I don't demean EE Times coverage of an important power issue, well-documented in your reply. And the award-winning special issue on this horrible event and its consequences on the industry, as well as the population as a whole, certainly deserved all the appropriate accolades.
I'm just wondering whether anybody is working on any preventive maintenance electronics technology that could ensure the Olympics in Tokyo will be conducted in a safe environment. Aside from cleaning up after the disaster, what technologies could the Japan government exploit to make Tokyo Olympics visitors feel safe from the fallout in Tohoku? And I get your point that Abe should be held accountable for the cleanup.
Kudos to you and the EE Times crew for exploring the issues that matter to the community.
Well at least it keeps the conversation going, all this back and forth about issues that one can only surmise,--something EE Times has become very proficient at. Where is the electronics angle in all this? Just wondering.
The particular article that you cite was mostly addressing the proposed Fukushima "ice wall." For a discussion of long-term effects of nuclear accidents in general, there is much material available. The video link I listed - Fukushima and Chernobyl: Myth versus Reality - does discuss this aspect as it specifically relates to Chernobyl and Fukushima. The World Health Organization has also issued a report stating that "for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated," so there is plenty of science supporting this view.
Yes, there are some areas within a 20-mile-wide "exclusion zone" that have been designated "uninhabitable" - at least for now. Some of these areas are gradually being redesignated. And the radiation levels being used to establish the various zone designations - 20 and 50 mSv of radiation per year - appear to be very conservative (i.e., the effects from exposure to such levels are likely to be unmeasurable).
Concerning the statement that "there is no effect", it does not take any proof to lie. That has been one of the things that we have seen for quite a while now, which is that anybody can make up a tale with no regard for it being even slightly true, and the apparent credibility is dependant solely on "how well they talk". The skilled orators with the great charismatic style are not burdened by having to be factual in their speech. We see this repeatedly, so why should we expect anything different.
Now with the Fukoshima nuclear plant disaster, since the news media is not able to do anything at all to help solve the problems, they have chosen to ignore them, since fixating on an oncoming disaster that is unavoidable is a good way to have a stress problem, or a mental meltdown. Shades of arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic once all the lifeboats have left.
Here's what the author says in theengineer.co.uk site:
Over 18,500 people lost their lives as a result of the tsunami. Of those, the number attributable to Fukushima is zero, despite the meltdowns continually being described as 'deadly' and radiation levels as 'lethal'. It all adds to the continuing demonisation of nuclear power, which is — to say the least — unhelpful.
I don't see any science in this statement, while I see a good argument for pro nuclear power. It ignores any long-term impact of nuclear accidents. Further it ignors the very fact that the contaminated areas are most likely uninhabitable.
Hi Junko. The articles (and video) in the above links are specifically addressing scientific and technical issues at Fukushima and - most importantly - attempting to put them in perspective, which should be of interest to anyone interested in better understanding the actual risks associated with the ongoing situation. Most reporting on this simply repeats technical data and relative levels (e.g., "10 times higher") or shows images of projected radiation plumes in the ocean without actually putting this data into any context.
The pictures of these huge water tanks with all this contaminated water make me really nervous. I hope they will not collapse when the earth starts one day to move again. And the earth will move again!
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.