
Plutonium is Forever - evo_9
http://www.cringely.com/2011/03/plutonium-is-forever/
======
ErrantX
A meta point: Cringely is one of those bloggers who, previously, I have slated
here on HN - I find his insights into technology poor, badly thought out or
both. To make a bad joke; he makes me cringe.

So I've been (pleasantly) surprised to find his insights into Japan of actual
interest and use. His tone is still a little breathy, and he tends to over-
react to some items, but there is some real understanding of the
culture/technology involved (I guess a fortunate meet up of having worked
heavily in the nuclear industry _and_ Japan).

Which goes to show; never completely dismiss commentators, one day they might
be useful reading.

~~~
pkteison
It actually worries me. When I know something about the topic, I find his
writing awful and full of problems and obviously dumb. Then, in another area
where I know nothing, it seems decent. Is this because it is actually
similarly dumb in this other area also, and I just don't know enough to spot
it?

~~~
snippyhollow
Didn't you post this same commentary already? Anyway I agree with you, get my
+1; Sry, I mean".".

~~~
pkteison
Nope, I post rarely. And I scanned the comments for something similar that I
could just upvote instead. If it's here, I missed it.

------
lutorm
Something to be aware of: The fact that a radioactive material "is around
forever" also implies that it is not very radioactive. You can't make a
material that is both intensely radioactive _and_ stays around forever,
because it's the radioactivity itself that makes it go away.

~~~
lisper
Plutonium is indeed not "intensely radioactive." The problem with Pu is that
if you ingest it, it stays in your body so you can get enough radiation over
time to cause cancer. So you're not going to get radiation sickness from Pu,
it's just a very potent carcinogen.

~~~
joe_the_user
I'm not particularly in favor of nuclear energy.

But it seems the danger of plutonium in particular may be exaggerated. I've
mostly read the wikipedia article.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity>

 _Several populations of people who have been exposed to plutonium dust (e.g.
people living down-wind of Nevada test sites, Hiroshima survivors, nuclear
facility workers, and "terminally ill" patients injected with Pu in 1945–46 to
study Pu metabolism) have been carefully followed and analyzed.

These studies generally do not show especially high plutonium toxicity or
plutonium-induced cancer results.[89] "There were about 25 workers from Los
Alamos National Laboratory who inhaled a considerable amount of plutonium dust
during the 1940's; according to the hot-particle theory, each of them has a
99.5% chance of being dead from lung cancer by now, but there has not been a
single lung cancer among them."[95][96]_ (etc, it's not something you'd want
to ingest mind you).

Any counter-references are welcome.

------
wcoenen
The plutonium was only found in trace amounts comparable to the amounts left
behind by nearby nuclear weapons tests: <http://mitnse.com/2011/03/30/news-
updates/>

~~~
lukeschlather
In disaster management, you need to go big early. Start getting several
projects under way, so if any of them are needed they can jump into effect as
soon as the need is clear. Hopefully the contamination is minor, but we
already know there's likely to be some significant cesium contamination for a
while now, and Japan should have half a dozen task forces starting with the
assumption that technology X will deal with the contamination, and figuring
out what they need to do to implement it.

------
pasbesoin
This disaster has caused me to revisit my concerns regarding nuclear energy.

# One of the most challenging technologies ever developed, is under the
control of politicians and bankers. A recipe in itself for technical disaster.

# Public concerns, under this regime, end up being counter-productive. "No new
nukes" means extending the life of the oldest, most vulnerable technology.

# Human society has demonstrated no stability, sociologically,
technologically, nor otherwise, approaching even vaguely the time frames
required to safely utilize this technology. It is a huge bet, and burden, on
future society -- on the entire planet, actually.

# Nuclear resources on this planet are limited, and unique in their
performance profile. There may come a time when we need them for better uses,
e.g. early space travel. Forgoing e.g. renewable energy resources for the sake
of this "quick fix" is, in the long term, squandering an irreplaceable
resource. (Call me when someone finally gets fusion to work.)

~~~
InclinedPlane
On the other hand it's important to weigh the risks of nuclear power fairly,
relative to other power sources. These reactor accidents are novel,
noteworthy, and dramatic, but how serious are these accidents in proper
context?

Jumbo jet crashes are similarly dramatic and noteworthy, yet air travel
remains one of the safest forms of transportation available, by a significant
margin. Is the same bias for flashy and scary events happening with nuclear
power?

Fukushima and Chernobyl are notable, but so is the failure of Fujinuma Dam
(also due to the Tohoku earthquake), and the failure of Banqiao dam, and the
Texas City disaster.

So far the record of the non-Soviet civilian nuclear power industry compares
favorably with that of other industries and power sources, even including
extrapolating some rather severe further evolutions of the Fukushima reactor
disaster factored in.

~~~
Tichy
"yet air travel remains one of the safest forms of transportation available"

Doesn't that depend on how you measure it, like accidents per miles or
accidents per hours? Even if it would be safest by miles, I don't think it
would follow that the safest way to get to work every morning would be by
plane. It only works because airplanes go long distances, and accidents most
frequently happen during starting or landing. In short, the comparison is not
even very useful.

The question is also do we have to fly so much/do we need so much energy. If
there were no airplanes, would people just travel the same distances by car? I
doubt it.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Whether you measure by hour or by mile air travel is still comparatively safe
(1/4th as many fatalities per hour and 1/60th as many fatalities per mile,
compared to automobiles).

~~~
anamax
> Whether you measure by hour or by mile air travel is still comparatively
> safe

The problem with that measure is that air accidents don't correlate with
either hours or miles, but with takeoffs and landings.

The comparable incident for cars is probably intersections.

Yes, each plane trip involves only one takeoff and landing while each car trip
usually involves multiple intersections, but that just means that simple
comparisons don't tell us very much.

~~~
InclinedPlane
What's important for humans is whether spending time in an airplane or in a
car is more dangerous and whether choosing to use an airplane or a car for a
trip is more dangerous. In either case the airplane is safer than the car.

~~~
tedunangst
Most car crashes occur near the home, at distances that make air travel
impractical. Who drives to the airport to fly 3 miles? Comparing "car miles
driven on trips" to air miles would be more enlightening.

------
dy
Some interesting insights into the culture of Japan (and corporations both
Japanese and American). Is there a way we could help that would be more
amenable to the Japanese culture and way of handling things?

Saving face is an important aspect of Asian cultures and if we are truly
trying to help them on humanitarian grounds, we should try to become more
effective rather than bemoan the fact that they have pride in their culture.

It is an interesting test these days to think how would America respond to
foreign help/intervention - I didn't follow what happened post-Katrina but it
seems like we also downplayed foreign aid and focused on American rescue
efforts.

~~~
wisty
My understanding of face is, you first have to understand that East Asians are
often _terrible_ verbal communicators. Americans _say_ that "actions speak
louder than words", but in Japan they mean it (even if they don't say it).

I think that if you tell them that rescue teams (or nuclear scientists) are
en-route, it's wouldn't be seen as piss-poor communication on your behalf, but
a unconditional act of friendship. Asking them if they want help will most
likely get a "no".

I think you may also need to have already made connections with the right
people.

------
samgranger
All nuclear plants should switch to Thorium to be honest. Much safer and
there's so much available, it's crazy. Shame that it didn't get researched
that much since it's not so good for making nukes.

------
raleec
I plead ignorance. Why does a nuclear power station need an external power
source? Obviously there is a good reason, but my sleep deprived brain can't
fathom it.

~~~
chris_j
Very simply, when a nuclear reactor stops, the fission products in the fuel
rods continue to decay and therefore continue to generate heat. A lot of heat.
An external power source is needed to take that heat away from the fuel.
Failing to keep the reactor cool can potentially be rather catastrophic.

There is lots of information online. Why not start here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safety#Failure_modes_of...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safety#Failure_modes_of_nuclear_power_plants)

~~~
caf
Spent fuel rods even continue to generate a nontrivial amount of heat months
after they've been removed from the reactor - one of the problems at Fukushima
is the spent fuel pools (which are located near the top of the reactor
buildings, outside the secondary containment).

------
fady
Watch this, if you have not already.

[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5384001427276447319...](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5384001427276447319&hl=en#)

------
amitraman1
Fix problems early and often.

I currently work at Japanese company in San Jose, but I don't see this type of
behavior. The caveat is that I've only worked for a year here, so I may not be
exposed yet.

I'd really like to know if Japanese society looks down on people who have
embarrassed themselves. The executives must have a reason to prevent
embarrassment and risk lives.

------
gyom
The comment about people who wished that they had written books, in opposition
to wishing to actually write one, resonates with me.

"But it’s like those people I meet on airplanes who find out what I do for a
living and tell me they would really like to write a book: what they mean is
that they would like tohave written a book."

------
Duff
Now I'm starting to get worried. This has been up for 2 hours, and typically
the "atomic trolls" would have at least 5-6 comments up about how all of this
is nothing to worry about. So I guess this is truly bad.

~~~
mchouza
I'm no "atomic troll" and radioactive contamination at Fukushima is
potentially a significant problem. But the detected plutonium levels are
almost insignificant compared to the detected Cs-137 contamination (whose
half-life is 30 years, not months):

[http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-
com/release/betu11_e/im...](http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-
com/release/betu11_e/images/110328e14.pdf) (Pu)
[http://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfil...](http://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/03/28/1304097_2810.pdf)
(Cs-137)

The activity of Cs-137 is orders of magnitude greater.

~~~
Duff
Since day 1, I've been reading things like "Unless something catastrophic and
unexpected happens, things are ok."

The problem is, catastrophic and unexpected things keep happening. I find the
whole thing really depressing, as I think long-term, nuclear power is the best
source of energy. But how do you implement it properly? That I don't know.

~~~
rhizome
That probably has something to do with why you aren't a nuke plant designer.

------
philthy
The plant should have been dismantled, flooded, and buried within 24 hours of
the emergency generators going down. They knew how bad it was/is, this all
could have been prevented.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
...

It is simply not possible to dismantle a nuclear reactor that close after
shutdown -- the power produced by radioactive decay heat right after shutdown
is in the order of 10MW, and the core is incredibly hot for weeks. If they had
done everything as well as they possibly could, they would not be any closer
to dismantling the plants than they are today. The best course would have been
to maintain cooling so that nothing would have been damaged -- they tried this
and failed. The failures in their actions are not asking for more help
earlier, not in the basic course of action they took. The idea that the
reactors should have been buried with 24 hours of the emergency generators
going down betrays basic lack of knowledge of the facts of the situation.
Should you have tried to bury a core that has been active less than a day
before without considerable active cooling, it would have simply melted it's
way to the water table.

The total amount of plutonium that has been released into the environment so
far is minuscule. It is significant because it serves as an unmistakable
indicator that the cladding for the rods has melted, meaning that should any
containment fail now, the results would be catastrophic. But we knew that --
TEPCO said that the cladding was melting on 14th of March. Still, unless
something unexpected and catastrophic happens now, the nuclear side of this
disaster will still kill more people in Germany than Japan.

~~~
3am
Germany?

~~~
pjscott
They've temporarily shut off all their nuclear plants constructed before 1980.
They need to get power from _somewhere_ , and nuclear power has the lowest
number of deaths per terawatt-hour of any currently-viable competing energy
source.

Coal pollutes the atmosphere and kills miners (among other things). Natural
gas has an unpleasant tendency to explode during handling, and is considerably
more expensive than coal. And so on.

~~~
3am
I think that last thing is inaccurate. Because of better efficiency, simpler
plant design, and no fly ash disposal natural gas generated electricity is a
little cheaper at current prices. This was a surprise to me, because coal can
be 15-70% the price per BTU vs natural gas (coal prices and energy density
vary by region).

Nuclear may have the lowest number of deaths/power, but technically the Space
Shuttle was the safest way to fly from 1977 to 1986.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
I'd like to point out that even if there were a Chernobyl every two weeks,
nuclear would still kill less than coal.

I'm not necessarily that pro-nuclear, I just cannot fathom why all the outrage
in power production seems to be directed towards nuclear while coal, that
kills ~2700 people worldwide _every day_ is still being used.

~~~
3am
What did I say that made you think I wasn't aware of how destructive coal
generate power is? I don't need to point out why people are talking so much
more about nuclear power safety than coal safety over the past month or so.

