Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster 10 Years Later: What Really Happened | Rock Logic | Ep. 24 

'neuralwarp claimed: '...1 death at Fukushima...he died from a cancer...the kind of cancer...takes...10 years to develop. He had had it for 9 years before Fukushima.' Based on what, who, where, when, made that claim? Did you check? Simply because, the nuclear state of energy, waste and weapons of mass destruction, very core culture is based on secrecy. The nuclear state, is an integral part of the military industrial complex. While, run by the 🇺🇳UN Security Council P5 nuclear nations. 🇺🇳 The United Nations Chain of Command 🇺🇳 The United Nations Security Council Permanent ✳️ - Five Nuclear Nations. 🇨🇳 China 🇫🇷 France 🇷🇺 Russia 🇬🇧 The United Kingdom 🇺🇸 The United States of America ✅ 🇺🇳 United Nations Security Council Permanent Five; ✅ 🇺🇳 UN SC SUBORDINATES: ✅ 🇺🇳 UN Scientific Committee on the Effects ✳️ - of Atomic Radiation - UNSCEAR ✅ 🇺🇳 UN World Health Organization - WHO Nothing the WHO publish, is not vetted by, UNSCEAR, subordinate, to the 🇺🇳UN SC P5, yet there is independent conflicting evidence, why? Is anyone naive enough to believe, the whole nuclear fuel cycle, is safe, when there is conflicting evidence? Given, the chain of commands, ability to shut down any press query, with keystrokes, handed off in nanoseconds. Does the reader understand quantum physics, able to grasp the latent effect on all human DNA, of radionucldes? Plutonium Pu-239 particles, aggregate in the testes, if a potential father survives, this is passed on to the next generation of males, ad infinitum. Just one example of the latent effect of a radionuclide in close proximity to a living cell, after injestion. Pu-239 has a half-life of 24,100 years, gene shearing X 8 times that period, until it transmutes into, the next series of gene shearing particles. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ______________ 🇺🇳 www.unscear.org/ www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020/index/nzl #dunningkrugereffect

Appreciate it!

They weren't radiation maps, you fell for fake news.

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk i was 9 😭😭

Thank you for the feedback and the link.

Operate at

Had the inside engineers been allowed to vent the Tarus, as the vents were intended to do, it is highly unlikely the hydrogen explosion would have occurred. Poor decision making and trying to save face, considerably worsened the natural disaster.

@@nefnm This was something I wasn't aware of. I thank you for sharing it.

true shit

Fukushima Dai'chi had a name plate capacity factor of 5.3GW with an average capacity factor between 85-90%. To generate the same level of power with what you are suggesting would require 1786 3 mw wind turbines spread out over a large area. Sure you could go off shore which is more expensive, but if your lucky you might be averaging a capacity factor of 25% - 30%. The rest has to come from something else so if you are proposing a storage solution that also raises the cost. If you are concerned about spent nuclear fuel, what is the issue with using reactors that can run on said waste as fuel? You kill two birds with one stone. You are right that we are retiring more reactors than we are putting online, but that is because the regulations in place favor dated technology that doesn't come close to operating at the efficiency that an MSR does. It's not a sunset industry. Over $1.3 billion in venture funding has gone towards nuclear start ups in the last decade.

@@RockLogicWithSeanKenny Cleaning up Fukushima Dai'ichi after year 2011 will cost ultimately $2 trillion. That sum would pay for a lot of wind turbines and associated energy storage

@@enterprisestobart lowe.

@@michaelengel3045 more correct answer is: one that you can cheaply manage debt itself is basically just additional money that you have at your disposal - which is a good thing, as you can invest it and make intrest out of it. its the repayments that hurt but for as long as interest > repayments being in debt is simply beneficial. and it's not even that hard - healthy economies can borrow money on crazy low interest. even negative interest (which means they giving back less money than they burrowed) sometimes can happen.

@@mikez2779 Moderate fasting at 1% - 2% annual deflation cleanse toxic debt from the economy. Salaries stay the same. The buying power is rising. The saving rate is rising. That's Japan. Since 1990 (debt : GDP) is down. Since 2009 (debt : GDP) for the rest, ex UK, is trending up. Japan did't care. Their ratio was down, thanks to Fukushima, until 2016. After 2016 the trend is up, with the pandemic spike. If Japan will keep (Debt : GDP) in a trading range, or send it lower, Japan will rejuvenate and build many minis. Sean Kenny from TX, u Rock !! Great blog!!

We've actually addressed this on the show previously - molten salt reactors can actually process this nuclear waste and provide the world with more clean energy. Here's our interview with Ed Pheil talking about the reactors his company Elysium Industries is building to do just that: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WZn4rGF9B-Y.html And here's our interview with Thomas Jam Pedersen whose company Copenhagen Atomics is looking to do the same thing: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dfkBNHRgywY.html

@@RockLogicWithSeanKenny I have listened to the presentation from Elysium Industries that describes a theoretical design that has not been built in practice. The design has many potential serious problems that were not discussed or adequately addressed in the video, resulting in an wildly over-optimistic impression for viewers who have not researched the topic in great detail.

@@tommorris3688 If you don't mind me asking which issues did we not cover that you would like us to discuss? Because we will probably have him back on at some point. We also plan on having guests on to discuss various topics relating to nuclear power in live stream discussions.

We're totally down for collabs! Right now it's just me and producer Jessica but we're open to anything in the future. Thanks for the tip. ;)

Well first off I don't agree with this premise. For starters the Fukushima plant didn't destroy the country the Tsunami did. Aside from one death which is arguable as to what the cause was no one else died as a cause of the resulting accident at the plant. Why I am pro nuclear? Simple it causes the least amount of harm to the environment and to the population relative to the energy it produces(which is a lot). Especially when compared to other forms of energy production. The coal industry globally kills 10,000 per year. Throughout the entire history of nuclear power only 54 people have been reported to have died as a result of a nuclear accident. Most of them were a direct result of Chernobyl. Solar and wind are too diffuse to be considered challengers in this space. When you are comparing an energy source that has a million times the energy density of a carbon hydrogen bond nothing else comes close to performing under todays LWR's. The advanced ones will do even better once they are built because they have the ability to take advantage of economies of scale while operating under even safer conditions.

there is a very big difference between power plants that should have never been build like Fukushima due to the location and Chernobyl due to the design, and plants that are actually properly tought out and feature full passive safety.

@@michielhuygelier6953Narrative in the beggining of nuclear industry was a peaceful atom. Than they said the energy will be too cheap to meter. And now it is too expensive to matter. Btw fun fact is that they dont even calculate the cost of final disposal of nuclear waste in the price per kilowatt. Needless to say they dont have a solution how to get rid of it. And no one knows how bad it is for our health or our children long term. Edit. If one plant is capable to destroy an entire country than why would you have it. Dissasters will happen. They always do. Nothing is 100% bulletproof. The price of failure in case of npps is just unacceptable period. Hell of a way to boil water.

@@Martin-wj6um cooking the planet by filling the atmosphere with CO2 is not a better alternative.

@@michielhuygelier6953 Indeed. And neither is the eradication of species for the sake of building windmills and solar farms which take up a lot of space (land development is just as devastating for the biodiversity as air pollution). And we will need more space for renewables since our energy demand will only grow. So right now; nuclear power is definitely the better option.