Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday August 30 2016, @02:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the too-cheap-to-meter dept.

Common Dreams reports:

The public cost of cleaning up the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant disaster topped ¥4.2 trillion (roughly [$41] billion) as of March, and is expected to keep climbing, the Japan Times reported [August 28].

That includes costs for radioactive decontamination and compensation payments. Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) will sell off its shares to eventually pay back the cost of decontamination and waste disposal, but the Environment Ministry expects that the overall price of those activities could exceed what TEPCO would get for its shares.

Meanwhile, the taxpayer burden is expected to increase and TEPCO is asking for additional help from the government.

[...] Problems still persist at the nuclear plant, most notably with the highly contaminated water being stored in tanks at the site. [...] "The situation with contaminated water at the site is a ticking time bomb and they don't seem to know what they can do--other than to construct more tanks", [said Aileen Mioko-Smith, an anti-nuclear activist with the group Green Action Japan].

takyon: ¥4.2 trillion is approximately $41 billion at today's exchange rates, not $628 billion. You can reach the author of the Common Dreams article, Nadia Prupis, by the email or Twitter account listed on this page.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30 2016, @02:38AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30 2016, @02:38AM (#395080)

    I have no idea how much coal pollution has cost us. Probably a lot more. But its the difference between 40,000 people dying in car accidents each year and 2,000 people dying all at once in a skyscraper in the middle of manhattan. People notice big events and ignore low-level noise.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30 2016, @03:37AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30 2016, @03:37AM (#395104)
    Yeah I'm curious how many people would get impaired or their life expectancy reduced significantly if they didn't decontaminate stuff and the people moved back (just avoiding the worst areas near the reactor). Would it be worse than say the Japanese moving to live in Beijing in China (regular poor air quality)?

    Not saying I'd recommend doing nothing. Even if the numbers aren't that bad, it would be political + PR suicide...
    • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday August 30 2016, @04:50AM

      by butthurt (6141) on Tuesday August 30 2016, @04:50AM (#395120) Journal

      Three reactors had melt-downs. I wonder whether future earthquakes could cause a change in geometry that would lead to criticality, or whether a future tsunami could lead to criticality when seawater acted as a moderator. In such an event, there could be one or more small explosions and radioactive smoke could be released. One would prefer not to be nearby if that should happen.

      I have the impression that the surrounding area was sparsely populated, and that farming and fishing were the main economic activities. Resumption of farming might result in radioactive dust becoming airborne when fields are ploughed, or radionuclides getting into the food supply if food crops are raised. The latter applies to fishing.

  • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday August 30 2016, @03:56AM

    by butthurt (6141) on Tuesday August 30 2016, @03:56AM (#395107) Journal

    Coal-burning plants are an ongoing source of pollution, and so is the situation at Fukushima.

    Mining coal is a dangerous endeavour; so is the mining of uranium. Coal mining gave us the Aberfan disaster and ongoing underground fires in Germany and Pennsylvania; tailings from uranium mines can release uranium, thorium, radon and heavy metals.

    For entering a coal-burning plant that had been damaged five years ago, a hard hat would be adequate protection. At Fukushima, some areas are too radioactive for people to enter, and robots that were sent in haven't lasted long.

    In a damaged coal power plant, the coal soon stops burning (in a mine, not so much); water can put out the fire. After a fission plant is shut down, fission products continue to decay, producing heat and daughter elements no matter what we do.

    Coal is radioactive, but it cannot form a critical mass. Coal dust can explode; so can a critical mass or a mixture of hydrogen and air.

    Coal plants release polluting gasses (mercury vapour, carbion dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides) during their normal operation, and produce large quantities of ash, much of which is made into cement. Nuclear plants release polluting gasses (noble gasses, specifically xenon-135 and radon, if I'm not mistaken) during their normal operation, and produce small quantities of solid waste that must be handled with great care; some of it can be reused as fuel.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30 2016, @09:41AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30 2016, @09:41AM (#395196)

    This is not an either or scenario. Both is bad. Both needs to avoided.