The end of the empire of Japan

[TimG]

It's a great big state secret. There's no way to tell so it's perfectly appropriate to assume it is.

Of course, you don't consider the fact that they report nothing because there is nothing to report?

The PR disaster this has become for the nuclear industry is entirely the fault of the fascists that are running it. Total public awareness and total transparency is the only cure for what ails them and us.

I see no evidence of secrecy or deception during the current crisis. The most you can critize them for is not telling the public about the hypothetical risk from the coolent pools until after the hypothetical became real. OTOH, there are many hypotheticals and it woul be bloodly confusing to listen to a message written by lawyers listing every possible hypothetical.

On the whole, I think disclosure during this incident was acceptable.

Edited March 20, 2011 by TimG

[SF/PF]

Yes, but you make such spelling errors as labour (should be labor) and harbour (should be harbor)

I suppose it depends on if we're speaking English or American.

[eyeball]

Of course, you don't consider the fact that they report nothing because there is nothing to report?

I refuse to consider anything they have to report in the absence of an utterly transparent and forensically auditable reporting system.

I see no evidence of secrecy or deception during the current crisis.

I saw evasiveness. Happily, albeit not for the nuclear industry and it's regulatory cohorts, I've seen an enormous overwhelming display of public incredulity. People may not know a lot about the physics or technical aspects of nuclear energy but they sure do know bullshit when they see it. Especially when it's coming down from on high.

The most you can critize them for is not telling the public about the hypothetical risk from the coolent pools until after the hypothetical became real. OTOH, there are many hypotheticals and it woul be bloodly confusing to listen to a message written by lawyers listing every possible hypothetical.

I can criticize them for the abject stupidity of having stored un-contained radioactive nuclear waste right above a reactor. How do you think the fire marshal or my insurance agent would react if I stored open buckets of old creosote above my wood stove?

On the whole, I think disclosure during this incident was acceptable.

I think there's a sucker born every minute.

[WIP]

Why not? Is such information not avaialable for Canada? If not, why not?

We are learning that Canada's nuclear industry is a financial boondoggle, since the Conservative Government has been unable to sell the Crown corporation -- AECL, largely because they haven't made a sale in ten years, and cost Canadian taxpayers close to a billion dollars last year CBC news, but when it comes to getting information about near accidents and radiation leaks, there doesn't seem to be the network of outside watchdog groups sifting through available information like there is in the U.S. and some other countries.

The US government itself has operated many more nuclear power plants in naval vessels subject to even greater risks....in and out of port.

Which might be an argument supporting the premise that small-scale nuclear reactors are safer than the behemoths that power large generating stations. Still, all it takes is one accident, and it's potentially a major hazard..depending on where the sub or aircraft carrier is located.

[WIP]

And I suspose you want to claim the people selling windmills are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts? The fact is greed makes our society function and using it to condemn anyone you don't like is pathetic.

No, I've had it up to here with all of the rightwing talk of the virtues of competition, self-interest, exploitation and consumption over the last 30 years. Cooperation is also a virtue, and one that is badly needed to counteract the elevation of selfishness as a virtue.

And, on that specific point of whether someone is going to be motivated by greed to build windmills...sure they will, if there's big money to be made in building windmills and solar panels, but the point you are missing is that the greed I am talking about is greed that puts selfish, short-term financial interests above all else! The Wall Street ponzi schemers didn't care what the long term effects of repackaging risky mortgages as secure mortgage securities were...they were just interested in creating CDO's and collecting the highest commissions...making a fast buck before everything collapsed around them; B.P.'s top executives knew that deep sea drilling operations were risky, but they insisted on taking high risk shortcuts to get the well into production as soon as possible; and on the grander scale, BP, Exxon, and other oil and coal companies decided 15 to 20 years ago to start a massive disinformation and propaganda campaign to prevent any effective government action to stop the increase in greenhouse gas emissions...here again, men who are motivated solely by the short term accumulation of vast wealth have decided to play russian roulette with the future of civilization...so, why should we be surprised that the builders and operators of nuclear power stations take risky shortcuts to save money and maximize profits?

In the case fo Japan, they adopted nuclear power because it is the ONLY baseload power that does not leave them beholden to foreign suppliers. For that reason they were more than willing to take some calculated risks. These calculated risks paid off for the 3 other plants in the impact zone. They may still pay off forthe Fukushima I plant once the crisis is past.

No, nuclear was not the only option for Japan!

Japan’s wind farms save its ass while nuclear plants founder

While Japan's water-dependent nuclear power plants suck and wheeze and spew radioactive steam, "there has been no wind facility damage reported by any [Japan Wind Energy Association] members, from either the earthquake or the tsunami," says association head Yoshinori Ueda.

Even the country's totally badass Kamisu offshore wind farm, with its giant 2 MW turbines with blades big as the wings on a jumbo jet, and only 186 miles from the epicenter of the largest quake ever recorded in Japan, survived without a hiccup thanks to its "battle proof design." As a result, the nation's electric companies have asked all of its wind farms to increase power production to maximum, in order to make up for the shortfalls brought about by the failure of certain other aging, non-resilient 20th-century technologies

[WIP]

Of course, you don't consider the fact that they report nothing because there is nothing to report?

I see no evidence of secrecy or deception during the current crisis. The most you can critize them for is not telling the public about the hypothetical risk from the coolent pools until after the hypothetical became real. OTOH, there are many hypotheticals and it woul be bloodly confusing to listen to a message written by lawyers listing every possible hypothetical.

On the whole, I think disclosure during this incident was acceptable.

Are there really that many people here who have a stake in the nuclear power industry? Or are they paying bloggers and forum commenters to advance their propaganda like the oil-funded lobby groups have been accused of doing? I'm noticing many articles such as the following, which highlight the malfeasance of the Japanese nuclear industry, that is only becoming a big story now because of the disaster:

Bungling, cover-ups define Japanese nuclear power (AP) – 2 days ago

TOKYO (AP) — Behind Japan's escalating nuclear crisis sits a scandal-ridden energy industry in a comfy relationship with government regulators often willing to overlook safety lapses.

Leaks of radioactive steam and workers contaminated with radiation are just part of the disturbing catalog of accidents that have occurred over the years and been belatedly reported to the public, if at all.

In one case, workers hand-mixed uranium in stainless steel buckets, instead of processing by machine, so the fuel could be reused, exposing hundreds of workers to radiation. Two later died.

"Everything is a secret," said Kei Sugaoka, a former nuclear power plant engineer in Japan who now lives in California. "There's not enough transparency in the industry."

...............The legacy of scandals and cover-ups over Japan's half-century reliance on nuclear power has strained its credibility with the public. That mistrust has been renewed this past week with the crisis at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant. No evidence has emerged of officials hiding information in this catastrophe. But the vagueness and scarcity of details offered by the government and Tepco — and news that seems to grow worse each day — are fueling public anger and frustration.

................The United States, Japan's close ally, has also raised questions about the coziness between Japanese regulators and industry and implicitly questioned Tokyo's forthrightness over the Fukushima crisis. The director of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. ambassador this week issued bleaker assessments about the dangers at the plant than the Japanese government or Tepco.

Competence and transparency issues aside, some say it's just too dangerous to build nuclear plants in an earthquake-prone nation like Japan, where land can liquefy during a major temblor.

"You're building on a heap of tofu," said Philip White of Tokyo-based Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, a group of scientists and activists who have opposed nuclear power since 1975.

— At least 37 workers were exposed to low doses of radiation at a 1997 fire and explosion at a nuclear reprocessing plant operated in Tokaimura, northeast of Tokyo. The operator, Donen, later acknowledged it had initially suppressed information about the fire.

— Hundreds of people were exposed to radiation and thousands evacuated in the more serious 1999 Tokaimura accident involving JCO Co. The government assigned the accident a level 4 rating on the International Nuclear Event Scale ranging from 1 to 7, with 7 being most serious.

— In 2007, a powerful earthquake ripped into Japan's northwest coast, killing at least eight people and causing malfunctions at the Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear power plant, including radioactive water spills, burst pipes and fires. Radiation did not leak from the facility.

Tepco has safety violations that stretch back decades. In 1978, control rods at one Fukushima reactor dislodged but the accident was not reported because utilities were not required to notify the government of such accidents. In 2006, Tepco reported a negligible amount of radioactive steam seeped from the Fukushima plant — and blew beyond the compound.

Tanaka says that, true to Japan's dismal nuclear power record, officials bungled the latest crisis, failing to set up a special crisis team and appoint credible outside experts.

Associated Press writers Joji Sakurai and Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo and Justin Pritchard in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

[Wilber]

No, nuclear was not the only option for Japan!

Japan’s wind farms save its ass while nuclear plants founder

While Japan's water-dependent nuclear power plants suck and wheeze and spew radioactive steam, "there has been no wind facility damage reported by any [Japan Wind Energy Association] members, from either the earthquake or the tsunami," says association head Yoshinori Ueda.

Even the country's totally badass Kamisu offshore wind farm, with its giant 2 MW turbines with blades big as the wings on a jumbo jet, and only 186 miles from the epicenter of the largest quake ever recorded in Japan, survived without a hiccup thanks to its "battle proof design." As a result, the nation's electric companies have asked all of its wind farms to increase power production to maximum, in order to make up for the shortfalls brought about by the failure of certain other aging, non-resilient 20th-century technologies

Pretty hard to see how they saved Japans ass when there are rolling blackouts going on. Japan is steadily increasing power production from renewable sources and it is growing at a greater rate than other types of production but still only around 3% comes from wind, solar and geo thermal. Fact is, it is estimated that this incident could increase Japans oil consumption by 238,000 barrels per day and natural gas consumption by 1.2 billion cubic feet per day.

Japanese power production from Jan to July 2010. Combustible Fuels 61.7%, Nuclear 21.4%, Hydro 13.9%, Other 3%

Source, OECD

[WIP]

Pretty hard to see how they saved Japans ass when there are rolling blackouts going on. Japan is steadily increasing power production from renewable sources and it is growing at a greater rate than other types of production but still only around 3% comes from wind, solar and geo thermal. Fact is, it is estimated that this incident could increase Japans oil consumption by 238,000 barrels per day and natural gas consumption by 1.2 billion cubic feet per day.

Japanese power production from Jan to July 2010. Combustible Fuels 61.7%, Nuclear 21.4%, Hydro 13.9%, Other 3%

Source, OECD

Consider all of the billions that have been pumped into the nuclear industry, and what could have been done if the money was spent elsewhere! My suspicions are still that the reason nuclear has been advanced as the only option to fossil fuels (as if mining uranium, building nuclear stations has no carbon footprint) is because it is a power source that can be totally controlled by a monopoly.

[Wilber]

Consider all of the billions that have been pumped into the nuclear industry, and what could have been done if the money was spent elsewhere! My suspicions are still that the reason nuclear has been advanced as the only option to fossil fuels (as if mining uranium, building nuclear stations has no carbon footprint) is because it is a power source that can be totally controlled by a monopoly.

Who said it is the only option. All options have their limitations, that's why there is a need to pursue more than one. Even if you could cover the world with enough wind farms and solar panels (which you can't), they can't be relied on 24-7 and you can't store their production. At present they only way you can store large amounts of energy is in fuels or in water behind dams. They can never be more than part of an integrated system.

As far as monopolies go, it's worth your life in this province if you advocate breaking up BC Hydro.

[TimG]

No, I've had it up to here with all of the rightwing talk of the virtues of competition, self-interest, exploitation and consumption over the last 30 years. Cooperation is also a virtue, and one that is badly needed to counteract the elevation of selfishness as a virtue.

You are living in a fantasy land then. Everyone's first priority is to look after themselves first. The only difference between a union worker and a CEO is the CEO is tasked with looking after other people's money.

but the point you are missing is that the greed I am talking about is greed that puts selfish, short-term financial interests above all else!

Which is what wind farm operators do all of the time when they insist on massive subsidies. If they really cared about the 'common good' they would happy lock their money up for decades with no return. Face it, your definition of greed is based on whether you approve of the activity. It is nothing but a self serving politics on your part.

The Wall Street ponzi schemers didn't care what the long term effects of repackaging risky mortgages as secure mortgage securities were...they were just interested in creating CDO's and collecting the highest commissions...making a fast buck before everything collapsed around them;

Did you ever ask where the market for CDOs came from? If you did you would find that it had its origins in the early 90s when bank were forced to issue loans to meet 'social goals'. If that catalyst had not created the market we may have never seen the bust.

BP, Exxon, and other oil and coal companies decided 15 to 20 years ago to start a massive disinformation and propaganda campaign to prevent any effective government action to stop the increase in greenhouse gas emissions?

Again, you define 'misinformation' as 'anything you don't agree with'. If you were really against corporations spending money promoting their self interest you would oppose the pro-AGW campaigns by insurance companies, wind power operators, solar cell purveyors, etc. More hypocritical BS on your part.

Even the country's totally badass Kamisu offshore wind farm, with its giant 2 MW turbines with blades big as the wings on a jumbo jet, and only 186 miles from the epicenter of the largest quake ever recorded in Japan

ROFL. If you look at a map you see that this puny windfarm (only 14MW vs 500MW for single nuke) was protected by geography from the tsunami. In any case, 3 nuclear installation survived a direct hit by the quake and tsunami with few problems. Only one ran into problems but these are likely to be extremely short term and local in nature. Edited March 20, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

*No evidence has emerged of officials hiding information in this catastrophe.* But the vagueness and scarcity of details offered by the government and Tepco and news that seems to grow worse each day are fueling public anger and frustration.

Anti-nuclear advocates are deperately trying to spin this event to suit positions they have taken all a long. The fact is the event should increase our confidence in the safety of nuclear power because despite multiple disasters and cascading failures the operators were able to get the plant under control. Edited March 20, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

Consider all of the billions that have been pumped into the nuclear industry, and what could have been done if the money was spent elsewhere!

We would be using even more coal that we use today. Wind and solar cannot meet baseload power requirements. No amount of investment will change this reality until someone designs a cheap battery.

[jbg]

We would be using even more coal that we use today. Wind and solar cannot meet baseload power requirements. No amount of investment will change this reality until someone designs a cheap battery.

Agreed, and the topic for another thread which I may start if I get ambitious enough.

The fact is that the anti-nuclear crowd is the same crew that insists that we not drill oil on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or in the Gulf of Mexico or for that matter anywhere, and who are umbically fixed on reducing our carbon footprint. Should we head back to the Stone Age?

[eyeball]

The only difference between a union worker and a CEO is the CEO is tasked with looking after other people's money.

Which almost always includes trying to rid the company of as many union workers as possible.

Given the growth of the privatized public service, government management has obviously been tasked with the same job.

[TimG]

Which almost always includes trying to rid the company of as many union workers as possible

A CEO has a responsibility to maintain a productive workforce. Layoffs are one of many tools available.

[eyeball]

A CEO has a responsibility to maintain a productive workforce. Layoffs are one of many tools available.

CEO's have many responsibilities. Layoffs also provide a handy means of avoiding them.

[TimG]

CEO's have many responsibilities. Layoffs also provide a handy means of avoiding them.

What responsibilities are avoided by laying off workers?

[eyeball]

What responsibilities are avoided by laying off workers?

Responsibility for environmental protection and public safety and health come to mind.

Edited March 21, 2011 by eyeball

[TimG]

Responsibility for environmental protection and public safety and health come to mind.

How does laying off workers help avoid those liabilities?

[ToadBrother]

A CEO has a responsibility to maintain a productive workforce. Layoffs are one of many tools available.

But not, I note, reducing his own salary and compensation.

[TimG]

But not, I note, reducing his own salary and compensation.

Yeah. That is a problem with corporations. The people on the 'compensation committees' are largely other executives with a stake in the outcome. I can't defend them since the CEOs are looking after themselves rather than their companies. Edited March 21, 2011 by TimG

[eyeball]

How does laying off workers help avoid those liabilities?

I said responsibilities. For dealing with liabilities you need lobbyists, lawyers and de-regulation.

Boosting profits by laying people off can often compromise operational safety. I've certainly seen this happen in fishing and logging industries I've worked in so please don't try to tell me that economics doesn't trump safety right across the spectrum of industrial pursuits when people including CEO's think they can get away with it.

It happens all the time.

[ToadBrother]

Yeah. That is a problem with corporations. The people on the 'compensation committees' are largely other executives with a stake in the outcome. I can't defend them since the CEOs are looking after themselves rather than their companies.

The simplest solution, long advocated, would be to make compensation a matter for the shareholders, and to make it illegal for officers or executives in the company for holding voting stock.

[TimG]

Boosting profits by laying people off can often compromise operational safety.

Laying off people does not avoid responsibility for safety. If safety problems come up they are still liable. Edited March 21, 2011 by TimG

[eyeball]

Laying off people does not avoid responsibility for safety. If safety problems come up they are still liable.

A liability that is deliberately limited to the greatest extent possible. The public usually picks up most of the tab either in actual dollars or health problems and or environmental degradation.

Everyone else pretty much gets off scot-free.