I doubt that finding workers would be the problem, but I agree that reactors 7 and 8 may not be built. Reactors 1-4 will certainly never operate again, and most likely 5 and 6 will never be restarted. The site conditions are atrocious and that alone would preclude their restart for quite a long period, regardless of the state of the reactors themselves. All these reactors are quite old so the economic loss from early decommissioning will not be all the bad, but the cleanup will be very expensive. Apparently Toshiba-Westinghouse have put together a draft plan and proposal to clean up the mess within 10 years. It would use robots extensively to manage the highly contaminated stuff and debris.
Quite true. Now, stop ducking the spent fuel problem. The fact remains that there are close to 30 operational U.S. reactors of the exact same design as the Fukushima boiling water reactors, right down to their spent fuel cooling tanks and tons of hot & cold fuel stored on-site. It's absolutely pathetic that you can defend an energy "solution" that, after half a century, still hasn't solved the minor "problem" of safely storing radioactive waste that will still be harmful 10,000 years from now.
What's truly amazing/frightening is that while the Fukushima incident was still ramping up the U.S. government issued a recommendation to U.S. citizens in the area to evacuate the region if they were within 80km from the plant. The U.S. wasn't alone in that recommendation, several other countries issued a similar order to their citizens. Now, fast-forward to yesterday when the Japanese government expanded their evacuation zone from 20km to 40km. For the conversion-challenged -- 40km is roughly 25mi, 80km is about 50mi. The Indian Point nuclear power plant is ~38mi from New York City... The following are from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center: Terrorism During the September 11 attacks, American Airlines Flight 11 flew near the Indian Point Energy Center en route to the World Trade Center. Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers/plotters, had considered nuclear facilities for targeting in a terrorist attack. Entergy says it is prepared for a terrorist attack, and asserts that a large airliner crash into the containment building would not cause reactor damage... ...The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation states that the spent fuel pools at Indian Point are "exposed and unsecured" and therefore "vulnerable to attack" Evacuation The Indian Point evacuation plan focuses "on a 10-mile ring populated by about 300,000 people." In the wake of the 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, columnist Peter Applebome noted in The New York Times that a fifty mile radius from Indian Point (the area which the State Department suggested Americans avoid in Japan) "includes almost all of New York City except for Staten Island; almost all of Nassau County and much of Suffolk; all of Bergen County, N.J.; all of Fairfield, Conn.". He quotes Purdue University professor Daniel Aldrich: "âMany scholars have already argued that any evacuation plans shouldnât be called plans, but rather âfantasy documents".
They must invent some new kind of robots then because the electronics of modern robots don't stand radiation and stop functioning. You are also very optimistic if you think the Daini reactors will ever again be restarted as they sit just a few miles away from Daiichi.
You might want to read this http://counterpunch.org/stclair03242011.html And watch an expert of nuclear reactors http://fairewinds.com/
dcraig You were claiming this would never be on the level of Chernobyl.... http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=217019 Well it is..... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/12/501364/main20053040.shtml
If you would read your own reference you would find that the amount of radiation release is estimated to be 10% of that at Chernobyl. Just because it is INES 7 doesn't make it as bad as Chernoby and neither does it mean that matters suddenly have worsened. At Chernobyl the whole reactor core blew up in a steam/hydrogen explosion accompanied by a graphite fire and there was no proper containment. At Fukishima the containment still seems to be largely intact and the reactor cores are still where they are supposed to be although there is no question that there are leaks and there has also been deliberate venting to release pressure in the reactor pressure vessels. Furthermore, a lot of the contamination at Fukishima has gone into the sea which is highly undesirable but much preferable to being propelled into the atmosphere and settling on land. The Japanese authorities acted promptly and evacuations were commenced within 5 hours of the declaration of a nuclear emergency - unlike Chernobyl and radiation release has been much slower allowing more time for the response. It seems that proper testing of foodstuffs and importantly milk for I-131 is being conducted together with timely distribution of potassium iodide pills, so the chances of children contracting thyroid cancer (the main public health consequence of Chernobyl) should be very much lower than at Chernobyl. When you put all these things together, danger to the public would seem to be very much less than at Chernobyl. And danger to plant workers is clearly very much less than at Chernobyl where a number died within a few hours of the event from Acute Radiation Syndrome. There have be no reports at all of any case of ARS from Japan and unless something unforeseen happens, are unlikely to be. Plant workers exposed to radiation dose of 100-250 mSv will have their lifetime chance of a fatal cancer increased by less than 2%. There is no doubt that this is a serious event and INES 7 may well be justified but Chernobyl it still ain't despite some people wishing it were so.
Nuclear expert: Fukushima about 1,000 times worse than ever anticipated by the nuclear planners http://vimeo.com/22352930