/


  4. Expecting the usual “nuclear power is nearly harmless if managed perfectly” apologetics, I offer the following

    Deaths due to reactor/fuel processing accidents:
    Windscale – at least 100
    Kyshtym disaster – at least 50 probably in excess of 1,000
    Chernobyl – at least 78 directly
    Tokaimura – 2
    From this directly caused deaths total at least 230 and probably as many 1,300 over 60 years from reactor/fuel processing accidents.

    Certain deaths related to the use of nuclear fuels have been ignored such as radiation & cancer deaths due to uranium mining. Another figures I have ignored are the submarine accidents (SL1, K27 & K-431) although these are directly attributable to the reactor failures. A related matter is the contamination of the sea floor by submarine reactors and nuclear weapons.

    The toll from Chernobyl and Fukushima would have been far higher if rapid and strict evacuation had not been enforced.

    Thus the number of deaths due to reactors and fuel processing is possibly as low 4 per annum, more probably 20 pa and could be as many as 100 pa in radiation related accidents.

    Over 20 years and similarly ignoring deaths due to mining toxic substances and construction accidents, the number of deaths due to solar and wind power = 0

    • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

      I would guess that burning coal has caused more radiation-related disease and death than the nuclear industry: Traditional coal burning sends out plumes which contain radioactive particles in a convenient, easy-to-breathe format.

  5. Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

    NASA site sighted but lost in the maze of data. Deaths attributed to power generation per unit energy, nukes are the lowest of conventional power by a country mile. In fact, remove the external premature deaths from Chernobyl, the numbers are lost in the background of ‘normal’ industrial deaths. Compare to particulate air pollution is estimated to cause 9 million premature deaths PA. ( The Lancet, not long ago.)
    Note: Chernobyl was a heap of junk which should not have been built, will not be built again and is irrelevant now. Fukushima, half century old in wrong place. CAGW will be worse.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: