ex-US regulator: fukushima cleanup complicated
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_JAPAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-13-06-20-47TOKYO (AP) -- A former U.S. nuclear regulator says cleaning up Japan's wrecked Fukushima plant is a bigger challenge than the work he led at Three Mile Island and that ongoing radioactive water leaks are a minor part of that task.
Lake Barrett was appointed this month by plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. as an outside adviser for the decades-long decommissioning process. He led the Three Mile Island accident cleanup for nearly a decade as part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
He said that the meltdowns in three of the reactors, massive radiation leaks and the volume of contaminated water at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, on Japan's northeast coast, make it a more complicated clean-up.
"In comparison to Three Mile Island, Fukushima is much more challenging, much more complex a job," Barrett told a Tokyo news conference.
= new reply since forum marked as read
1. We place far more importance on finding and using energy (food, thermal fuel and electricity) than on what happens to the waste products.
2. We pay far more attention to concrete, immediate threats than to distant, abstract risks.
3. We act immediately on threats that affect our daily lives, we spend very little energy on complex future risks.
4. As our primary evolutionary advantage, the human brain functions mainly as a limit-removal mechanism. As a result we pay far more attention to opportunities than consequences.
All of those behaviors have their origins in adaptations to problems we faced over long periods of time earlier in our species' history. According to evolutionary psychologists, these behaviors are encoded into special-purpose problem solving mental circuitry - i.e. they are physically encoded in our brains. This physical encoding happens because it's far more efficient and faster to have a piece of special-purpose "hardware" to solve a class of recurrent problems than to arrive at a behavioral solution from fresh algorithmic analysis every time. The difficulty that poses in a fast-changing modern environment is obvious.
It's very hard to override the solution-generating circuitry using conscious logic. Most people go with the generated solution because it works most of the time - and that tendency is itself an evolutionary adaptation. Because most of the time the presented solution will be close enough for horseshoes means that the conscious double-checking is generally a waste of time. Even doing the analysis to determine that the "solution" may be wrong is too hard or energy intensive for most people. So we tend not to do it.
The examples of nuclear power and fossil fuels make the operation of these mechanisms very clear once you know to look for them:
1. We place far more importance on finding and using the energy than on what happens to the waste products of CO2 and spent nuclear fuel.
2. We pay far more attention to concrete, immediate threats like the loss of jobs or declining standards of living than to distant, abstract risks like climate change or the possibility of a meltdown.
3. We act on threats that affect our daily lives. Only once the reactor has melted down or droughts and floods threaten the food supply does society at large pay attention and begin to act.
4. Our brains function mainly as a limit-removal mechanism. As a result we pay far more attention to opportunities ("We can power civilization the modern way, by splitting atoms!"
than to consequences ("We can deal with the spent fuel later, there's lots of time for that."
We also assume that our intellect is strong enough that it can control our actions, govern the direction of our development and deal with the risks. Unfortunately, the forces that shape our behavior have a very strong genetic or "hardware" component that is difficult to recognize, let alone overcome through reason.
Add to that the fact that similar special-purpose mechanisms have evolved to promote social group cohesion. These mechanisms entrain our personal behavior with that of people around us so that the group can present a united front. Objectors, malcontents and whistle-blowers are subjected to enormous social pressure to get back in the fold or risk ostracism. So people who say things like, "Perhaps we shouldn't use every last source of energy we can, and maybe we should apply the Precautionary Principle once in a while," are about as welcome in broader society as skunks at a picnic. They are ignored, derided or sanctioned through job loss or prison.
We're not stupid, exactly. We are fighting psychological effects that are very old, and are embedded in the physical structure of our brains. This makes it much easier to detect problems than to solve them, especially if they affect society at large.
