Experts urge Japan to break away from ‘failed’ nuclear reprocessing program

[bananas]

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201308280071

Experts urge Japan to break away from ‘failed’ nuclear reprocessing program

August 28, 2013

By YASUJI NAGAI/ Senior Staff Writer

In a proposal submitted to The Asahi Shimbun, researchers at an international group of nuclear experts outlined steps they say Japan must take to break away from its “failed” nuclear fuel recycling policy.

Masafumi Takubo and Frank von Hippel of the International Panel on Fissile Materials noted that Japan currently has 44 tons of already separated plutonium, enough to make more than 5,000 Nagasaki-type atomic bombs, while it has no clear path toward disposal.

In the proposal titled, “Ending plutonium separation: An alternative approach to managing Japan’s spent nuclear fuel,” they said Japan’s reprocessing policy has “insignificant” resource conservation and radioactive waste management benefits.

It is also “becoming increasingly dysfunctional, dangerous and costly,” since weapon-useable separated plutonium is a “magnet for would-be nuclear terrorists,” the authors said. Japan’s program is also setting an ill example for countries interested in nuclear-weapon options, they added.

<snip>

The full-text of the proposal is available at: http://www.asahi.com/special/nuclear_peace/academic/August2013_english.pdf

[zipplewrath]

1. In the interest of full disclosure

from the quoted article:

The IPFM is a group of independent nuclear experts from 17 countries whose goal is to promote international initiatives to reduce stocks of plutonium and uranium and limit any further production.

[kristopher]

3. What is that "disclosing"?

[zipplewrath]

4. The biases of the organization drawing the conclusions

Basically the article is heavily based upon conclusions drawn by an organization that is dedicated to coming the the conclusions that they did. Technically, that's the definition of propaganda.

[kristopher]

5. No, it isn't.

When the IPCC gathers data and reports on their analysis, is that propaganda?

You can be part of an organization dedicated to a mission (NASA) and still follow the path of scientific inquiry.

If you have some evidence that the IPFM is corrupting their research, now would be the appropriate time to share it.

Everything I know about the recycling program of Japan shows it to be an abject failure. Google "Monju".

[bananas]

7. It gets like Fox News around here.

[zipplewrath]

9. Not exactly double blind

I think you'll find that technically, when an organization is dedicated to a particular outcome, their analysis will be considered biased. (Doesn't mean it's wrong of course). And the IPCC may have instituted methods to attempt to avoid bias, but I'm dubious.

[kristopher]

10. Dear zipplewrath,

if you wish to consider the work of the IPFM and the IPCC to be examples of "bias" that is your privilege. There are different levels of face validity to research originating in different sectors - that produced by an affected industry is least trustworthy and least transparent.

Advocacy organizations (and that would include government agencies charged with promoting a given industry) are far more reliable, but require scrutiny to ensure validity. Fortunately the scrutiny is possible because usually the data is readily available. The range of organizations in this category make generalizations difficult, but suffice to say that industry linked entities like The Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundations are examples from one end of the extreme, while the work from transparent, nonprofit public service groups are examples from the other extreme.

Then we go to the the level academic white papers - research that hasn't gone through peer review but is prepared largely on the basis of peer reviewed data by experts in their field. A book authored by a professor is another example.

This is where the output of an organization like the IPFM falls.

Then we have the realm of academic, peer reviewed work which is considered to have the most validity.

In light of the history and reputation for both integrity and knowledge of the subject matter that the IPFM in particular has earned, your assertions about them have near zero credibility.

[zipplewrath]

11. I said technically

As I said, technically what they are producing is propaganda. All that really means though is that their writings come from a particular goal or point of view. Furthermore, the intent is not to inform, but to influence. The word "propaganda" gets a negative connotation because of its connection to the type that contains falsehoods or distortions. But technically it doesn't have to have those aspects to still be propaganda. Another aspect is the tendency to represent only one point of view, and avoid presenting information contrary to the goal or point of view. That is the short coming I suspect is present here. (And is fairly typically what peer review will tend to enforce. It is a common short coming found when papers are peer reviewed.

[kristopher]

12. You are talking balderdash.

If a word is designed to express a negative value you don't get to eliminate that negative value by simply striking it out like an editor. I've heard EXACTLY the same line of argument used to validate the use of the word n*****, saying "it really only means a black person".

We're done.

[zipplewrath]

13. Wow, is there a corallary to Godwin's law

Really, let's wander off on wild tangents.

All I'm saying is that the source is anything but unbiased and the information is presented for the purpose of influencing the audience. Technically, that is propaganda. And you did a good job of breaking down the difference between say the Heritage foundations version of propaganda and something more like the Southern Poverty Law Center. None the less, the reader should be aware that the article was based upon a study whose purpose was to influence the audience to a conclusion, not some double blind study of the situation.

[bananas]

14. Nope - even the National Academy of Sciences trashed reprocessing.

As mentioned in post 6, the Bush administration used propaganda and bribery to push reprocessing in the US.

When so many highly regarded experts - highly regarded because of their reputation for objective unbiased expert analyses - spoke out against it, Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences for guidance.

That's what President Abraham Lincoln created the National Academy of Sciences for - to provide the nation with unbiased guidance on scientific matters.

The National Academy of Science issued a report giving reprocessing a big thumbs down.

So Congress defunded Bush's stupid program.


Your statements are nothing more than unscientific and ignorantly biased rhetoric.

Suppose we were discussing fecal matter instead of fissile material.

And suppose there was an organization which advocated indoor plumbing, clean diapers, walking the dog twice a day, and recommended against pregnant women handling kitty litter.

There's no controversy about any of this. Advocating proper hygiene is not propaganda - whether it's fecal hygiene or fissile hygiene.

And if someone said, "Oh that's just anti-fecal propaganda!" that person would seem pretty stupid, wouldn't they?

Well, they might not seem stupid to you, but they would seem stupid to anyone who wasn't an idiot.

Hope this helps!

[kristopher]

15. +1

[zipplewrath]

16. What contrary information was presented in the original article?

What contrary information was presented in the original article? That is really the point. The whole article was based upon a single point of view, and a study whose intent was to support that point of view.

[bananas]

6. No - this is the exact opposite of propaganda.

These are independent experts who are highly regarded for their objective analysis.

For example, the Bush/Cheney administration pushed a similar reprocessing program as a major part of GNEP (Global Nuclear Energy Program).

It was trashed by almost all independent experts, as pointed out by Ivan Oelrich at the Federation of American Scientists (I've boldfaced some parts for emphasis):

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclear_power_and_fuel_cycle/gnep.html

<snip>

A telling point is that almost no independent analysts, that is, those not working for the Department of Energy, have anything good to say about the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. In the Greenwire article cited above, Deutsch called GNEP a “goofy idea.” Even overall supporters of nuclear power, like Ernest Moniz of MIT (Moniz was, along with Deutsch, cochairman of the panel that wrote the very influential MIT study, The Future of Nuclear Power), oppose GNEP if for no other reason than it is premature. It may be a good idea at the end of the 21st Century, but not now. Even the nuclear power industry is at best tepid in its support, worrying that GNEP is a diversion from the immediate problem of a geological repository. Recent questions from members of Congress highlights another concern: even potential supporters of the idea of reprocessing are wary of entrusting the gargantuan technical task to the Department of Energy because DOE has shown repeatedly and consistently that it is incapable of managing such complex projects.

Perhaps as a result the lack of outside expert support, the DOE seems to be focusing on selling GNEP not on technical grounds but through public relations. One fascinating example is the result of a series of focus groups held in Idaho. DOE’s consultants reported that one of the most appealing aspects of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership was that it “recycled” plutonium. If it is good for aluminum cans, how can it be bad for plutonium? The recently re-released "Strategic Plan," used the word “recycling” 37 times in ten pages. Most significantly, what was (and still is on most DOE materials) the “Advanced Burner Reactor” has magically been transformed into the “Advanced Recycling Reactor.” The reprocessing plant, which was called the “Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center,” is now called the “Nuclear Fuel Recycling Center,” which is a complete misnomer because “reprocessing” is just separation of the used fuel into various types of waste, it is not reuse. Not all pages on the DOE website have been converted to the “recycling” message. Readers are invited to visit the website occasionally and observe what I predict will be the eventual takeover of “recycling.”

Another way to gain political support is to buy it. The DOE has done this in an unusual move, offering eleven communities an average of a million dollars each to prepare proposals for why each of them should be chosen as the GNEP preprocessing site. DOE gives many grants for projects and research, of course, but I know of no other instance when the DOE has basically paid for these sorts of bid proposals.

The legislation requires that communities apply but, in fact, the “entities” that applied are more often nuclear companies (GE, EnergySolutions, for example), economic development groups (SRS), or city councils (Hanford and Hobbs NM). As part of the applications, the “entities” had to say that the community would be willing to be a storage site for spent fuel. For a while, DOE and these “entities” refused to share the applications with the “communities” the purported to represent. Redacted versions of a few of the applications have been released by the “entities.”

A variety of technical issues point strongly to Savannah River facility in South Carolina as the only plausible site for the planned enormous reprocessing plant and that is where it will eventually end up so a cynic might speculate that these payments by DOE are intended to buy temporary regional political support until GNEP gets irreversibly established. Fortunately, I am not a cynic.

<snip>

Finally, Professor Frank von Hippel of Princeton has written a superb summary of the Global Nuclear Partnership and the problems with the proposed program.

[kristopher]

8. Sometimes I wonder...

Was Orwell a prophet, an observer of human nature, a teacher or all of the above?

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

The attacks on groups like IPFM or even those that try to malign the *motives* of groups like GreenPeace are straight from the Ministry of Truth's playbook.

[kristopher]

2. Yep - Another former Japanese Prime Minister turns anti-nuclear

Ex-PM Junichiro Koizumi pushes for a ‘zero nuclear power’ Japan
Aug 28, 2013 John Hofilena

Earlier in August, former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi visited Germany – a nation that has decided to give up on the use of nuclear power – and Finland, which continues to rely on nuclear technology. The 71-year-old former leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has made his opinion known after the trip that he is for the abandonment of nuclear power.

Koizumi has retired from politics, and his seat in the Diet is now held by his son, Shinjiro Koizumi. But he remains an influential personality in Japanese politics, and it is certain that his comments will attract the attention of the country’s media. Koizumi was accompanied on this specific trip by four executives from the nuclear divisions of Toshiba, Hitachi, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries – companies that continue to manufacture and export Japan’s nuclear technology. One of these executives reportedly asked the elderly statesman if he agrees to keeping nuclear power in Japan, and also influence others to that position. “If I was back in the Diet in my old job, trying to persuade undecided members on the nuclear power issue, I don’t think I’d have it in me to convince them that Japan needs nuclear power,” Koizumi reportedly replied to the executive. “But after seeing what I’ve seen on this trip, I think I could persuade those members to move toward zero nuclear power. I’m more confident of that all the time,” he added....

http://japandailypress.com/ex-pm-junichiro-koizumi-pushes-for-a-zero-nuclear-power-japan-2834751/3

That's worth breaking out and looking at more closely.

Koizumi was accompanied on this specific trip by four executives from the nuclear divisions of Toshiba, Hitachi, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries – companies that continue to manufacture and export Japan’s nuclear technology. One of these executives reportedly asked the elderly statesman if he agrees to keeping nuclear power in Japan, and also influence others to that position.

To which he replied

“If I was back in the Diet in my old job, trying to persuade undecided members on the nuclear power issue, I don’t think I’d have it in me to convince them that Japan needs nuclear power... But after seeing what I’ve seen on this trip, I think I could persuade those members to move toward zero nuclear power. I’m more confident of that all the time,”

Ouch!