Young, Alive, In Love

I don't actually have a strong stance on the subject of nuclear power, but, a couple of devil's advocate points...

 

Really, the majority of the criticism for the event should be focused on the poor handling of the situation by both the Japanese government and the owner of the nuclear power plant, rather than on the entire concept of using nuclear electricity

 

I'm not sure those points are mutually exclusive. Some of us are pretty sure that, since humans are involved, eventual mismanagement is inevitable.

 

 

How safe it is to work in is hardly the issue.  And as to how safe it is, period, we simply don't know.  

Spoiler

The problem is that deaths from radiation and radioactive materials happen gradually and invisibly; figuring out how many people have died as a result of nuclear accidents or longer term leakage is an exercise in epidemiology, and it also helps to have the basic data.  Authorities conceal, lie about, and destroy the relevant data when they might look bad; almost everything relevant about Three Mile Island was suppressed or destroyed or they avoided measuring in the first place.  And epidemiology is readily distorted when it comes to issues where the wealthy or powerful have much to lose.  As a result, estimates of the number dead from Chernobyl backed by respected agencies and apparently respectable data range from a couple dozen to approximately a million and rising.  Who's right?  Depends who you listen to.  Who has a vested interest in a particular version of the truth?  The ones making money.

As a general rule, if a group stand to lose billions if we make them stop doing X, it is unwise to trust their accounts of how safe or beneficial X is.  

Spoiler

Their accounts will contain no information in the sense that they will say the same thing no matter what the reality is.  If X is safe and beneficial, they will say X is safe and beneficial.  If X is a little bit dangerous, they will say X is safe and beneficial.  If X is ludicrously dangerous, they will say X is safe and beneficial.  If X will end the world in a few decades, they will say X is safe and beneficial.  Unfortunately these days it is hard to tell just when an industry group is talking.  For instance the UN agency, the IAEA, was founded as primarily a nuclear boosting agency even though it's often treated as a regulator, and is a reliable industry backer.  But the odd thing is that fellow UN agency, the World Health Organization, tends to follow the IAEA on nuclear issues, and has changed or watered down reports due to pressure from the IAEA.  More generally, the industry has a lot of money and spends plenty on PR, and they know it will be more effective if the messages don't come directly from them, so it's hard to be sure when an article was planted.

The annoying thing is that much of that money comes from government subsidies, direct or indirect.  Nuclear power is not really economically viable; if it weren't related to nuclear weapons in odd political ways, it probably wouldn't exist.  So for instance, the private sector has for a long time refused to insure the nuclear industry, so they get their insurance from government for far less than a real price would be.  In the US, they get laws drastically limiting their liability for the results of accident.  They get very large direct subsidies, loans, and loan guarantees.  They get the cost of waste storage picked up by government.  They often get guaranteed pricing.  And yet despite all that, nuclear has great difficulty competing economically.  These days in most places there is relatively little effective resistance to nuclear power--environmental groups are largely powerless.  What's blocking a nuclear renaissance with snazzy new designs isn't anti-nuke activists, it's that even with a massively stacked playing field, the return on investment isn't there and the up-front capital investment is too massive.

 

I agree about the difficulty of finding reliable sources these days.

 

However, I think you paint the cost-effectiveness issue with slightly too broad a brush.

The day there's so much Nuclear plant in Japan we are in deep shit.

When did they became Boyfriend and Girlfriend...exactly?

I think she's just calling him her boyfriend just because everyone else calls them a couple.

When did they became Boyfriend and Girlfriend...exactly?

Lovin' the artstyle.

oh no, the cooling tower blew up. now the city will be covered in water vapor!! oh the humanity!!!!

Why hello there, Sherlock.

Just got bored by the walls of text lol

I like the manga, but...

 

Three pages of recruiting in front, and two in back? Come on, guys.

Prologue set up. Screwed up story start.

Spoiler

I think the real question here is... did the radiation make her throw up? 

 

Why hello there, Sherlock.

How safe it is to work in is hardly the issue.  And as to how safe it is, period, we simply don't know.  

Spoiler

The problem is that deaths from radiation and radioactive materials happen gradually and invisibly; figuring out how many people have died as a result of nuclear accidents or longer term leakage is an exercise in epidemiology, and it also helps to have the basic data.  Authorities conceal, lie about, and destroy the relevant data when they might look bad; almost everything relevant about Three Mile Island was suppressed or destroyed or they avoided measuring in the first place.  And epidemiology is readily distorted when it comes to issues where the wealthy or powerful have much to lose.  As a result, estimates of the number dead from Chernobyl backed by respected agencies and apparently respectable data range from a couple dozen to approximately a million and rising.  Who's right?  Depends who you listen to.  Who has a vested interest in a particular version of the truth?  The ones making money.

As a general rule, if a group stand to lose billions if we make them stop doing X, it is unwise to trust their accounts of how safe or beneficial X is.  

Spoiler

Their accounts will contain no information in the sense that they will say the same thing no matter what the reality is.  If X is safe and beneficial, they will say X is safe and beneficial.  If X is a little bit dangerous, they will say X is safe and beneficial.  If X is ludicrously dangerous, they will say X is safe and beneficial.  If X will end the world in a few decades, they will say X is safe and beneficial.  Unfortunately these days it is hard to tell just when an industry group is talking.  For instance the UN agency, the IAEA, was founded as primarily a nuclear boosting agency even though it's often treated as a regulator, and is a reliable industry backer.  But the odd thing is that fellow UN agency, the World Health Organization, tends to follow the IAEA on nuclear issues, and has changed or watered down reports due to pressure from the IAEA.  More generally, the industry has a lot of money and spends plenty on PR, and they know it will be more effective if the messages don't come directly from them, so it's hard to be sure when an article was planted.

The annoying thing is that much of that money comes from government subsidies, direct or indirect.  Nuclear power is not really economically viable; if it weren't related to nuclear weapons in odd political ways, it probably wouldn't exist.  So for instance, the private sector has for a long time refused to insure the nuclear industry, so they get their insurance from government for far less than a real price would be.  In the US, they get laws drastically limiting their liability for the results of accident.  They get very large direct subsidies, loans, and loan guarantees.  They get the cost of waste storage picked up by government.  They often get guaranteed pricing.  And yet despite all that, nuclear has great difficulty competing economically.  These days in most places there is relatively little effective resistance to nuclear power--environmental groups are largely powerless.  What's blocking a nuclear renaissance with snazzy new designs isn't anti-nuke activists, it's that even with a massively stacked playing field, the return on investment isn't there and the up-front capital investment is too massive.

I think the real question here is... did the radiation make her throw up? 

Well, nowadays we are going forward with newer and better plant designs, most incidents either can no longer happen, or are at worst a case like 

Unfortunately, the common perception is that nuclear power is dangerous, even though it is actually one of the safest industries to work in. 

How safe it is to work in is hardly the issue.  And as to how safe it is, period, we simply don't know.  

As a general rule, if a group stand to lose billions if we make them stop doing X, it is unwise to trust their accounts of how safe or beneficial X is.  

I take your points to a degree. But a lot of them could be summed up by "When there is a profit motive involved", which is, like, all the time.

So for instance, utilities around the world including many in the US have consistently made strenuous efforts to keep ancient plants running for decades after their "this was supposed to be closed now according to the design specs" date. Why? Because shutting it down and building a new one would cost gigabucks, so they push them as long as they can even as the cracks multiply and the innards corrode and they start to leak and so on.  This is not a weird anomaly, it's how the industry operates.  Bad stuff happening at old plants is going to get more and more common as the plants, well, get old.

Well, nowadays we are going forward with newer and better plant designs, most incidents either can no longer happen, or are at worst a case like Three Miles Island, where safety measures do what they're supposed to, and the real story should have been "well engineered powerplant functions as designed during accident, crisis averted". Consider that less than five hundred nuclear power reactors around the world produce fully 13% of the planet's electricity, with essentially absolute reliability, the lowest cost-per-kilowatt of any power source, and near-perfect safety.

 

Unfortunately, the common perception is that nuclear power is dangerous, even though it is actually one of the safest industries to work in. And when an accident occurs at a nuclear power plant, it is guaranteed to be front-page news, no matter its real impact.

 

Naturally, nuclear technologies are not a magic silver bullet and have their disadvantages, but a faulty assessment of their dangers benefits nobody.

This is what happens:

-when you keep a 70s era nuclear power plant around for twenty years after it stopped being up to date.

I take your points to a degree. But a lot of them could be summed up by "When there is a profit motive involved", which is, like, all the time.

So for instance, utilities around the world including many in the US have consistently made strenuous efforts to keep ancient plants running for decades after their "this was supposed to be closed now according to the design specs" date. Why? Because shutting it down and building a new one would cost gigabucks, so they push them as long as they can even as the cracks multiply and the innards corrode and they start to leak and so on.  This is not a weird anomaly, it's how the industry operates.  Bad stuff happening at old plants is going to get more and more common as the plants, well, get old.

That is strange. This is also one of his later works. The other ones here on Batoto were published earlier than Young, Alive, In Love, which according to Mangaupdates is from 2012.

 

Hmm this is weird. Is it just me, or the art style seems a little bit different from the usual Nishijima Daisuke? This one feels more.. crude, while the others works shows consistency even in his doodle style.

Hmm this is weird. Is it just me, or the art style seems a little bit different from the usual Nishijima Daisuke? This one feels more.. crude, while the others works shows consistency even in his doodle style.

Dark comedy, go

Hey, if anyone has a right to write an anti-nuclear message or three, it's the Japanese. For reasons old and new.
Most people elsewhere aren't aware of just how bad the whole Fukushima thing was and continues to be. Radioactive crud never stopped leaking into the Pacific.

This is what happens:

-when you keep a 70s era nuclear power plant around for twenty years after it stopped being up to date.

-and you put it in a geologically unstable areas without making sure they can withstand the conditions they could experience there.

-and you don't take care of it.

-and the entire project was corrupt (hello Yakuzas).

I could list more reasons but you get the point.

Events of the magnitude of Fukushima and Chernobyl are exceedingly rare, and Fukushima is the worst since Chernobyl, even though no one was killed by radiation released in the accident (although five people died at the plant from other causes (tsunami and stress)). In fact, the radiation levels in the exclusion zone around Fukushima Daiichi 25 days after the incident at that power plant are no more than one tenth of the radiation levels in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl 25 years after that disaster, yet Fukushima was rated a level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale. Really, the majority of the criticism for the event should be focused on the poor handling of the situation by both the Japanese government and the owner of the nuclear power plant, rather than on the entire concept of using nuclear electricity

And while nuclear fallout is no picnic, neither are things like massive oil spills, and I still see plenty of people jumping all over drilling for oil, BP or no BP.

Not a likeable MC. I do hope he gets some deserved character growth.

And let's hope it will not become an (ignorant) anti-nuclear message.

But so far, I will follow out of curiosity.

Hey, if anyone has a right to write an anti-nuclear message or three, it's the Japanese.  For reasons old and new.  

Most people elsewhere aren't aware of just how bad the whole Fukushima thing was and continues to be.  Radioactive crud never stopped leaking into the Pacific.

Not a likeable MC. I do hope he gets some deserved character growth.

And let's hope it will not become an (ignorant) anti-nuclear message.

But so far, I will follow out of curiosity.

MOONFLOWER SCANZ

A very minimalist art style. I like it.

Interesting but ew.

I like it!!!

More Nishijima is always a plus.

Interesting but ew.