rpg I'm perfectly aware of that. What you don't seem to know is the difference between a physicist and an engineer. I do I am a physicist. I have worked most of my career with engineers. Im not one, nor is Ziggy. It's engineers who build and fix things.

According to CNN at 4.40 this afternoon there are 50 people working in these reactors to prevent a major release of radio activity and putting their own lives at risk . They have several days of exposure to this radiation already and are heroes needing our respect

Samples of radio active dust from helicopters from the US aircraft carrier being analyzed by the Pentagon and Japanese scientists are monitoring what is happening. People on this list need to wait till we know what has happened and why before making silly comments

Excellent points Jedimaster.

Shadow Minister

"1 The Plant was one of the first in Japan built in the 70s before the 3rd generation of safety upgrades, and cannot be compared to those being built today, but still has many more safety devices than Chernobyl such as a concrete containment vessel."

Any future nuclear facilities (being built in say 100 years) will be pushing the same old line ie. "cannot be compared to those built in 2011".

Point is you would have been out there spruiking the pro-nuclear line in the 70s because at that time none of us knew just how bad the failures in building or safety standards and the same crowd would be minimising the risks.

"2 There was a 9 point earthquake, one of the strongest in the last 100 years anywhere in the world followed by a Tsunami probably the largest in living memory, and the plant could have easily survived one of these catastrophes, but not both..."

That is the point... natural disasters are real and unpredictable. You are arguing the case for the anti-nuclear stance.

Jedimaster - come now, if you're a physicist as you claim to be, you should know better to make references which you are known to be wrong, such as saying I claim to know about death rates from nuclear activities.

The simple point I was making, beyond that of saying that only the bare details of incident are really certain at this state, is that the author's reference to the death rate from Chernobyl is an activist fantasy, which it is.

The official death rate is still around 30 something. It may well be much higher - the Russians didn't keep proper records, and never tracked those they evacuated - but the death toll figure in the thousands referred to is an indefensible projection.

This is the trouble with these stories. Even decades after the event, activists obdurately refuse, in the teeth of all evidence, to give up much-debunked fantasies. And it seems that some physicists are prepared to assist them in these fantasies.

Jedi,

Any time an incident occurs, be it the GFC etc, there are plenty of "chicken little" doom sayers claiming the world is ending. This one is no different.

The plants of design older than these were decommissioned a while ago, and while there are still 40 odd of these older reactors, it would be advisable to re evaluate their systems (and those of the newer reactors) given this recent failure.

The age of the reactor is in itself not an issue, but the design and inherent safety given that in the 70s the technology was only a couple of decades old. The newer reactors are better designed. - Pelican, I have no doubt that reactors in 100 years will have some design features we have not yet thought of.

That the failure was in the order of what happened at Chernobyl, but the emissions are only a tiny fraction, would indicate that at least some of the protections are working.

As for risk, you can never build any thing that is completely failure proof, but you can make it fail far less frequently and reduce the consequences when it does. If you are completely risk averse then you could never drive, fly or even walk outside.

Nuclear does, and still will have the fewest fatalities per unit of power compared to any other technology, and as an engineer, there is typically a pyramid ratio between low level injuries and high level injuries. This applies to pretty much every field.

The measurement of fatalities (top of the pyramid) is a recognised and easily defined one. Trying to drag in psychological "injuries" is simply trying to muddy the waters and create a new measure that can be fudged to show that other power systems are safer.

Jedimaster,

<< The second interesting point is the responses by rpg, spindoc, atman and Curmudgeon, who have unleashed their well-rehearsed personal vilification routines on the authors. No attempt to provide an alternative view that is substantiated by facts. Just heaps of abuse that the editor seems to think is just part of the rough and tumble of OLO.>>

Just for the record, sorry to be so “prissy” but, since when has it been incumbent upon us to dig you out of the hole you made for yourself, and started digging?

<< rpg I'm perfectly aware of that. What you don't seem to know is the difference between a physicist and an engineer. I do I am a physicist.>>

OK, now we have it. You are a physicist. Let me tell you about physicists from an engineer’s perspective.

Engineers make it happen; we design it, implement it, install it, ensure its economic viability, make it operational and maintain it.

Physicists are regarded by engineers as the “condoms on the prick of progress”. They sell out to whatever; social, political, economic, religious or ecological influences are paying the highest dividends to the academia that employs them or the highest bidder for your “expert” opinion.

The value of your comments is thus valued against the background radiation within which you exist.

It has long been contested by those who actually “make it happen”, that Physicists in particular and academia in general, should never be confused with those who have a real world contribution to make. The contribution to modern society by academia is only inflated by those with a political agenda which adds no value whatsoever to the daily lives of those who actually “earn a living”. Which means that the rest have a parasitic relationship with society?