Radiation in Hong Kong (1 Viewer)

[PolarBear]

Yesterday I asked John about the impact on Hong Kong of the Japanese nuclear disaster

From John's email:

"The main concern here is the nucleur fallout impact. My wife said there was a warning yesterday about not to go out in the rain."


This would also be impacting the offices of King & Country which has their HQ in Hong Kong

What will happen to the global market if products made in Asia become contaminated and cannot be shipped overseas?

 

[Rob]

I think we all need to keep calm and beware of ramping up peoples worries. The news coming from Japan is very mixed and not definitive either way yet, lets see what happens.

Rob

 

[PolarBear]

From the Wall Street Journal


MARCH 15, 2011, 1:42 PM HKT

Radiation From Japan Not a Threat to Hong Kong
Radiation levels remain normal in Hong Kong and the city faces little threat of contamination from Japan, where officials warned of worsening damage at a troubled nuclear power plant, government officials said Tuesday.

Easterly prevailing winds would carry any radiation from a potential leak away and across the Pacific, according to the Hong Kong Observatory, which routinely monitors radiation levels around the territory.


“The chance of radiation coming here is very small,” said C.C. Chen, senior scientific officer at the observatory. March winds on average blow from west to east, and forecasts show winds would continue in that direction for at least the next week, he said.

In addition, Hong Kong and the surrounding Pearl River Delta, China’s export factory heartland, are protected because they are far enough away from Japan that even with any changes in the wind’s direction, radiation would be widely dispersed and unlikely to be at high enough concentrations to be harmful, Mr. Chen said.

Typically, radioactive particles are diluted by a factor of 1,000 to 10,000 for every 100 kilometers traveled. Hong Kong is about 3,000 kilometers away from Japan.

Hong Kong food and safety officials are stepping up inspections of imports from Japan, which account for less than 10% of total food imports and are not expected to curtail food availability, an official from the Center for Food Safety said.

Still, concerns are high. Some two dozen Hong Kong journalists returning Monday night from parts of earthquake-hit Japan near the damaged nuclear power plants asked to be tested for radiation exposure, according to a government press release Tuesday. None were contaminated, the government said.

And the quake raises in Hong Kong the same questions being asked across Asia about wisdom of growing reliance on nuclear power as cleaner alternative to coal.

Twenty-five percent of Hong Kong’s power relies on the Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station in neighboring Guangdong Province. Hong Kong Nuclear Investment Co., operator of the plant along with Guangdong Nuclear Power Joint Venture Co., said Saturday operations were not impacted by the earthquake in Japan.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

What will happen to the global market if products made in Asia become contaminated and cannot be shipped overseas?
[/B]

The high lead content in products manufactured in China will keep their products safe from radiation. ^&grin^&grin

Terry

 

[The Military Workshop]

The first time I went to China was in 1995 to visit the Daya Bay Nuclear Plant. I was one of the staff officers involved in drafting the orders for what to do if something happened at the plant and its impact on Hong Kong. My recall was that if it was a serious leak then there was not much that could help the six million people in HK as no time or way to evacuate.

Whilst everybody is concerned about the Japanese plant my thoughts have been how long it held out considering the double hit of the quake and tsunami. Some brave workers there and I wish them all the best.

I would not be worrying about toy soldier production but food production.

 

[Mitch]

Sorry guys but toy soldiers etc count for nothing with all the grief going on.
Mitch

 

[theBaron]

Randy hit it in his followup post. Hong Kong is far to the south, and further west (from this vantage point) from the site in northern Japan where the damaged power plant lies. We here in the Americas and you folks in Europe, Africa and western Asia would see any effects before Hong Kong does, the Earth's rotation and wind direction being what they are.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

The area at risk is northern Japan within approximately a 50 mile circle around the plant. The contaminated area around Chernobyl was an oval a bit smaller than that.

Terry

 

[glossman]

Here is a PBS video clip with a perspective on "Japan's Radiation Leak: What are Health Risks Locally, Globally ?"

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june11/japan2_03-16.html#

Raymond.

 

[Tsuki]

A friend of mine attended a speech Jacques Cousteau gave in Seattle a number of years ago, and during the question-and-answer session at the end of the talk someone asked him what he thought about nuclear power plants. He thought for a moment and said, " You must remember that the people who tell us nuclear plants are safe are the same people who once told us that the Titanic was unsinkable." I think that pretty much says it all.

 

[theBaron]

A friend of mine attended a speech Jacques Cousteau gave in Seattle a number of years ago, and during the question-and-answer session at the end of the talk someone asked him what he thought about nuclear power plants. He thought for a moment and said, " You must remember that the people who tell us nuclear plants are safe are the same people who once told us that the Titanic was unsinkable." I think that pretty much says it all.

Cousteau had his own agenda, and I don't think he was necessarily more qualified to speak on the safety of nuclear power plants than the next person.

 

[damian]

Cousteau had his own agenda, and I don't think he was necessarily more qualified to speak on the safety of nuclear power plants than the next person.

The point is that mistakes will always occur. It is the human condition. When a mistake happens in surgery or on an airline a relative handful of people will suffer. We try all the time to eliminate mistakes but human beings are imperfect. So eventually a mistake or freak accident will happen with a nuclear power station and when it does we have a really major problem. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and now this one.

 

[Mitch]

cousteau was an ecologist so, he does not have to be an expert to speak about nuclear power its negative aspects are all to plain for everyone, lay person, or expert to see how its effects wreak havoc on humans, animals and environment if thats is an ''agenda'' then we should all have one.

If these experts who tell us how safe it is move nearer these affected areas or, next door to a nuclear plant with their families then I would believe them until then take what experts say with a pinch of salt
Mitch

 

[The Military Workshop]

Mitch,
If the negative aspects of nuclear are all too plain for everybody to see it makes you wonder why so many countries are building such plants.

Some interesting figures in my Sunday paper today (sourced from World Nuclear Association) suggest the negatives have not been that plain to many Govts :

Totally 443 plants world wide (30 countries), 62 under construction and another 482 planned over the next two decades (March 2011 info) :

UK 19 with 13 planned
France 58, 1 under construction and 2 planned
South Africa 2 with 5 planned
China 13, 27 under construction with 160 planned
India 20, 5 under construction and 58 planned
USA 104, 1 under construction and 32 planned
Russia 32, 10 under construction and 44 planned

The last two would have the experience of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl.

It would appear these countries and many others (incuding Finland, Sweden and Switzerland) have assessed the pros and cons and concluded the benefits outweigh the possible negatives. Needless to say some of the countries are now re-assessing their situations.

I think most would agree that if the world could exist without nuclear power it would be safer and preferable. However it seems that many Govts have concluded that they need them. Most would probably prefer not to use coal either. Unfortunately wind and solar power can not meet modern day power demands so far.

One thing is for sure is that this incident will add to the negative side of the equation so it will put Govts in a difficult situation (in the near future). So they will have to burn more coal which is worse for the environment than nuclear power.

I am not trying to defend anything but trying to point out it is not that easy to get the balance between using nuclear and not using it.

Regards
Brett

 

[Mitch]

Brett...
All I am saying is that the dangers from it are fairly obvious we are watching it unfold in real time. Yes its a cheaper and more long term means of power for governments and companies to use especially, with natural resources not infinite or, that we are at the discretion of countries which, as we are seeing, are not exactly stable or pro west all the time.

do we need nuclear? I would think looking at Hydrogen power et al would be the obvious and cleaner way to look to sustainable fuel for the future but, thats another debate and one that governments do not seem to want to address.

Governments can and have to weigh the pro's and cons but, we have been very lucky to date, well, luck and some relatively good safety protocols. but, it only takes one of these plants to go bang properly, which, nearly has happened in japan and we have a world disaster that will make Hiroshima and nagasaki together look insignificant in comparison.

I think the benefits for governments etc far outweigh the negative implications and, just because there is an increase (though with the economy as it is who knows how many will be completed) does not mean that its safe even if we are told it is.

I don't know if you have kids but, would you live next to a station? if you were in Japan now, would you stay in the local of Fukishima?? I tell you what, I would not.

Someone mentioned the other day a surge in negativity for the continued use or expansion of nuclear energy and, I said if after all this plant has been through and they control the cooling systems and bring them back on line it would be seen as a pro to its expansion. it just IMO does not make it safe or desirable
Mitch

Mitch,
If the negative aspects of nuclear are all too plain for everybody to see it makes you wonder why so many countries are building such plants.

Some interesting figures in my Sunday paper today (sourced from World Nuclear Association) suggest the negatives have not been that plain to many Govts :

Totally 443 plants world wide (30 countries), 62 under construction and another 482 planned over the next two decades (March 2011 info) :

UK 19 with 13 planned
France 58, 1 under construction and 2 planned
South Africa 2 with 5 planned
China 13, 27 under construction with 160 planned
India 20, 5 under construction and 58 planned
USA 104, 1 under construction and 32 planned
Russia 32, 10 under construction and 44 planned

The last two would have the experience of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl.

It would appear these countries and many others (incuding Finland, Sweden and Switzerland) have assessed the pros and cons and concluded the benefits outweigh the possible negatives. Needless to say some of the countries are now re-assessing their situations.

I think most would agree that if the world could exist without nuclear power it would be safer and preferable. However it seems that many Govts have concluded that they need them. Most would probably prefer not to use coal either. Unfortunately wind and solar power can not meet modern day power demands so far.

One thing is for sure is that this incident will add to the negative side of the equation so it will put Govts in a difficult situation (in the near future). So they will have to burn more coal which is worse for the environment than nuclear power.

I am not trying to defend anything but trying to point out it is not that easy to get the balance between using nuclear and not using it.

Regards
Brett

 

[The Military Workshop]

Mitch,
A few points.

As far as my reading of the situation (via papers and the web) concerning any radiation leaks and deaths etc so far it appears to me to be less of a problem than Chernobyl was after the same number of days. I am not saying it is not a worrying incident.

I just watched the news and the first firemen to respond to the incident at the plant
were shown and interviewed. So far they seem quite well and I hope it remains that way.

You said " takes one of these plants to go bang properly, which, nearly has happened in japan and we have a world disaster that will make Hiroshima and nagasaki together look insignificant in comparison".

That is a very emotive statement, as it is every time people mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In this case the plant has been hit by a massive quake and a tsunami which both far exceeded predictions (ie. the wave was much higher than the levy walls along that coastline and the quake was much more powerful than most). It is still holding out remakably well and I guess this must be due to its safety features. I have no idea what would make such a plant go "bang properly" to create such a world disaster. If such an event was that easy would the world be building so many of them ?

Regarding living next to a nuclear plant I note this is the third time you have raised the point so will address it. First it is very much a hypothetical. Australia has no such plants and even if it did build any they are not likely to be near where I am. I have visited Japan but have never thought to go back. However given a choice I would rather not live next to a plant. However I do think they are a necessary evil. There are some countries where I might feel easier living next to one than others.

In the situation of the "go bang properly" scenario and the world disaster of the scale you suggest any such event at a UK plant would destroy the UK (if that is actually possible). I have not analysed the countries with the highest number of plants per square miles but I suspect France with 58 (not double checked) might be up there at the top. I have no idea of their spread and locations but a quick look at the size of the country (260,000 square miles) divided by 58 equates to one each 4,500 square miles. I then did same calculation for UK with 19 plants and 50,000 square miles and it is 1 per 2,600 square miles. For its size relative to the area of the world Europe has a huge number of plants. I would have no problem living in France or UK despite the high number of plants.

The reality is that even if I was living next to an Aussie nuclear plant there are a great many more things that are likely to harm me or my family than anything the plant might do (ie. traffic accidents, floods, the usual human ailments, things in the water at the beach etc).

Regards
Brett

 

[theBaron]

Mitch,

...The reality is that even if I was living next to an Aussie nuclear plant there are a great many more things that are likely to harm me or my family than anything the plant might do (ie. traffic accidents, floods, the usual human ailments, things in the water at the beach etc).

Regards
Brett

Precisely. Well put, Brett!

 

[Mitch]

Brett...

Emotive statements indeed as its an emotive subject matter when these plants have accidents. I don't think I raised Hiroshima you brought it up in your post about meltdown which, used Hiroshima in the same sentence. I raised the two bombs as a worst case scenario of the plant going into full meltdown which, would affect the other reactors would release more radiation matter than the two put together or so, an expert in nuclear fuels was quoted as saying only recently on the BBC. Thats to me a world disaster. All I am saying is that I would not live next to one and, I don't see any of the experts or anyone saying they are safe on here doing so.

Chernobyl was not a full scale blowout that could have happened but, the contamination spread was large actually huge. That was a disaster mainly for europe

You talk of the firemen looking well as if you are struck down by radiation immediately I would hope you do not believe this to be the case. Its documented that the effects of radiation on humans depends greatly on the dosages and the time spent. All those firemen may well look well now but all may suffer from effects in the future from cataracs to cancers who knows?? thats the concern with the effects of these plants they are not instantaneously apparant and, often associated with other ailments that you can have without exposure to these stations.

Living next to a plant is quite an easy statement to understand its not about your calculations its simply a comment about living next to it. Like the people in the fukoshima area. Its not about living in the same country that calculation makes no sense to me if thats what I meant then I would have had to move to a non nuclear country. You proved my point by saying you would not but, caveated it by saying you would in some countries no matter what the country I would not live near one.

As you look back at posts you will see that I have said that the damage sustained to the plant proves they are tough and in that sense proves their sustainability I also agree with you they are a neccessary evil though, I am not in favour of expansion as we should look to more sustainable fuels but, thats is difficult (not technologically) as it requires a change of mindset in people but, its an option which, could see the decline not increase in nuclear
Mitch

 

[Currahee Chris]

I moved to the Central Pa area approximately 15-16 years ago and live within a few minutes drive from TMI- I see the smokestacks each day as I go to and from work. Since then, I have noticed the following:

I have a third eye on top of my forehead,
My wife has webbed feet......
My fellow Central Pa forum members- Combat, myself and Maddaddicus all have the ability to communicate to each other via nucleo-carbon emissions...

sensing a pattern here..........

I would put my mortgage, two chevy trucks and my toy soldier collection up on the table for any takers on the bet that second hand cigarette smoke, drunk driving and excessive consumption of fast food will kill far more people in my lifetime than if all the nuclear plants listed in Brett's post went nuclear and we all kissed the sky. At the end of the day, the government does what it can to keep us safe, we however seem hell bent to take our own health, and the health of our loved ones for granted, and destroy it seemingly on a whim.