2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami - News and Analysis

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 14 Apr 2011 19:38

chaanakya wrote:WHO says there is no effect on public health since no public is left inside evacuation zone

Actual headline of the article:

WHO/IAEA: Japan nuclear accident no worse

Now, for most, a report like "We successfully evacuated everyone and all are safe" would be good news.
And it is not the same thing as "All are gone (read killed) and no one is left "

(Also notice, that, for all we know now, the evacuation is just temporary but even if it is not temporary it is not the same thing as ' no effect on public because no public is left')

Chaanakyaji - Think about it. Really think about it. Do you really think it is "clever" manipulation of the headline on your part? Thinking q=mct will give internal energy of water is one thing but this?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 14 Apr 2011 20:22

Just to show the level of scientific understanding (or lack of it), and tendency to mislead the public, let me take a random quote from Chaanakya's story (link a few posts above).

Also on Tuesday, a Romanian laboratory said it had found traces of radioactive particles believed to have come from the Fukushima plant in rainwater and sheep milk in the centre of the country.

Romanian researchers said they had found trace amounts of iodine-131, though below levels of concern for human health, state news agency Agerpres said.

Now who can blame if some one misunderstands the danger..

quotes like "though below levels of concern for human health,..... said", actually makes things worse (instead of assurance, they subtly imply dishonesty in the part of scientists/gove_agencies)

They will quote some "nuclear expert" (who in reality is anything but that) with full quotes and then do a == by naming some TEPCO executive (implying that he/she is lying). They will never quote a real expert. Implication would be "scientific community is divided". While in real life, it is virtually 99% vs 1%

(*** Edited Later *** (reference was to one other such situation which a few brfites might be familiar.. basic point was that there are similar cases where a few renegade have much bigger voice)

Getting back to the quote above, the reporter could have talked to any first-year physics student to know that:

1) Finding radioactive particles in rain water in Romania is actually expected. I had a post (and actual numbers) for water in my backyard in Ohio. It will break law of diffusion if one did NOT get a particle there.

2) Forget about Fukushima, One would expect to get *many* molecules of air in every breath one takes, which came out from the dying breath of Babur. Yes, Avogadro's number is that large.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 14 Apr 2011 20:32

Amber G.,

I think its time to give this thread a permanent rest as very few real questions are being asked and discussed. Some posters in this thread simply don't have an inclination to read or learn anything. God knows how they passed high school math, physics and chemistry. Being ignorant is ok, as it can be cured, but being stupid means going out of your way to overlook the facts.

I suggest this book, as you have already posted:

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Apr 2011 21:44

People really reveal their true colors under stress do they not? A page full of frothing at the mouth rant against people since they cant talk substance (since there is no substance to add)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Apr 2011 21:48

D Roy wrote:
Japan is not a country which should flirt with this tech.
They don't flirt with it. They have the most advanced nuclear engineering sector in the world with japan steel works supplying 80 percent of the reactor pressure vessel market.

.

I am aware of the distribution of the nuclear plants and their ownership. I would still call it flirting at best. Making nuclear power plants with less than understood danger levels is in my view flirting and thats being charitable.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Apr 2011 21:52

And while rest of you discuss me, I will discuss real news --

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-1 ... lants.html

Japan Nuclear Evacuation May Force Hitachi, Boehringer to Abandon Plants

Hitachi Chemical Co. and Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH may abandon factories largely unscathed by last month’s Japan earthquake and tsunami as engineers struggle to contain radiation spewing from a crippled nuclear plant.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Apr 2011 22:00

http://www.programbusiness.com/News/Jap ... nt-Damages

Japan govt to pick the pieces after TEPCO

http://www.programbusiness.com/News/Jap ... nt-Damages

Japanese Government May Cap Tepco's Liability for Nuclear Plant Damages

Under the plan which is being considered by the firm and the government, Tepco's liability would be limited to 2 trillion to 3.8 trillion yen ($24 billion - 45 billion), and the company would pay 100 billion to 200 billion yen annually for 15 years from its profits, according to the reports.

The proposal is designed to ease global fears about Tepco, which is Japan's largest corporate bond issuer and its shares are widely held by financial institutions, the reports said.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 14 Apr 2011 22:04

The japanese understand the risks better than anybody.

The fact that all four reactors at Fukushima Daichi shut down the chain reactions when hit by the giant quake is a testament to japanese build quality and also the fact that they actually withstood the quake.

Also Fukushima Daini which is just a little distance away is currently in cold shut down condition. Residents actually took refuge at the nuke plant at Onagawa to save themselves from the Tsunami.

They are not playing with anything. they know just how crucial nuke power is to high end manufacturing and they are not going to give up on it so easily. otherwise they'll either have to start building a bigger blue water navy or simply relegate themselves to being a province of China in the future.

But if I know anything about the Japanese they will now anticipate 9.2 tremors and giant tsunamis. And again Units 1-4 did withstand the 9.2 quake.

giant tsunamis.??? how will they do that , one may ask?

very simple by building the new Gen III designs that have passive decay heat removal systems and by retrofitting additional light water tanks in their older units like we have done with Tarapur I & II

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 14 Apr 2011 22:20

energy and materials security has been central to japanese thinking even before they smashed the russian eastern fleet a hundred years ago - the severe lack of resources has shaped their psyche in a very fundamental way. today ofcourse, they have a highly energy intensive society and industry - tuning it down to rely less on power as has been suggested is easier said than done

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Apr 2011 22:29

D Roy wrote:The japanese understand the risks better than anybody.

Forgive me if I disagree. There are Japanese themselves who disagree with what you have said, amongst other people (exact links and reports posted before, on the prior pages as well) there are several issues many of which were raised but brushed aside.

Considering that Fukushima has shown simply how unprepared TEPCO was for such a eventuality, I dont see were the confidence comes from, but I will not seek to change your POV. Merely contest it.

Will they be able to make their Nuclear plants better after this? No doubt they can -- however they could have done it before as well, the reason for not being able to do it was not so much technology but more economics. And the economics is going to be more unforgiving and not less.

A interview of a Japanese origin Physicists, professor and author in New York (?) -- called Japanese NPPs as a Faustian Bargain. I think that is quite appropriate.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 14 Apr 2011 23:01

Sanku wrote:People really reveal their true colors under stress do they not? A page full of frothing at the mouth rant against people since they cant talk substance (since there is no substance to add)

I think you've got the full frothing going on and on like a rabid animal.

A interview of a Japanese origin Physicists, professor and author in New York (?) -- called Japanese NPPs as a Faustian Bargain. I think that is quite appropriate.

The fellow's name is Michio Kaku and he is opposed to NPPs as part of the mix of power. What he doesn't make clear is if he is opposed to new reactor designs on not. What he does say about Fukushima makes sense. Is it Time to Appoint a Body of Top Scientists to Succeed the Fukushima Utility and Treat them as Consultants? And to be honest, I would rather listen to MK than somebody like you who flunked their math & science courses and becomes an IT weeny.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 14 Apr 2011 23:03

Amber G. wrote:
(Situation is similar with "Hindutva experts" here in US .. A few renegade have much bigger voice)

Please dont take such names here. Do not use the term randomly and it does not have a meaning in US

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Apr 2011 23:05

Michio Kaku the prof quoted above is from UC Berkeley. He is Japanese only from origins. Very much opposed to fission based nuke power. He has written a lot about future sciecne projects etc. he is very decriptive in teaching physics. I used to listen to his radio show.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Apr 2011 23:12

Mort Walker wrote:
Sanku wrote:People really reveal their true colors under stress do they not? A page full of frothing at the mouth rant against people since they cant talk substance (since there is no substance to add)
I think you've got the full frothing going on and on like a rabid animal.

.

As I expected, when certain people run out of data points, calling names is their forte. I personally welcome this, because it captures for posterity what the real worth of a person is.

It is disappointing nevertheless, to continually be disappointed in people.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 14 Apr 2011 23:13

^^^There are lots of data points, but when one is deaf, dumb and blind, they fail to see it.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 14 Apr 2011 23:17

Deleted.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Apr 2011 23:18

Mort Walker wrote:^^^There are lots of data points, but when one is deaf, dumb and blind, they fail to see it.

That is true, and those calling others names are shining examples of such folks.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 14 Apr 2011 23:22

Acharya wrote:[ Original message contained an analogy which was deleted later to remove the distraction] ... Do not use the term randomly and it does not have a meaning in US

Acharyaji - These people (If you want names, you can start with a certain Harvard Professor, or UCLA associate professor) who defines "Hinduism" and how dangerous/criminal you name it "Hindu terrorists" are.. while there is not a single terrorist act in USA by any "hindutva" people.

The term is not used by me but these guys. It is not random. Just do a google, before rebuking me.

Edited later: The original message has been edited to remove the distraction. Leaving this message as it is.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 14 Apr 2011 23:26

Deleted.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Apr 2011 23:29

The leakage of radioactivity HAS NOT BEEN plugged yet.

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/85532.html

Groundwater radiation level at nuke plant rises: TEPCO

The concentration levels of radioactive iodine and cesium in groundwater near the troubled Nos. 1 and 2 reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant have increased up to several dozen times in one week, suggesting that toxic water has seeped from nearby reactor turbine buildings or elsewhere, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Thursday.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 14 Apr 2011 23:29

A lot of the debate in this thread seems to be centred around a couple of positions

(a) The Fukushima disaster could have been much, much worse. It honestly doesn't rank up there with the worst industrial accidents, especially in terms of human casualties. it actually shows how safe nuclear power is.

(b) The impact of the Fukushima disaster is enormous, and demonstrates the inherent risks of nuclear power which have been consistently underestimated.

I think the inherent difference between the two positions is the way we define impact; is it just people killed by radiation exposure, even in a 40 year horizon?

Or is it the enormous economic costs from cleanup, exclusion and relocation? There are homes and businesses and farms that have been abandoned - assets as well as economic activity that represent a huge long term loss, especially in a crowded country like Japan.

People in tsunami-hit zones outside the exclusion zone have been returning and rebuilding for a couple of weeks now.

The impact of a nuclear industrial disaster in these terms seems even greater than something like, say, Bhopal with its horrific death toll. The next question is whether this is an irrational perception because of greater public sensitivity to radioactive contamination as opposed to other kinds of pollution (eg. dioxin or heavy metal contamination of surface and ground water), or because fallout from nuclear accidents disperses in ways in fundamentally more pervasive ways, extending health hazard and clean-up zones?

There has to be a psychological angle here - accidents seem to be treated in ways that are different from routine pollution.

apart from a few places like California, public demands for emission control are much weaker despite the fact that pollution kills and sickens hundreds of thousands in cities all over the world in ways that are very well documented.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Apr 2011 23:37

Johann wrote: There has to be a psychological angle here - accidents seem to be treated in ways that are different from routine pollution.
.

Good perspective. If I may respond --

There is undoubtedly a psychological angle here Sir, no one would argue against it. If you read a FP article I linked a little above on this page, it is very critical of TEPCO but does not deny that mindset issues play a role, the essential plea is that lack of transparency fans the fears more than it soothes.

It is important to be open, say what you know, and admit that there are some things which are not known well (of course the corollary has to be that you are prepared to handle the brickbats which come with saying "you dont know" especially for a potentially destructive force)

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 15 Apr 2011 00:24

Lets keep in mind that the only reason areas are being abandoned and evacuated is because of the radiation. Even the authorities don't seem to agree with the position here that the radiation released was minimal and has minimal effects.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 15 Apr 2011 00:39

Johann wrote:A lot of the debate in this thread seems to be centred around a couple of positions
<snip>

Johann from my point of view (admittedly, I am speaking about mainly my posts), for some of us was not so much to be centered around a couple (or even three or four) positions, but rather make technical sense out of all this.

If you have a chance, go through my (and others) posts. I will highly recommend it.

I have tried (and I believe I was successful) to put lot of complex technical information and basic fundamentals in a clear, technically accurate, yet simple to understand way so that people not familiar with technical terms do not get confused by inaccurate reporting.
From doses of radiation units and what's their health impact, to radioactivity measurements, to decay heat, etc .. I tried to put all those terms in something people are familiar with, yet without loosing the accuracy.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 15 Apr 2011 01:37

Both sides are pretty sure of their own positions, and both are taking potshots at each other, while claiming to be supported by facts. Each side thinks their position is so crystal clear that the other side is stupid to not understand what they are saying, and that is resulting in personal abuses being hurled by both parties. To a neutral observer, there appears to be merit in some arguments from both sides. But no one has even accepted any single argument by the other side even if it turned out contrary to their earlier positions, and instead indulged in name calling. I don't think any of the major contributors to this thread can claim to be purely factual based without having indulged in personal attacks/sarcastic remarks/indirectly ridiculing others etc

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 15 Apr 2011 03:33

Johann wrote: (b) The impact of the Fukushima disaster is enormous, and demonstrates the inherent risks of nuclear power which have been consistently underestimated.

I think the inherent difference between the two positions is the way we define impact; is it just people killed by radiation exposure, even in a 40 year horizon?

Or is it the enormous economic costs from cleanup, exclusion and relocation? There are homes and businesses and farms that have been abandoned - assets as well as economic activity that represent a huge long term loss, especially in a crowded country like Japan.

People in tsunami-hit zones outside the exclusion zone have been returning and rebuilding for a couple of weeks now.

The impact of a nuclear industrial disaster in these terms seems even greater than something like, say, Bhopal with its horrific death toll. The next question is whether this is an irrational perception because of greater public sensitivity to radioactive contamination as opposed to other kinds of pollution (eg. dioxin or heavy metal contamination of surface and ground water), or because fallout from nuclear accidents disperses in ways in fundamentally more pervasive ways, extending health hazard and clean-up zones?

There is one more dimension to the nuclear plant accident that is overarching. There is no option to just abandon the nuclear accident itself. It needs to be actively managed to some extent, even if one exercises option of entombment. Other disasters doesn't necessitate such active management for unspecified period of time.
Here is one glimpse to know what would happen, if there is no active management of nuclear plant. If people just walked away and abandoned. If people didn't do anything at all, other than just move away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGQBE-EKcjo
pl. watch from 5.55 onwards.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 15 Apr 2011 04:50

Sanku wrote:
arnab wrote:Please show me a reference to 'All is well, we have everything under control'
With all due respect arnab, you should have done it yourself.

Hows this.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... nformation

Note date line

Meltdowns and Misinformation
What do we actually know about Japan's nuclear crisis?
BY JOSEPH CIRINCIONE | MARCH 18, 2011

To state the obvious, the nuclear crisis in Japan is bad and will get worse. Despite the heroic efforts of the remaining workers at the nuclear complex, it seems likely that two reactor cores will melt down and two spent fuel ponds will ignite, spewing radioactivity into the ground, air, and water

It might be tempting to blame hysterical media coverage for this reaction, but in this case, most coverage I've seen has actually been fairly sober and cautious

The bigger problem has been the overly optimistic scenarios and conflicting information released by Japanese authorities. The public, not only in Japan but worldwide, simply no longer believes those in authority who tell them they are not in danger. This will make it difficult to manage the public response to the crisis going forward and may pose a grave risk for the future of the nuclear industry.

In an effort, perhaps, to keep the public calm, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) which owns the reactors, and the Japanese government which regulates them have limited the information released and constantly portrayed the situation as under control. The facts have spoken otherwise. The widening gap has now triggered a collapse of confidence on the part of the Japanese public and, it appears, the U.S. government. Brookings Institution scholar Daniel Kaufmann notes that TEPCO "infuriated Japan's prime minister, who learned of the first plant explosion at reactor 1 on Saturday from watching TV." In the early days of the crisis, TEPCO officials denied that water levels had fallen in reactors and fuel storage pools, but hours later announced extraordinary measures to pump new water in.

Please, please please, don't ask rhetorical questions.

Sir, I repeat my question - when has TEPCO said 'all is well every thing under control'. This is a member of the Dork Media simply extrapolating and making up stories as he goes along (like many on the forum). He got the 'will get worse progressively' wrong as well. The INES 7 rating is based on the radiations release on March 15 and 16.

To me this piece looks very much like a media person defending his hysterical ilk (according to him they were 'sober and cautious'

) by accusing the other party of misinformation. If there was misinformation ('all is well, everything under control'), He should be able to point to a TEPCO media release of the same, no?

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 15 Apr 2011 04:55

Read it all...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/democracy ... 48770.html
Interesting to see French recommendation.

AMY GOODMAN: What about the evacuation zone? Is it big enough?

DR. MICHIO KAKU: It's pathetic. The United States government has already stated 50 miles for evacuating U.S. personnel. The French government has stated that all French people should consider leaving the entire islands. And here we are with a government talking about six miles, 10 miles, 12 miles. And the people there are wondering, "What's going on with the government? I mean, why aren't they telling us the truth?" Radiation levels are now rising 25 miles from the site, far beyond the evacuation zone. And remember that we could see an increase in leukemia. We could see an increase in thyroid cancers. That's the inevitable consequence of releasing enormous quantities of iodine into the environment.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 15 Apr 2011 05:03

all French people should consider leaving the entire islands.

The French abandoning and leaving...where have i heard that before?

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 15 Apr 2011 06:09

Pakistan should draw a 3,000 mile radius around Fukushima (or whatever it takes to enclose TSP in that circle) and declare it an evacuation zone.

Then they can demand 180 million Canadian Visas so all Pakistanis can evacuate to safety.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 15 Apr 2011 06:13

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote:
Meltdowns and Misinformation
What do we actually know about Japan's nuclear crisis?
BY JOSEPH CIRINCIONE | MARCH 18, 2011

Sir, I repeat my question - when has TEPCO said 'all is well every thing under control'. This is a member of the Dork Media simply extrapolating and making up stories as he goes along (like many on the forum).

Joe Cirincione is no ordinary DM. He is a Grand Ayatollah of the Carnegie NPA Madarsa.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 15 Apr 2011 06:24

putnanja wrote:Both sides are pretty sure of their own positions, and both are taking potshots at each other, while claiming to be supported by facts. Each side thinks their position is so crystal clear that the other side is stupid to not understand what they are saying, and that is resulting in personal abuses being hurled by both parties. To a neutral observer, there appears to be merit in some arguments from both sides. But no one has even accepted any single argument by the other side even if it turned out contrary to their earlier positions, and instead indulged in name calling. I don't think any of the major contributors to this thread can claim to be purely factual based without having indulged in personal attacks/sarcastic remarks/indirectly ridiculing others etc

What a silly = = , one of the silliest I have seen, but that's my opinion, as you have right to your opinion.
Also, it is your opinion, and most will hardly appoint you as a 'neutral observer' .

Of course, to me, and I believe most will agree there are more than 2 view points discussed here, and there are many sides, not just 'BOTH'. Among these many sides, there is one more side, which is either too lazy, or incapable or both to to even see, or understand the key-points, or judge their merit, in fact can not even count how many different view points there are, but comes here hurls insults, does name calling, all with holier-than-thou attitude of self-appointed neutral observer and does a ==.

I certainly can count many contributes, who are factual based etc...may be one should read those posts rather than throwing general insults. JMHO.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 15 Apr 2011 06:31

Amber G. wrote: Also, it is your opinion, and most will hardly appoint you as a 'neutral observer' .

I agree. Being a "neutral observer" is as biased a POV as any. Just like PVNR's "not making a decision is also a decision".

When I see a claim of "neutrality" I sense an agenda. It is an automatic ascension to holier-than-thou high ground from where one can look down upon the masses as "bickering" while one surveys the scene with an air of serene wisdom.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Apr 2011 06:44

putnanja wrote:Both sides are pretty sure of their own positions, and both are taking potshots at each other, while claiming to be supported by facts. Each side thinks their position is so crystal clear that the other side is stupid to not understand what they are saying, and that is resulting in personal abuses being hurled by both parties. To a neutral observer, there appears to be merit in some arguments from both sides. But no one has even accepted any single argument by the other side even if it turned out contrary to their earlier positions, and instead indulged in name calling. I don't think any of the major contributors to this thread can claim to be purely factual based without having indulged in personal attacks/sarcastic remarks/indirectly ridiculing others etc

I agree.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 15 Apr 2011 06:46

Meanwhile French are in the news..
Bulgarian cooperation agreement for Areva

France's Areva has agreed to cooperate with state-owned Bulgarian Energy Holding (BEH) to develop clean energy projects in Bulgaria, including nuclear power plants.
<snip>
Bulgarian prime minister Boiko Borissov, who attended the signing ceremony, declared, "I am confident this partnership will contribute to boosting our civil nuclear program while developing our renewable energy potential."
<snip>

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 15 Apr 2011 07:22

Michio Kaku the prof quoted above is from UC Berkeley. He is Japanese only from origins. Very much opposed to fission based nuke power. He has written a lot about future sciecne projects etc. he is very decriptive in teaching physics. I used to listen to his radio show.

Since we're talking about Michio Kaku. Its interesting to note he has objected just about anything nuclear powered. He objected to the Cassini–Huygens spacecraft which uses Pu-238 radioisotope thermo-electric generators of 600-700 Watts-electric to operate the on-board instrumentation. It was launched in 1997 and has provided much scientific data to JPL. MK has done work in string theory and its puzzling what his intentions are. He appears on everything from US public television, Coast-to-Coast radio show (about UFOs, aliens, big foot & monsters), and late night talk shows.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 15 Apr 2011 09:08

Here's what has happened to the base load which turns out to vary as well.

UPDATE 1-Japan March nuclear plant utilisation rate dives to 58.3 pct

The nuclear power plant utilisation rate at Japan's 10 nuclear power companies slid to an average 58.3 percent in March from 66.0 percent a year earlier, after last month's massive quake and tsunami last month forced indefinite shutdowns of four nuclear plants.

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Apr 2011 09:49

putnanja wrote:Both sides are pretty sure of their own positions, and both are taking potshots at each other, while claiming to be supported by facts. Each side thinks their position is so crystal clear that the other side is stupid to not understand what they are saying, and that is resulting in personal abuses being hurled by both parties. To a neutral observer, there appears to be merit in some arguments from both sides. But no one has even accepted any single argument by the other side even if it turned out contrary to their earlier positions, and instead indulged in name calling. I don't think any of the major contributors to this thread can claim to be purely factual based without having indulged in personal attacks/sarcastic remarks/indirectly ridiculing others etc

Putnanja,

I found your post quite interesting.

Since I suppose you consider yourself to be a neutral observer, (not sure what that means though, but choro) let's run through the facts.

On March 11 the 9.0 earthquake happened with epicenter 130km off the north eastern coast of Japan and 10 km deep. Now all available data shows that despite being 40 year plants and Gen I all the reactors that were operational automatically started shutting down with the control rods inserted. Then the tsunami stuck and wiped out those generators and the cooling process was interrupted which eventually resulted in those hydrogen explosions.

The rest has been, I personally feel, a tale of great perseverance, courage and honesty on the part of the Japanese to tame the situation. (I know Sanku would disagree but...).

There has been radiation leakage and the situation still has not been brought under control and the Japanese have in a rare show of candor raised the Level to 7 and stuck to it despite being criticized for doing so by many folks including the Russians of the Chernobyl fame.

It has also been said by the Japanese as well as independent experts that the situation will take many months to get under control and then many years for the clean-up. Efforts are on now to make sure the situation does not get out of control and I think the Japanese have done a great job so far. However, I'm not a neutral observer so your POV may differ from mine.

Now the point to note if you've ever studied how news media functions across the globe is, Fukushima is a sexy story and will be in the news till such time that every thing quietens down. And given the 24X7 nature of news, print, online, radio, TV etc we're going to get all manner of reports and sound bytes, from that ridiculous Energy News report posted on the last page by Sanku (I suggest you try to read and make sense of the Maths, if you can, then please teach me) to in depth interviews with both nuclear scientists as well as those vehemently opposed to any form of nuclear technology like the American Michio Kaku.

Sorry for this long preamble but it was necessary.

Now coming to the main point, which is directly linked to your comment. On a forum like BRF, which is fixed on looking at every news/event from the POV of what does it mean for India, I'm sure you'll agree it serves no purpose to go on a muck raking expedition to find the most outrageous negative news about Japan - most of them by well-known quacks and Nuclear non proliferation Ayatollahs like Joe Cirincione - without answering the question of what lessons are learnt from this tragedy?

Now here your pro and anti nuclear comment becomes important.

Since you made that comment, I'm sure you've given it some serious thought before pressing the enter button on your keyboard.

As a member of the so-called pro-camp, I can say that the position (much nuanced than what I'm writing by the way) of this camp is, to put it simply, yes this is a serious accident and we need to learn lessons from this to ensure that our present N-plants and future ones are built and protected in such a way that they can withstand a Black Swan event like this one. Related to that is the point that despite all the troubles at Fukushima, nobody has died yet as a result of the incident, in fact nobody is permanent sick also due to radiation.

Now can you please tell what exactly is the position of the anti-nuclear camp as you say, especially of it stalwarts? I can see that apart from Theo (one reason, I must reiterate, that I respect hims so much) nobody has come out and said that look we should abandon nuclear power generation, it's too dangerous. I disagree with him but then he's as much entitled to his POV as I am or anybody else is.

But can you educate us as to what exactly do you think is the POV, stand, position or whatever, is of the other stalwarts of the anti nuclear camp? It would be nice if you could educate us on that - that would seal your neutral observer status.

Incidentally when you see a fist fight it's always important to see who threw the first punch because nobody is going to turn the other cheek. Who for example called other posters "habitual liars", "working for foreign masters", "hating Indians and India" and several other gems. When others give back as well as they get, you can't complain and say chi chi what a bunch of morons.

Meanwhile, if you're really interested in this subject, despite your self appointed neutral observer status, I suggest you read this interview with Stewart Brand which I posted earlier on this thread. I think he sums up the so-called pro-nuclear POV on this thread very well.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Apr 2011 09:54

arnab wrote:
Sir, I repeat my question - when has TEPCO said 'all is well every thing under control'. This is a member of the Dork Media simply extrapolating and making up stories as he goes along (like many on the forum).

I see you did not even bother to click on various links that the article pointed to. Not sure if you clicked on the link itself.

You can find a number of statements by TEPCO before overwhelming evidence forced them to retract.

These include
--- No loss of water in pools
--- Reactor under control and no fear of explosion
--- No radiation leak despite the roof getting blown off.

There are tons and tons of reports already linked. 1000000000 in this thread itself, in fact that is the PRECISE reason I took trouble to post all the reports, since I knew that some one was likely to say "Ramayan does not say it is Ram's story, it could be Laxman's story too"

The only recourse then the people who took "all izz well and its only media that is hysterical" -- have is now to deny the very existence of such reports.

However that is not convincing anyone.

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Apr 2011 10:04

Sanku wrote:You can find a number of statements by TEPCO before overwhelming evidence forced them to retract.

These include
--- No loss of water in pools
--- Reactor under control and no fear of explosion
--- No radiation leak despite the roof getting blown off.

Your problem is you're acting as if this is a static event. But then I guess it's difficult for you to wrap your head around something which is ongoing and evolving.

Things were and dynamic at the reactors and the first few days, in fact nearly a week they couldn't even send workers into the nuclear plant both for fear of radiation and due to the infrastructure breakdown around the plant.

So if you want convince anyone you've got to assign dates on when Tepco said no loss of water in pools. When they said reactor under controls and no fear of explosion. (Incidentally I think you're being economical with the truth here because the first hydrogen explosion occurred on March11-12 itself so it's highly unlikely TEPCO said this).

Also, I'd like to see where TEPCO said no radiation leak despite the roof getting blow off and if so which date.

You're sitting with 20/20 hindsight that one gets after more than a month and then saying TEPCO was lying when discussing the first reactions to the event in the first few days.

Par to for the course.

PS: I remember watching the 9/11 disaster unfolding on TV (CNN) on that fateful day in September 2001. I remember minutes after the first plane crashed in, which no TV crew could capture because they were not prepared, the CNN report at the site said it appears a small byplane has crashed into the Tower I. I suppose he was lying through his teeth because afterall it was a CIA conspiracy right?

You may not get the link with the above to TEPCO giving information about the disaster but I'm sure other posters will do.