[Peace-discuss] Japanese warning

Mon Mar 14 17:39:58 CDT 2011

[From <http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp03142011.html>.]

...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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.

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.”

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.

On 3/14/11 1:27 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> March 14, 2011
> Japan: The Reactor Risk
>
> Posted by Elizabeth Kolbert
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.
>
> Read more 
> http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/03/japan-the-reactor-risk.html?printable=true&currentPage=all#ixzz1GbFOxWIb
>
>
> On 3/14/11 6:03 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>
>> {From <http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,750773,00.html>.]
>>
>> ...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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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...
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110314/9b24b779/attachment-0001.html>