There is no difference between radioactive fallout from nuclear plants and from nuclear vessels.

Dear, Disaster Management Minister Taro Kono looking at the way Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident has been and currently is being handled. The tightening of evacuation criteria needs to be better for nuclear power plant accidents as well. How can the crime of ignoring SPEEDI's prediction of the tsunami and subsequent nuclear accident go ignored by Tokyo. J Govt did not say a peep about what SPEEDI predicted till after the fact. There were Evacuees from the tsunami who were right in the path of the nuclear fallout from Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident of which the direction of the fallout was predicted days before by SPEEDI but J Govt said nothing to local authorities. There needs to be a tightening up all round...

There is no difference between radioactive fallout from nuclear plants and from nuclear vessels.

Well, then lets get rid of everything nuclear

Well, this is true if both power plants use the same fuel mixtures and produce the same isotopes in the same reactive processes. I'm no nuclear engineer though, so I have no idea if it's true or not. It seems plausible, in the sense that you'd expect nuclear engineers to have selected the current best reactor design for everything they make, although from what I hear you'd be wrong on that assumption. But then you'd also expect the different design constraints of being a commercial power plant and being an engine for a ship at sea to influence the design as well.

Clearly, this is a statement that requires a lot of research in order to get to the bottom of. But let's not bother, because radiation is scary and it feels good to say "No radiation ever!". Now if you'll excuse me, I have to book a trans-oceanic flight to a hot spring in Cornwall, and then I have to pop in to my dentist to get my teeth x-rayed.

Nuclear powered ships have tiny reactors compared to nuclear power plants. Plus they have plenty of water around for emergency cooling...even if they have to scuttle the ship.

Where's the evidence that safety criteria on nuclear vessels are not already higher than on Japanese nuclear plants?

This is a stupidly extreme case of apples and oranges. Is he honestly saying the safety and security we have seen thus far at Japanese NPPs are on par with a warship?

I mean, we are talking about a very advanced piece of hardware full of national secrets, technology and obviously a huge number of military. They have a vested interest to keep the ship in top condition for war and of course to protect their own lives.

As far as I have seen, if a powerplant in Japan goes foul, the top brass just jump ship and get a huge payout...

Sorry, but I find the very idea of trying to lump half arsed management with a well oiled war machine assinine at best.

kaynideDEC. 11, 2015 - 12:42PM JST

This is a stupidly extreme case of apples and oranges.

Stupidity?

He is pointing out the lack of evacuation procedure for the people living around a port, probably 50 km radius, where a nuclear vessel happens to stay. If you live or your family lives in such places like Tokyo, Kanagawa Prefecture, or Nagasaki Prefecture, you would better be concerned. How can you tell when to evacuate and where to evacuate, if US is not liable to inform Japan of any nuclear accidents on its navy boats?

There is no difference between radioactive fallout from nuclear plants and from nuclear vessels.

Neither wind/solar's rare-earth metals, radioactive waste http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/ http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/amyoliver/2011/10/23/clean_energys_dirty_secret_cancer/page/full http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/08/solar-industrys-new-dirty-secret

Ch3cho:

Um, Military accidents regarding nuclear vessels are pretty well documented actually...and realistically speaking it is more likely that I will be struck by lightning.

My father was a nuclear technician at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, the biggest base in the world. His job was the constant maintenance of reactors and shielding. Constant maintenance. They took it seriously.

Matter of fact, the last accident involving an American nuclear ship was in 1968. That is a track record I can put faith in.

The Soviets have had the lion's share of naval nuclear accidents involving the reactor. The U.S. naval accidents seem to have all involved the release of contaminated cooling water - usually during transfer of the water from the submarine to the tender. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

How can the crime of ignoring SPEEDI's prediction of the tsunami and subsequent nuclear accident go ignored by Tokyo.

There are earthquake predictions everyday. They've been predicting the next big earthquake to hit Tokyo for the last four years. There's simply no accurate way to predict an earthquake with a realistic level of certainty.

Having said that, it doesn't excuse the government and power companies from running proper risk assessments and setting regulations based on those assessments.