Fukushima - Settle in for a Long Haul

[MineralMan]

Since the very beginning of the disastrous incident involving the Fukushima nuclear power installation after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, everyone's concerns have been rising. That's only natural. Nuclear power plant incidents have very dangerous potential consequences, and this one is a complex and major incident. That has led to an unfortunate problem with information. From our distant perspective in the United States, we have found it difficult to obtain and interpret the information that has been released.

In many cases, people are frustrated with the amount of information or skeptical about its accuracy. Further, few lay people understand nuclear power technology very well, so fragmented and time-related information is often misinterpreted or distorted. Add to that a strong, and justified, opposition to nuclear power generation, and some information has been distorted or even fabricated to support an opposition point of view.

The bottom line is that many people are scared, frustrated, angry, and are demanding that something be done immediately to stop this spread of radiation from Japan. Well, here are some points to consider regarding the entire thing:

1. This is a major incident at a major industrial scale facility. It is not simple. It is not easily explained to the layperson. The complexity of the problem and the sheer size of the facilities means that most of us do not understand what is going on or what will need to be done.

2. As with all major disasters, both natural and industrial, it takes a long time for accurate information to be gathered and disseminated. Remember Haiti. In Japan, not only was there a monster earthquake and tsunami, but a nuclear power facility was badly damaged. Lots happened in a very short time. Few Western media people were on the scene, and especially few from the United States. There are still few media people on the scene at Fukushima, because conditions there are very dangerous.

3. Reports from Japanese media that were, and are, available are often poorly translated and confusing. In addition, media writers and reporters often have little knowledge of nuclear technology and get basic information wrong. This was especially true early on in the overall incident, but is still true now.

4. Much is still not known about the extent of the damage to the reactors. They cannot be inspected internally by anyone, so assessment is based on external evidence. There is no consensus about what the damage is in a precise way, and there may not be a consensus for some time.

5. Radioactive material has been released during this incident. Accurate measurements are now available directly from the company that operates the reactors. Even Greenpeace has said that the current information is accurate. Interpreting that information, however, is very difficult for the layperson, and that includes members of the media. So, it's difficult for us to assess the actual risks, both in Japan and everywhere else, as small amounts of that radiation are spread by wind and water to other locations. No released radiation is a good thing, but actual risks depend entirely on doses received over time. There are some standards set for such exposure, and news is released about the relative risks both in the local area around the plant and in areas where isotopes have appeared elsewhere. This news is based on current standards regarding radiation exposure. That's the best officials can do when offering information. The actual measurements are available from monitoring stations, and can be accessed on the EPA's web site for US locations. The minuscule amounts of contamination that may make it to the United States will not require any changes in anyone's way of life nor pose any serious health risks. In in the extremely unlikely event that changes, you'll know about it quickly and in time to do whatever needs to be done.

6. This incident will not be resolved quickly or with simple measures. Before any attempt at a permanent end to the problem can be made, the extent of the damage must be assessed. So far, the extent of the damage is not known, and it may not be known for some time. Applying a solution without knowing that information could actually make the problem worse. Laypersons' suggestions for solutions will not work. Universally, they are simplistic, impractical, or completely out of scale. This facility is huge and complex. Any solution will have to be carefully planned, engineered, and executed. There is no simple fix. There is no non-technical fix. There is no fast fix.

7. Once the situation is fully understood, it will take weeks to determine the best way to approach solving it. Experts in nuclear technology from around the world will be involved in working toward a solution that will end the problem and stop the release of radioactive materials. Once a plan is in place, materials, equipment, and people will have to be moved to the location. Keep in mind the scale of the installation. Huge amounts of materials will be needed, whatever the solution, and all of them will have to be brought to the facility. It took years to construct the facility. It's enormous and complex in design. Then, there are the people who will have to work as safely as possible in a hazardous environment to apply whatever solution is designed. More time. This incident will not end for months. It could take a year or more to finally put an end to it. That's just the simple truth, due to the scale and complexity any solution will involve. Until it is fixed, the issues will continue. They may even worsen.

8. The world will not end. There will be damage, but this disaster does not spell the end of humanity or any such thing. For most of the inhabitants of this planet, this incident will not measurably alter their lifespan. For some near the site, and for some who work on the fix, there could be a great cost. Part of the time involved in fixing the problem will be spent trying to minimize that. We have been creating nuclear fallout and dumping it into the air and water since 1945. Thousands of nuclear weapons tests have blown radioactivity into the atmosphere, and it has circulated to every part of the planet. Chernobyl spewed radiation into the air, and that, too, has been distributed all over the planet. We are not dead or dying from those releases, even though cancer rates may have risen to a small degree. The effect on people, animals, and the environment has been small, except in localized areas, from all of this past activity. The same will be the case with Fukushima. It's a bad thing, but it will not spell the end of anything. Most of the isotopes released in such incidents have short half lives, and will decay until they no longer pose a risk, in weeks, months, or a few years. Eventually, they'll be gone as a risk. A few will last much, much longer, but will be diluted drastically in their spread though the atmosphere and water.

9. Patience is difficult, but there is no choice. It will take patience to get to the end of this incident. It will take patience to sort through the information that is available and to weed out incorrect information. For most of us, that will not even be possible. The incident has occurred, and can't be undone. It will be resolved at some point, but will have its own after effects, just as every other nuclear release has had, including all those nuclear weapons tests.

10. Nuclear power generation is not safe. It has never been safe. It cannot be made to be safe. If there's one thing all of us can do about what happened in Fukushima, it is to try to end the use of nuclear technology to generate electricity. That is a mission we can all participate in. We cannot undo what has been done. We cannot fix Fukushima. We cannot unexplode all those nuclear weapons. We can, however, try to get nuclear power generation stopped once and for all. We can try to do that. We may not succeed, but it is what we can do. I strongly urge that course of action in response to Fukushima. Beyond that, we can't fix Fukushima. That's a job for the experts.

[buddysmellgood]

1. BRAVO

[Ron Green]

2. Thanks for taking the time to post this reasoned piece.

:toast:

[MineralMan]

3. You're very welcome.

I don't expect it to end the speculation and panic, though. Still, something else will happen, and people's attention will shift to that eventually.

[uppityperson]

4. rec with the caveat for #10

Nothing is safe, every power source has its problems and safety issues. However, when nuclear power plants have bad problems, it can be really bad problems.

[MineralMan]

5. You're right, of course.

Nuclear power is the topic of the day, though.

[uppityperson]

8. Thank you for posting the OP. In these times of "instant news" it is difficult

to wait, and in these times of being lied to so many times, it is difficult to know whom to trust.

This is a catastrophe for many, many lives have been and will be impacted, but not the end of the world for most of us. Patience.

[MineralMan]

11. My pleasure. I've been neglecting my work and following this

incident very closely. I wrote this, and now I'm going to have to return to something that earns some money. Soon, anyhow. It's hard to tear myself away from a developing issue like this one.

[Junkdrawer]

6. The experts I trust say that "accurate measurements" are extremely tricky.....

and that assessing the impact of this incident, as with past incidents, will be very, very difficult.

Add to this the fact that TEPCO has admitted that they have hid measurements and I'm guessing that the state of radioactive material disbursement is surrounded with uncertainties.

[MineralMan]

7. Yes, and for some people, any measurements will simply

not be believed. TEPCO is now, apparently, releasing very accurate information in its regular press releases. There was a lot of confusion in the first days, and some information may not have been released. That wouldn't surprise me at all. Now, though, the whole world's watching, and that seems to have been corrected.

Still, not everyone will trust the available information. I can't do anything about that, and they can't take the measurements. At some point, we have to accept the information, since we can't go there and take our own readings.

There's always a lot of uncertainty. I don't know what to do about that.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. If Tepco has hidden measurements,

who's to say everyone hasn't? I trust NO ONE from the Nuclear Industry, Japanese Government, the EPA nor the U.S. Government. They have given us no reason to trust them.

[MineralMan]

10. Lots of people feel the same way. However, they can't

go take their own measurements. I'm not sure what the solution might be for the problem, really.

Any ideas? Want to volunteer to go there and take measurements yourself?

If you trust nobody, you won't have any data at all. I don't find that to be helpful, personally.

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. No. I do not want to go take measurements myself and I'm not so sure

they don't have the accurate measurements and aren't hiding them. See? THAT'S the problem when you have a government/s owned by corporations/NUKE INDUSTRY. They will ALWAYS protect those who line their pockets with $$$$$.

[MineralMan]

15. Well, that's one way of looking at it, I suppose.

It doesn't change a thing, though, in the assessment I wrote above. For you and me, the measurements are actually pretty irrelevant, since we can't do anything about them. They simply are what they are.

See item 10 on the list in the OP. That's my primary point here. Whether you trust the measurements or do not, that remains my point.

[psychopomp]

16. Greenpeace is off the coast taking independent measurements

and there are people with Geiger counters with readings available online at several points around Tokyo. Here's one:

http://park30.wakwak.com/~weather/geiger_index.html

[MineralMan]

18. That's true, and they announced that the TEPCO readings

appeared to be accurate, as I stated in the OP. In any case, measurements are location specific, so a measurement taken in one place can't really be compared with one taken in another place. That's sort of the nature of things. It's good that more measurements will be available, though. We still can't do anything about the actual incident, though. It happened. It will get fixed at some point. Beyond that, we're sort of stuck with what happens.

See Item 10.

[AndyTiedye]

12. When the Melted Uranium and Plutonium Hits the Ground Water

and 30 Chernobyl's worth of nuclear material gets launched into the atmosphere, will the following still be true?

The minuscule amounts of contamination that may make it to the United States will not require any changes in anyone's way of life nor pose any serious health risks. In in the extremely unlikely event that changes, you'll know about it quickly and in time to do whatever needs to be done.

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. Thank you, Andy.

:( I somehow doubt it, but then again, they're just going to raise the "acceptable" level of radiation so all is good. :grr:

[MineralMan]

17. The word is "If" not "When." Assuming the worst case is

rarely a terrific idea. Further, I don't know that it would cause "30 Chernobyls worth" of anything, and neither do you. Even if it did, though, the amount of isotopes that made it to the US would still be relatively small, although some precautions would be required. It's a damned big planet.

In any case, what you're saying has nothing to do with the OP's point, which is all in Item 10. Best case or worst case, there's not a damned thing you or I can do to change it. That's the other point of the OP.

[AndyTiedye]

22. Preparing for the Worst Case (If there IS Any Way to Prepare) Would Seem Like a Good Idea

The worst case doesn't seem all that far-fetched anymore.
Four reactors in various stages of meltdown.
Ground water just a few feet below.
The concrete could crack at any time.
We are told that when the hot stuff hits the water it goes boom
and gets ejected up into the atmosphere.
Spent fuel pools suspended ABOVE said reactors.
More spent fuel next to them.
Two more reactors (and MORE spent fuel) next to that.
Those 2 seem to be OK, so far, but what happens to them
as the site gets more and more radioactive? How will
they keep them safe if they can't get to them?



I did not respond to your point 10 because it is blindingly obvious
to anyone who is not a shill for the nuclear industry!

[MineralMan]

25. In the first place, you're incorrect that there are four

reactors in various stages of meltdown. That is simply not the case, as far as anyone knows. There's one that may have experienced a partial meltdown. The rest is speculation.

Anything can happen, and the people who are directly involved with dealing with this incident are more than aware of that. Preventing a worst-case scenario is their number one priority right now. I think they'll succeed in that. Time has passed and things continue to cool down, since the reactors were shut down automatically. They are injecting water at this time, having substituted other pumps for the inoperable ones. All the mechanisms are in place to prevent a worst-case incident. So, they are, in fact, doing something about that.

The spent fuel will not melt down. Keeping it from getting hot and deteriorating is the goal there.

You've made a number of statements that are simply inaccurate in your post. So, why do you think your expectation of a worst-case scenario is accurate?

You see, as I said, laypersons are not competent to either analyze or make decisions about situations like this one. You have inaccurate information, and you're drawing conclusions based on that inaccurate information. They have better information on hand there in Fukushima, and are acting on it. It's a tough battle, but they're working like crazy on it. I'm not there. You're not there. Even if we were, we don't have the expertise to do a damned thing. It's a good thing the people working on the situation have that expertise.

As for my point 10, it is the only thing we can do that's actually available to us, other than to panic or wave our hands around uselessly. It it obvious? It should be, but it's not, apparently, to some people.

[AndyTiedye]

61. I Hope You Are Right

four reactors in various stages of meltdown. That is simply not the case, as far as anyone knows. There's one that may have experienced a partial meltdown. The rest is speculation.

At what point is it considered a total meltdown? When it bores through the reactor vessel (which they think it has done already)? When it hits the water? 1,2, and 3 have all had their cores uncovered enough so they are likely to have melted somewhat. 4 was empty, its fuel having just been put into the spent fuel pool.

Anything can happen, and the people who are directly involved with dealing with this incident are more than aware of that. Preventing a worst-case scenario is their number one priority right now. I think they'll succeed in that. Time has passed and things continue to cool down, since the reactors were shut down automatically. They are injecting water at this time, having substituted other pumps for the inoperable ones. All the mechanisms are in place to prevent a worst-case incident. So, they are, in fact, doing something about that.

I have the greatest of respect for the plant workers, who are almost certainly sacrificing their lives to try to save their country and the world from a horrible nuclear disaster. They have an incredibly difficult and dangerous job. If ANY of the reactors melt down to the water table, that will certainly flood the site with enough radioactivity to make it inaccessible by even kamikaze workers. If that happens, how will they continue too cool the other reactors?

The spent fuel will not melt down. Keeping it from getting hot and deteriorating is the goal there.

What does "deteriorating" mean in this context? Do they burn?

The spent fuel pool in Reactor 4 has fuel rods fresh out of the reactor.
Is that fuel now incapable of melting down?

Is it simply a question of the presence of oxygen whether it melts or burns?

I assume that having a big explosion happen UNDER the spent fuel pools would be a Bad Thing.
If the explosion destroys the fuel pool and pulverizes the fuel rods, that would be a Very Bad Thing.
If it merely ruptures them so they cannot be filled up again, the spent fuel rods burn, or "deteriorate" or something pretty bad.

You see, as I said, laypersons are not competent to either analyze or make decisions about situations like this one.

Like we have a choice?


I agree with you totally that we need to shut down the nukes, of course.

[MineralMan]

69. Well a total meltdown means that all the fuel rods have melted.

That does not appear to have happened. You are correct that #4 had no fuel rods. My mistake. It's not a problem, and the removed fuel rods will not melt down. Their configuration in storage prevents it. They could still be damaged, however.

As for explosions, I believe that is what they are trying to prevent. I suspect they will be successful, given the fact that the plants shut down when the earthquake occurred and no explosion inside the primary containment area has occurred. I can't guarantee that, since I'm not a nuclear engineer...just someone who studied this when opposing the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant as part of the intervening team. I learned a great deal, but am still not some kind of expert on it.

I believe this will not go far beyond its current state. After the usual confusion and inability to act at the beginning, time has passed, more people are involved, and equipment, etc. is on site. I think they'll get this under control now. There will still be radioactive releases, but I doubt seriously that any catastrophic failure is in the future. That's my best assessment of the situation.

[AndyTiedye]

72. Don't the Newer Spent Fuel Rods Catch Fire If They Aren't Cooled?

the removed fuel rods will not melt down. Their configuration in storage prevents it. They could still be damaged, however.

What DO they do when they get hot? What does "damaged" mean in this context? Burned? Blown to bits?

[MineralMan]

73. I cannot answer that precisely, so I will not try.

I do not believe they will melt at all. They will get hot, but not hot enough to melt. They might deteriorate, however. I don't have any further information on what happens to spent fuel rods if they are not properly cooled. Nobody who does know, though, has mentioned the possibility that they might melt down. So, I do not believe that can happen.

[Saboburns]

21. And how do you think all this radiation Will be 'launched' into the atmosphere??

I don not want to pick a fight, I am not a shill for nuclear power.

Having said that I certainly do not want to minimize the amount of danger involved. The problem I have with your post is the 'launching' part. Yes there is more radioactive substances at this facility than was on site at Chernobyl. However the reason Chernobyl was so horrific was the fact that the fissionable material (Uranium in the case of Chernobyl, both uranium and Plutonium in Japan's case) reached heights of over 30,000 feet which then drifted worldwide on jet stream currents. This happened because there was a huge, HUGE, explosion at Chernobyl and subsequent fire which burned for days. In this explosion and fire radioactive graphite dust, for lack of a better term, rose to great heights into the atmosphere. In Fukushima's case there is no graphite dust on site, and there hasn't been the explosion/fire. yes, there have been fires on site at Fukushima, but these fires did not release large amounts of radiation into our atmosphere. Now I'm not saying that there won't be an explosion at Fukushima, but I want to point out that the physics involved in Japan do not allow for a devastating release of radiation into the atmosphere.

Now that's not saying the can't be a catastrophic release of radiation. What I do want to point out is that if this does happen, and a worse case scenario occurs in Japan, the area affected will be much less widespread than the Chernobyl disaster.

What needs to be done immediately is to contain this release as much as possible. However as the OP pointed out, this is a massive problem. A scenario with huge logistic problems.

Also, there are many different people and agencies measuring the amount and type of radiation that has been released. Some of these agencies, such as GP, are historically anti Nuclear. if the levels rise, i believe we will hear about it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. So we shouldn't expect an explosion if 6 reactors meltdown?

Really? What exactly will happen?

[MineralMan]

26. There is zero chance that six reactors will melt down. Zero.

A meltdown was a much bigger risk early on in this incident. They're back injecting water now. A total meltdown in even one reactor is now unlikely. There may have been a partial meltdown in one, but there is no chance that six reactors will meltdown. You're way off base in your projection of the scope of this.

[in_cog_ni_to]

29. ZERO chance? How do you know that?

Just curious. MSNBC reported this morning that there IS a chance all 6 could be compromised. Which is correct? If 1 or more melts down then how are people going to be able to go in and stop that from happening to all of them?

[MineralMan]

31. Compromised does not mean meltdown.

I'm very sorry, but it's very hard to discuss this with you. You have so much misinformation that I don't quite know where to begin. In the first place, reactors 5, 6, and I think 4 were shut down for maintenance before the earthquake. A meltdown is pretty much impossible in them. Some stuff really does require you to understand how this stuff works, on some level, at least.

I think I'll just stop at that, though. This has nothing to do with my original post at all. Thanks for joining the thread.

[Saboburns]

27. No, not an explosion

It is my humble opinion that a meltdown has already occurred in Unit 2. But that most of the radiation has been contained by the primary containment vessel.

The truth however may take weeks to know as there's no good way to 'see' inside.

[yawnmaster]

70. Yes, it will still be true. eom

[Vinnie From Indy]

19. While I appreciate the effort, your OP is quite contradictory

You write,
"Before any attempt at a permanent end to the problem can be made, the extent of the damage must be assessed. So far, the extent of the damage is not known, and it may not be known for some time."

and

"The minuscule amounts of contamination that may make it to the United States will not require any changes in anyone's way of life nor pose any serious health risks."


If the extent of the damage is unkown as you offer in the former statement, how can you confidently offer in the latter that only miniscule amounts of radiation will make it to the US?

Cheers!
:)

[MineralMan]

20. Actually, the amounts reaching the US will be small,

even in a worst-case scenario. Distance is an important factor. I can't predict the actual amounts, of course. I did note that if amounts were increased from what is likely, we'll get plenty of warning. Further, when I said that the extent of the damage was not known, I was speaking about the damage to the reactors and how that would affect the measures needed to end the problem.

In any event, that doesn't alter the fundamental point of my OP, which is that we cannot do anything about the situation that has occurred. All we can do is watch it happen.

Item 10 is my main point.

[Vinnie From Indy]

23. Sadly, you are right I think!

It would be nice if the world's population demanded from their leaders that they give up war-making for a few short weeks to focus on this unfolding disaster.

Cheers!

[hunter]

28. Cleaning up the power plant is a small part of the overall disaster.

Everyone has seen pictures of the wreckage left by the tsunami. That wreckage contains everything from toxic chemicals to human bodies, and it will all have to be sorted out.

Bodies will be found, halting the cleanup work as they are removed. Identification of the victims will become increasingly difficult. Metals will go to recycling. Stuff that will burn will be processed for the incinerator power plants. Useful lumber and other building material will be set aside, and so on...

The biggest problem will be in the rebuilding. What plans will they make against future tsunamis of this magnitude?

[in_cog_ni_to]

30. I doubt they will EVER be able to rebuild there. That site is contaminated forever. n/t

[MineralMan]

33. Uh, the poster is talking about rebuilding where the tsunami wiped

out whole cities and killed thousands of people. His point is that the Fukushima plant is just one part of what happened in Japan. I'm sure you knew that and are just misunderstanding the poster. There's a lot of rebuilding to be done to reclaim the survivor's lives, once they mourn their dead.

[MineralMan]

32. You're absolutely right. The power plant facility is just one

of the huge jobs facing the Japanese. The reason it's getting all the press is because it's the only part of the overall disaster that really affects people who don't live in Japan. As I said in another post a couple of days ago, the number of lives lost in the earthquake and tsunami will almost certainly outnumber the lives lost from the power plant facility, even if you wait 100 years to count them up.

But, we're only marginally interested in lives lost in some distant country. It doesn't really affect us, but we panic about a tiny chance that enough radiation will get to the US to disturb our lives. I find that sad.

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. "we panic about a tiny chance that enough radiation will get to the US "

"It doesn't really affect us, but we panic about a tiny chance that enough radiation will get to the US to disturb our lives. I find that sad."

THAT is total bullshit and you know it. Tiny chance, my ass and I must assume that you would be one to sacrifice YOUR family in order to save one in Japan, is that right?

[MineralMan]

35. We're done here.

[in_cog_ni_to]

41. Why? Answer the question. You belittle people for being fearful of radiation coming to the states,

because some of us actually CARE about our families and the long-term effects this will have on them (I have a child who has his entire life in front of him).....so we must assume that YOU are willing to sacrifice YOUR family in order to save a Japanese family....since this radiation/plutonium issue is of such little concern to you.

We all KNOW the Japanese are in grave danger. We all wish that this had NEVER happened, but that does not mean that we must not fear for what could come to the states and the damage it could cause here. THAT would just be a stupid thing to do...unless, of course, you believe everything your nuke-owned government tells you. The EPA RAISING its "acceptable" radiation levels...to cancer causing levels, set off more alarm bells for me. 1 in 4 people WILL get cancer at the levels they are raising them to. My G-d! That's acceptable??? I don't think so. IF the levels are so "miniscule", the EPA wouldn't be raising the levels to a cancerous range.

Caring for my family does not negate my concern for the Japanese people and I really resent having that shit thrown in my face.

[hunter]

59. Do you allow your children to ride in cars?

Hardly anything is more dangerous than that.

As a father I think the most difficult thing I ever did was hand my kids the car keys. I wasn't only worrying about them, I was worrying about the safety of those they shared the roads with. Even the times my youngest went rock climbing I didn't worry so much because I knew he was being supervised by professionals. But a sixteen year old driving a car alone, that's a whole new level of risk.

As a kid I was severely sunburned a few times but I'm not blaming my parents, even though I've had some wicked things cut off my skin. No melanoma, but with my complexion, that's just luck.

There are too many things more dangerous in my everyday life for me to worry much about radiation from Japan except in empathy for the people who live there.

[Rex]

36. After BP, I would never trust our govt to tell us if levels are dangerous.

9/11 really sent that point home too. I believe they would just let whoever die, then clean up afterward and move on like nothing happen (just like BP and the oil that still covers the bottom of the Gulf). Anyone that would believe our govt, is a fool imo.

[marions ghost]

37. and the EPA

if they raise the "allowable levels" ... what do we do? Right, who can trust the govt in this? :scared:

[Rex]

43. Just read about that in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=773522&mesg_id=773522

But, hey if is the end of the world as we know it to be...I feel fine.

[marions ghost]

45. Fine?

I'm not there apparently.

[Rex]

52. I'm single and have no kids.

I can understand those that have family and are worried...just that one thing Mineral Man says that I agree with - we can't do a thing about the situation. For me, I've already accepted whatever will happen...doesn't mean I am happy about it, just that whatever will be, will be. I lived a few lives in 40 years and am content with where I am at in the world right now.

Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

Kept me alive for the last 20 years and counting...

[marions ghost]

54. Makes me feel like

"why bother?" I do work that is supposed to benefit others in the future (health research)-- so it's not so much about worrying about my physical body, but the feeling that what I do doesn't matter anymore. Why keep people alive if they are only going to suffer at the hands of corporate criminals who control but don't actually give a ff about anybody's health? It drives me crazy--we do all this work to help people maintain optimum health, and then we knowingly poison the environment for them.
:banghead:

[Rex]

63. A friend of mine is dying from inoperable cancer.

She was offered a spot in a research program that has a 5% success rate (better than her current zero) she told me that even if she doesn't make it...what if one person benefits from what they learn from her trials and tibulations...perhaps even save a child's life in the future. Here she is dying...yet thinks about the future generations and not herself.

That sat me on my ass for a longtime, life has a way of reminding you there are people out there just barely hanging on to life right now.

Put my head in check.

Keep doing what you are doing ghost, you could be one of the people helping her and future generations...we have to stop the damage to the environment, but we cannot just give up all hope.

I still have a childlike hope that the Japanese will somehow save the day and perhaps the world at large.

If not, then I gladly walk into oblivion with a smile on my face.

[marions ghost]

71. The only way

the Japanese could save the world IMO, is by pledging to decommission their old nukes and not build any more. They could lead the way in other forms of energy generation instead of following the nuclear herd. I'm sure many in the Japanese population don't think this current scenario is worth it, to say the least. Maybe they will demonstrate how it can be done.

Well thanks for your words Rex. It sounds like you have "made your peace" as has your friend. That is enviable. I don't have that sense of peace. I am angry that stupid people continue to value profits over health. I wish they would care about their own children, even. Makes no sense.

[in_cog_ni_to]

44. I could not agree more!

After 911, no way do I trust ANYTHING the nuke-owned government tells me. I don't care who they are. They're all alike...CORPORATE OWNED.

[Rex]

53. They are corporate owned and the SCOTUS made sure we working class

new that. I don't expect my govt to tell the populace something that will start a huge panic never seen before in the United States. I expect them to do whatever it takes to keep the govt running and that doesn't include little ol' me in the 'big plan of things to come'. I'm just another consumer and know we can be replaced easily.

A realistic view of the world helps imo.

[kristopher]

58. But that "small part" is having a disproportionately large impact on recovery.

If the power plant weren't part of the picture the scenario we are witnessing would be one of feverish action to clean-up and rebuild. Instead, everyone is huddled inside as far away from the disaster site as they can get.

Please don't minimize the consequences of the reactor meltdowns to the victims and their efforts to get their lives back on track.

[JuniperLea]

38. Well done!

And on point # 10... I'm in!

[MineralMan]

40. Thanks so much!

[closeupready]

39. Completely agree with all points.

And appreciate the time it took to do that. K&R

[MineralMan]

42. I appreciate your comment.

Thanks!

[Octafish]

46. Perhaps we can't fix it, but we sure can talk about it.

And, who knows? Perhaps someone will come up with something better than entombing the place under a mountain of concrete.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-30/record-high-levels-of-radiation-found-in-sea-near-crippled-nuclear-reactor.html

Another reason to talk about it: We need to get the heads-up on what's what. We're not getting it from the "plutonium is no threat" crowd on ABCNNBCSFixedNoiseNutwork.

[MineralMan]

50. Nothing wrong with talking about it. That's what I'm doing.

Talking about it. Thanks for the reply.

[Octafish]

55. Please know that I truly appreciate what you've added to what I know, MineralMan.

Which is my long-winded way of saying, "Thank you, my Friend!"

[MineralMan]

67. Thank you! I'm just trying to put some perspective on this and

suggest something we CAN do something about, maybe. We certainly can do nothing after the fact of what happened at Fukushima. We waste our time thinking we can.

[upi402]

47. to nuke supporters: 2 things

1) You can't make even a simple mechanical system that will not fail

2) If you think you've made a thing fool-proof, you seriously have no idea who you're dealing with


But wait, there's more...
Until they invent 'Nuke-Away!' forget about it.

[MineralMan]

49. The only way to fool-proof anything is to keep fools away from it.

That, however, isn't a fool-proof process, so...

[upi402]

57. nice

good point, when profit is involved the moths will go to the light.

but for us, the light ends up as a train coming through the tunnel right at us.

[PCIntern]

48. Nice, thoughtful post...k&r

My upset re: the media's handling of the story is that in fact, the Japanese are in a whole lotta trouble and are going to be incredibly compromised, but were/are being lied to - and WE were also being lied to in the sense that they were Covering their asses politically HERE, so that we don't call for an immediate ban of 'nuculer' power plants...HERE. Its radioactive effect upon us, even if it were ever to be deemed sigificant, is not the issue RIGHT NOW, nor will it probably ever be. Its economic impact...well, that's another story...

[MineralMan]

51. Thanks. The fact that those in power feel they need to lie

is another reason we should get rid of nuclear power generation altogether, IMO.

[PCIntern]

62. Yes, well,

they lie about everything...this included.

[MineralMan]

64. Yes, and my point still stands.

We can do nothing about what has happened in Japan. However, we can use this to push for the end to nuclear power generation. Surely you read the entire post. It all led to that point.

[Scurrilous]

56. K & R

:thumbsup:

[MineralMan]

65. Thanks!

[trof]

60. See my post re The Petkau Effect

Long term, low dosage may be worse than high dosage.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x776097

[MineralMan]

66. That may be, but it still doesn't let us do anything about

what has happened in Japan. Read Item #10. We can do that. Do you think I'm apologizing for the nuclear power industry? I've been fighting against it since 1959. Go look at my journal.

[trof]

68. No, not apologizing at all.

This is just something that came to my attention today.
Don't know yet how credible it is.