Japan - It's worse than you know....
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Monday, December 16, 2024 06:17
VIEWED: 6776
PAGE 2 of 7
Quote:Too many competing priorities (money, "face", politics, denial) leads to lack of clarity of purpose.
completely incapable of grasping the importance of swiftly and expertly bringing the catastrophe to a close.
TONY: It is very very difficult to get news on Fukushima. The most reliable sources of information are Arnie Gunderson, who was a nuclear engineer who now works at Fairewinds, and Michio Kaku who is an internationally-renowned physicist at NYU and NYCC.
Also, thankfully, my hubby is willing to bird-dog the internet. Unless you google a very specific topic which already pre-supposes some knowledge of the issues (Fukushima + corium, Fukushima + groundwater, Fukushima + recriticality) or you happen across a news release in a foreign news outlet (like the video of the TEPCO official crying on-air as he explained that units Nos 5 & 6 were being contaminated by radioactive groundwater) you will not see much. To CNN, BBC, FOX etc this is all "old news".
I expected better from agencies like the IAEA. But their website is a list of happy-talk, pumps installed here, power going there, progress made everywhere... not a hint of the widespread contamination or the fragile nature of the core stability. But then I looked at the IAEA's charter, which is to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy, the NRC's reliance on the nuclear industry at home, and the mutual embrace of TEPCO and the Japanese government and I realized that there really IS a conspiracy to withhold information. Not a conscious one, just one of mutual outlook and purpose. Nearly all nuclear engineers everywhere feel the same way.
It is a conspiracy which crosses class, politics and nations, it is a conspiracy of hubris. There is still no humility in the face of power which ... five large accidents later... we still have not yet realized we can't control.
/rant
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
This is the kind of situation where I would have expected Japan to throw its doors wide open to all the manpower, expertise and equipment the world has to offer. Instead they created a barrier of official silence, shut out the world (except late, and in very limited ways), and reacted in a myopic, underpowered, and self-serving way. The ONLY information that is released is information that other people have come to - or will come to - independently. The information that does come out is late, incomplete at best and misleading at worst, and independent observers and scientists are being kept away.
THESE are the people the Japanese are trusting to do the right thing? The safe thing? Are trusting with their lives?
THIS is how the nuclear industry is allowed to operate? Presiding in secret over a catastrophe with global impact?
This kind of behavior is hardly uncommon, though. Remember Katrina, when pretty much the whole world was offering help, and the Bush administration's response was basically, "Nah - we got this."? It's seen as "weak" to want or need outside help, especially at a national level. Plus there are "shame" elements involved, in that you don't want "outsiders" to see how badly your company or country has mismanaged things or how many corners they've cut.
It's somewhat exacerbated by Japanese culture, in that it's almost unheard of for Japanese to even admit a problem openly to outsiders, much less ask for outside help with it. It's a culture that's at times both very proud and very humble, which creates its own conflicts.
The trick is to convince the Japanese that WE need THEIR help in training our nuclear response teams in real-world conditions, and that they'd be helping us out immensely by letting our people come in to learn from them. It's a load of bollocks, of course, but it's an "official" face-saving measure that shows humility on our part and deference to their ways.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I think that the priority for any business in this situation is in limiting liability. Often, the route to limiting liability is limiting *perception* of liability by limiting information about problems. Even if this causes more harm in the long run, they hope they can control perceptions in order to protect their interests.
I should mention that the same is true of governments. This exact behavior was prevalent during the Chernobyl incident, with the Soviet Politburo denying the extent of harm in order to protect the reputation of the Soviet state. They even allowed open air parades and celebrations to take place within the radioactive plume, exposing tens of thousands of their own citizens to unnecessary risk rather than admit the extent of the problem.
In Japan, we have double trouble. We have a business looking out for its interests, and a nation looking to preserve its image and honor.
It's akin to the danger of self-serving Capitalism added to the propaganda needs of a self-serving state. (Which is not to say the Japanese government is like the Soviet government, but rather that they have similar desires to preserve their image on the basis of retaining honor on the world stage.)"
Oh, I understand that AnthonyT.
But this is the conundrum I come to:
Nuclear power is an awesome force.
Given the tendency of capitalism and government to be self-serving to the point of being a threat to people, and the inability of individuals to exert enough immediate control over either business or government to keep themselves safe - do we want control of nuclear power in the hands of either business or government?
(And parenthetically, isn't nuclear power overkill for the purpose of simply boiling water? I mean really, can't we find a better way to boil water?)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Remember Katrina, when pretty much the whole world was offering help, and the Bush administration's response was basically, "Nah - we got this."?"
Interesting idea. There is a common thread, but I sense there is a subtle difference to tease out ... I will need to think about this longer.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
(And parenthetically, isn't nuclear power overkill for the purpose of simply boiling water? I mean really, can't we find a better way to boil water?)
Bear in mind that a big part of selling people on the idea of nuclear energy was that whole spiel your parents and mine were sold, about having all this abundant energy, electricity that would literally be "too cheap to meter", all so that the defense industry would have a "reason" to have to keep refining nuclear materials...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
But then I looked at the IAEA's charter, which is to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy, the NRC's reliance on the nuclear industry at home, and the mutual embrace of TEPCO and the Japanese government and I realized that there really IS a conspiracy to withhold information. Not a conscious one, just one of mutual outlook and purpose. Nearly all nuclear engineers everywhere feel the same way.
It is a conspiracy which crosses class, politics and nations, it is a conspiracy of hubris. There is still no humility in the face of power which ... five large accidents later... we still have not yet realized we can't control.
Yes.
Also, thanks for the assessment. Looks like you did a lot of work piecing that together.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I do not consider nuclear power the most ideal form of power, but I do consider it the *easiest solution for energy production in the short term, and the **least polluting of the solutions available to us in the short term.
*It may take us several decades to get solar, wind, wave, etc. power available to every citizen. What do we do for power in the meanwhile?
**Nuclear pollution is very dramatic, but the constant stream of tons of crap into our atmosphere and environment from conventional power stations should not be ignored. Nor the veritable rape of the environment to feed these conventional power schemes. I am in the camp that believes that these horrid nuclear disasters are less bad for everyone than natural gas/oil/coal plants in the long run. Compare, if you will, the environmental impact from 50 years of traditional power vs. 50 years of nuclear power.
That having been said, I am looking forward to the sunset of nuclear power, at least using radioactive materials. What do we do until that era comes? I have no better solution for the masses than nuclear. Oil, Gas, and Coal are not better, just different. Wind, Solar, and Wave power aren't ready yet.
I am gradually coming to the conclusion that nuclear power stations need to be designed by an international commission of safety experts with no eye towards profitability. The main three questions in the design process should be 1) How do we avoid a failure? 2) How do we cope with a failure when it happens despite our best efforts? 3) What do we do with the waste product?
Once the design satisfies these questions, then power companies can decide whether or not it is profitable for them to build a nuclear plant according to internationally accepted standards.
Why international standards? Because a nuclear accident does not confine its problems to the source nation. Everyone deserves input if a failure becomes a global concern.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
I do not consider nuclear power the most ideal form of power, but I do consider it the *easiest solution for energy production in the short term, and the **least polluting of the solutions available to us in the short term.
*It may take us several decades to get solar, wind, wave, etc. power available to every citizen. What do we do for power in the meanwhile?
**Nuclear pollution is very dramatic, but the constant stream of tons of crap into our atmosphere and environment from conventional power stations should not be ignored. Nor the veritable rape of the environment to feed these conventional power schemes. I am in the camp that believes that these horrid nuclear disasters are less bad for everyone than natural gas/oil/coal plants in the long run. Compare, if you will, the environmental impact from 50 years of traditional power vs. 50 years of nuclear power.
That having been said, I am looking forward to the sunset of nuclear power, at least using radioactive materials. What do we do until that era comes? I have no better solution for the masses than nuclear. Oil, Gas, and Coal are not better, just different. Wind, Solar, and Wave power aren't ready yet.
I am gradually coming to the conclusion that nuclear power stations need to be designed by an international commission of safety experts with no eye towards profitability. The main three questions in the design process should be 1) How do we avoid a failure? 2) How do we cope with a failure when it happens despite our best efforts? 3) What do we do with the waste product?
Once the design satisfies these questions, then power companies can decide whether or not it is profitable for them to build a nuclear plant according to internationally accepted standards.
Why international standards? Because a nuclear accident does not confine its problems to the source nation. Everyone deserves input if a failure becomes a global concern.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
Quite so. And there need to be backup plans, and backups for the backups. One of the big lessons here (aside from "Don't store your spent fuel rods in the roof above the reactor" and other seemingly-simple lessons) is, (a) make sure you have MORE - FAR MORE - than merely "adequate" backup battery and generator power, and (b) make goddamned sure that the plugs on your backup generators are of the compatible design to fit the goddamned machines they're supposed to plug into and run!
It seems that the plant actually survived the earthquake better than expected, and even weathered the tsunami better than might have been hoped. But in the aftermath, everything just went completely to hell. More and more, it looks more like a failure to plan than a failure of equipment. Brings up the old adage, "If you fail to plan, you plan to fail." If you're going to assume anything when it comes to disasters like this, assume everything you know is wrong. Question it all. "And what if that doesn't work?" "And then what happens?"
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike, in every major accident at least two safety systems fail, quite often three. Could be plane crashes, train crashes, nuclear meltdowns etc... SHIT HAPPENS. There is NO safety system adequate to ensure that shit WON'T happen. Assume the worst WILL happen.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Exactly, Sig - Assume your best-case scenario WILL NOT work out. Plan for the absolute worst. Have a backup plan, and assume it will fail, and have a backup for that as well, and assume that will fail.
For all the support nuclear gets from the right, it certainly can't stand on its own in a free market. Nuclear power is heavily subsidized (SOCIALISM!) by your tax dollars and mine, and even then, they can't get the safety right.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME