<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
[From <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp03142011.html"><http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp03142011.html></a>.]<br>
<br>
...it may happen that the worst part of this disaster will be
man-made. When some human beings who in their quest for profit and
prosperity deal with the environment stupidly, we really need to
hold them accountable.<br>
<br>
One-third of Japan’s energy supply is provided by nuclear reactors.
They are located for the most part on the thin strips of coastal
land where the great majority of Japanese live, and vulnerable to
inevitable cataclysms. When an earthquake or volcanic eruption
disrupts the supply of electricity needed to pump the water that
keeps the reactor cool, there can be a meltdown and release of
lethal doses of radiation. The Chernobyl disaster of 1986 is thought
to have produced many thousands of deaths from cancer in addition to
57 immediate deaths from radiation exposure.<br>
<br>
What happens if -- as now seems highly likely -- power plants
Dai-ichi and Dai-ni, up the coast from Sendai in Fukushima
prefecture, experience meltdowns? Do we say shikataganai? Or do we
demand the heads of the planners, politicians and corporate bosses
who made this happen? For years public opinion polls have shown a
plurality of Japanese opposed to nuclear power. A 1999 Asahi Shinbun
poll showed 45 per cent of Japanese opposing nuclear energy, with
only 32 per cent supporting it. In 1996 half the electorate of Mie
Prefecture signed a position opposing the construction of a nuclear
plant. But as a study on public opinion and nuclear power in Japan
published by Rice University in 2000 noted, a minority argued that
nuclear power was the key to Japanese energy independence. “These
views allowed officials to discount protests as short-term, selfish
economic anxiety. They effectively used financial rewards and
compensation to dampen discontent. Little attention was given to the
legitimacy of public concerns on safety.”<br>
<br>
Despite public opposition, and the occurrence of level 2, 3, and 4
accidents (in 1995, 1997, and 1999 respectively), reliance of
nuclear power soared. In 1990, 9 per cent of Japan’s electricity was
generated by nuclear plants, while in 2000 the figure was 32 per
cent.<br>
<br>
In the 1990 film Yume (“Dreams”) by Kurosawa Akira, based upon the
great film director’s own dreams, there is a short piece called “Mt.
Fuji in Red.” In the nightmare, people are fleeing from an
earthquake along a bridge. Several---a woman and her two small
children, a man in a suit, and a man dressed casually---pause to
stare up at Mt. Fuji, realizing in horror that it is erupting.
(This is entirely conceivable. It last erupted in 1707 and has
erupted about 75 times in the last 2200 years.) A huge radioactive
red cloud appears on the horizon as huge columns of flame envelop
the mountain. The uniformed man notes that the mountain is ringed
by six atomic plants. They flee, although he declares that because
Japan is small there’s no escape.<br>
<br>
The scene changes to a deserted debris-strew cliff overlooking the
sea. The casually dressed man asks where all the people have gone,
and the other man tells him they’ve all leaped into the sea. He then
points to the sky and explains: “That red one is plutonium 239. One
100,000,000th of a gram causes cancer. The yellow one is strontium
90. It gets inside you and causes leukemia. The purple one is cesium
137. If affects reproduction and causes mutations. It makes
monstrosities. Man’s stupidity is unbelievable. Radioactivity is
invisible. But because of its danger they colored it. But that only
lets you know what kind kills you. Death’s calling card.”<br>
<br>
He bows politely, says “Osaki ni” (a phrase literally meaning, “in
advance of you”), and turns to the cliff, preparing to leap into the
sea. The other man tries to restrain him, noting that radiation
doesn’t kill immediately, but is told that “waiting to die isn’t
living.”<br>
<br>
The woman hugging her children cries out, “They told us that nuclear
energy was safe. Human accident is the danger, not the nuclear plant
itself. No accidents, no danger. That’s what they told us. What
liars! If they’re not hanged for this, I’ll kill them myself!” The
man about to leap into the sea tells her that the radiation will
kill them for her. He again bows low, and confesses he’s one that
deserves to die. He throws himself over the cliff as the
radioactive winds surround the living.<br>
<br>
Was this nightmare scenario just the bad dream of the great Japanese
director? Japanese officials are pooh-poohing the possibility of a
major calamity. Chief Cabinet Secretary Edano Yukio “assumes the
possibility of a meltdown” at one of the Fukushima reactors. “At the
risk of raising further public concern,” he says, “we cannot rule
out the possibility of an explosion. If there is an explosion,
however, there would be no significant impact on human health.”<br>
<br>
Reminds me of the woman in the film: No danger. That’s what they
told us. I don’t want to predict the worst, knowing little about
nuclear power. But it’s obviously not safe when you have to evacuate
180,000 people as a precaution, when workers have to struggle to
avert disasters, and countries are urging their nationals to leave
Japan with radiation a principle concern. There is already a
significant influence on the mental health of Japanese seized by
anxiety about explosions and leaks. As we mourn the dead we should
on behalf of the living struggle for safe, sustainable, green
energy.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/14/11 1:27 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4D7E5E06.4000900@illinois.edu" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
March 14, 2011<br>
Japan: The Reactor Risk<br>
<br>
Posted by Elizabeth Kolbert<br>
<br>
<br>
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not have a
listing for “meltdown” in its glossary of terms. The closest you
get is “core melt accident,” which the NRC defines as “an event or
sequence of events that result in the melting of part of the fuel
in the reactor core.” In the case of a “core melt accident,” a
reactor’s nuclear fuel rods overheat and, at a temperature of
several thousand degrees, quite literally begin to melt.<br>
<br>
The Three Mile Island disaster, in 1979, is often described as a
“partial core meltdown.” In that case, the reactor vessel, which
houses the reactor behind thick walls of steel and concrete, was
not breached. The Chernobyl disaster, in 1986, resulted in a
rupture of the reactor vessel and the wide dispersal of
radioactive particles. However, since Russian reactor design is
very different from American (and Japanese), most experts argue
that the Chernobyl accident does not offer much information that
is useful outside of Russia. (I wrote about another plant, Indian
Point, in 2003.)<br>
<br>
The obvious worry about the damaged reactors in Japan is that one
or more of them will suffer a complete meltdown—however you define
that. (It seems that two have already probably suffered “partial
meltdowns.”) What would happen then is not entirely clear, which
in itself is rather terrifying. A great deal, it seems, would
depend on the strength and integrity of the reactor vessels. The
plant’s secondary containment buildings have already been breached
by explosions. Japanese officials are apparently very worried
about the unfortunately very real possibility of meltdown; this is
why they have flooded the damaged reactors with seawater. Although
they seem to be trying to downplay the risks from the damaged
plants, their actions suggest that they believe the risks of
(further) catastrophe to be significant.<br>
<br>
Read more
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/03/japan-the-reactor-risk.html?printable=true&currentPage=all#ixzz1GbFOxWIb">http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/03/japan-the-reactor-risk.html?printable=true&currentPage=all#ixzz1GbFOxWIb</a><br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/14/11 6:03 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4D7DF61A.5040701@illinois.edu" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>{From <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,750773,00.html"><http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,750773,00.html></a>.]<br>
</p>
<p>...The fact that Japan, which was once considered a miracle
economy, was on the verge of a nuclear disaster could be far
more devastating to the nuclear industry than the Soviet
reactor catastrophe in Chernobyl could ever have been a
quarter century ago.</p>
<p> </p>
<div class="spMInline"> <span class="quchnoad" style="display:
none;"></span> </div>
Admittedly, Japan is in an earthquake zone, which puts it at
greater risk than countries like Germany and France. But Japan
also happens to be a leading industrialized nation, a country
where well-trained, pedantically precise engineers build the
world's most advanced and reliable cars.
<p>When the Chernobyl accident occurred, Germany's nuclear
industry managed to convince itself, and German citizens, that
aging reactors and incapable, sloppy engineers in Eastern
Europe were to blame. Western reactors, or so the industry
claimed, were more modern, better maintained and simply safer.</p>
<p>It is now clear how arrogant this self-assured attitude is.
If an accident of this magnitude could happen in Japan, it can
happen just as easily in Germany. All that's needed is the
right chain of fatal circumstances. Fukushima is everywhere...</p>
<br>
<pre wrap=""><fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>