The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Spinning Fukushima > Comments

Spinning Fukushima : Comments

By Jim Green, published 16/3/2011

Proponents of nuclear energy have had to go into high gear to try to spin the Fukushima disaster.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
yep, and this is just "paid disinformation"

I guess you call it messaging .. but it's just propaganda by any name, nice though to accuse everyone else of doing exactly what you do ..

exploitation .. when done by conservatives, is disgusting, when done by lefty paid activists .. is?

genuine concern? .. LOL
Posted by rpg, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 9:12:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spin, Mr Green?

>>The situation in Japan illustrates the point - it has become increasingly obvious over the past decade that greater protection against seismic risks is necessary, but the nuclear utilities haven't wanted to spend the money and the Japanese nuclear regulator and the government haven't forced the utilities to act.<<

This conveniently ignores the reality that the Japanese economy has been languishing in the doldrums for the past twenty years, and that discretionary government expenditure has been under enormous strain. And why has it become "increasingly obvious"? Only through the luxury of hindsight, I suspect.

http://www.economist.com/node/15867844

The rest of the piece is simply an attempt at a demolition job on one individual - Professor Brook.

In circumstances as extreme and volatile as these, it is normal to wait for the facts to emerge, and to settle, instead of simply leaping into the fray, making wild unsubstantiated claims. While Professor Brook may well turn out to have jumped this very gun, and been wrong in his assessments, the author must equally face precisely the same accusation.

Dr Switkowski's assessment, on the other hand, that "lessons will be learned, improvements will be made" is hardly spin, but hard-nosed reality. Of course lessons will be learned - particularly, I suspect, on the topic of under-funding the outsourced plant management.

But Mr Green's article is in itself a perfect example of "pre-emptive spin", which effectively disqualifies him from the moral high ground on this topic.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 10:11:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I actually started off with an open mind on this article Jim. When I got to the end I was sort of ambivalent, but something bothered me. So I went back and re-read it.

It was para. 2. << A clear pattern is evident - those with the greatest ideological attachment to nuclear power have provided the most inaccurate commentary.>>

So brazen I missed it the first time. Where have we heard this before? Oh, yes. It was this;

“A clear pattern is evident - those with the greatest ideological attachment to skepticism have provided the most inaccurate commentary.”

Sorry rpg, on indulgence please; “Caldicotted MK II”?
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 10:55:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So are we supposed to think the author is neutral? The author is a long term campaigner against Nuclear power and is definitely not a dispassionate observer. His claim that 'scientific estimates' say 9-90 thousands died as a result of Chernobyl is a highly dubious and unqualified statement. IAEA official report tells a very different story.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml

The fuel rod containment area of the power stations have remained basically intact after a 9.0 earthquake AND a tsunami. Surely that the containment vessels continue to be intact is more a testament to their safety?

Most of this is media driven hysterical exaggeration. Lets see how many people are adversely affected by this incident before people make definitive statements.

You cannot put any faith in 'facts' supplied by zealots of any kind. Wait and see the outcome before hysteria sets in.
Posted by Atman, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 11:11:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For once, Jim, I agree with your article.

The bias of experts, many of whom act as consultants for the nuclear industry, is obvious. Like many Japanese politicians and power company executives they are presenting a limited and optimistic gloss on an ongoing disaster.

Its even more extreme amongst "experts" and perhaps journalists paid by the British nuclear industry see: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/ headed "Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now!

Analysis Japan's nuclear powerplants have performed magnificently ..."

It is interesting to look at the results of the Three Mile Island disaster, which appears to be a lesser meltdown event than Fukushima.

Three Mile Island (TMI) had profound effects on the US nuclear industry for decades. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Effect_on_nuclear_power_industry

"The Three Mile Island accident is one of the factors cited for the decline of new reactor construction...51 American nuclear reactors were cancelled from 1980–1984."

The clear and present danger to the Japanese public (some already irradiated) over more than a 30 kilometre radius speaks louder than pro-industry experts.

The Japanese Government will no doubt be organising a multi-year committee of industry experts to talk away responsibility and dumb down public fears. Its notable that many national Japanese politicians, including the PM are often in power for less than 12 months - so they'll be long gone when the committee issues recommendations. As with the Canberra Fire committees remove responsibility.

For more see http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2011/03/japans-declaration-of-atomic-emergency.html

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 12:03:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jim - as an anti-nuclear activist you are in position to complain about anyone else's ideological bias.

I have no real idea about what's happening at the Japanese reactor and haven't listened to any "experts" for or against, but I do know something about the Chernobyl. As a journalist for more than 30 years, I also know something about the media. From a glance through the material on the incident it is apparent that the reactor(s) is coming under control, and the containment shield has not been seriously breached. But there may (repeat may) still be serious problems.

An exact casualty count and assessment of how serious the incident is must await a report by an independent body with access to the actual players. You cannot rely on news reports at the time for any proper assessment.

As for the casualty count at Chernobyl the death toll you quote is straight activist fantasy. There have been estimates of cancer deaths in the thousands, which involve projecting back from death rates at known levels of radiation. These involve making the huge, unfounded assumption that the effect is proportional - that is a tiny increase in background ration will result in tiny increase in additional deaths over a very large population. Hence the death toll in the thousands.

But even those making the calculations at the time admitted that this supposed "death toll" was too small to make any difference to the background "noise" of deaths from all causes in Europe. In other words, there was no way to check the figure.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 12:52:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fact is both sides of this discussion will spin the risk factor whichever way suits their position, but most of us are capable of reading the literature and the science and making our own judgements. Those with potential business interests will naturally spin the safety argument - no real surprise there.

The author makes a good point about continual failure to learn from the nuclear lessons.

It is not only natural disasters that need to be taken into account but man-made ones (war, human error, corruption, terrorism).

While Australia has only a low to moderate earthquake risk (some regions are higher), fact is when this debate came up a few years ago the sites chosen were not in the middle of the Australian desert. For example, one was proposed for Jervis Bay on the East Coast of Australia. That side of Australia is more prone to natural disasters including earthquakes eg. Newcastle.

Here were the lists of the other proposed sites from the TAI link below (not exactly out of urban areas):

https://www.tai.org.au/file.php?file=web_papers/WP96.pdf

"The selected sites are:
· in Queensland – Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Bundaberg,
Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island;
· in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory – Port Stephens,
Central Coast, Botany Bay, Port Kembla and Jervis Bay/Sussex Inlet;
· in Victoria – South Gippsland, Western Port, Port Phillip and Portland; and
· in South Australia – Mt Gambier/Millicent, Port Adelaide and Port
Augusta/Port Pirie."

QLD and SA in particular are both considered seismically active and disaster prone (QLD).

http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/listQuakes

For me the risk is not worth it when there are other options and strategies.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 12:59:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting stuff, and made even more interesting by the responses.

One point that Jim has not mentioned is the qualifications of Brook and Switkowski to comment as TECHNICAL authorities. First, neither of them is on the spot in Japan to know what is actually going on there. Have Brook and Ziggy got their own personal line into the scene? Secondly, their technical qualifications to comment. Ziggy got a PhD in theoretical astrophysics 40 years ago and then did post doc work in the same stuff and then went became an executive in Kodak, Amcor, Optus and Telstra before becoming the Chair of Ansto and now a University Chancellor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggy_Switkowski) Perhaps lay people think that is OK, but what does he know about the ENGINEERING of reactors that makes him an expert, rather than a well-informed SCIENTIST? Would he know what button needs to be pushed or lever pulled, or relative strength of 40-year-old irradiated stainless steel and so on. This is the same guy, who gave us the marvellous Telstra T1, T2 and T3 privatisations. He sounded like an expert in telcos then, too.

Similarly Barry Brook is "a leading environmental scientist, holding the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change at the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, and is also Director of Climate Science at the University of Adelaide’s Environment Institute." (http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/barry.brook). Doesn't sound like nuclear power plant engineering to me.

If these people are Australian experts in nuclear engineering, then heaven help us if we ever have a reactor in Australia that has technical problems and they are called to fix it.

The second interesting point is the responses by rpg, spindoc, atman and Curmudgeon, who have unleashed their well-rehearsed personal vilification routines on the authors. No attempt to provide an alternative view that is substantiated by facts. Just heaps of abuse that the editor seems to think is just part of the rough and tumble of OLO.

Perhaps they are just following the example of their political idols, who similarly avoid mixing facts with their unbridled personal attacks.
Posted by Jedimaster, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 1:34:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It does not take much to bring the anti nuke activists out, and a major disaster like this gets them howling in unison at the moon.

While this is a disaster second only to Chernobyl, there are still several issues that the anti nuke activists have conveniently overlooked.

1 The Plant was one of the first in Japan built in the 70s before the 3rd generation of safety upgrades, and cannot be compared to those being built today, but still has many more safety devices than Chernobyl such as a concrete containment vessel.
2 There was a 9 point earthquake, one of the strongest in the last 100 years anywhere in the world followed by a Tsunami probably the largest in living memory, and the plant could have easily survived one of these catastrophes, but not both.
3 There is no graphite in the core, which means that even in the even of core melt down, the emissions are unlikely to vary from the gaseous short lived isotopes being emitted presently (no long term contamination) and take up by plants is unlikely.
4 Probably 20 000 people have died and entire towns have been obliterated, and the loss of life so far from the nuclear disaster is perhaps 2.

While the words "apocalypse" etc are being thrown around, compared to the tsunami, the nuclear disaster is a drop in the bucket.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 2:13:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At the risk of over-generalisation (which I am about to do) it seems to be that the Japanese way appears to be to "cover-up" first, be evasive second and finally be unaccountable. It worries me that the "truth" about this unfolding disaster is either truly not known, or is known but being withheld. The only difference this time appears to be that the Japanese are at least allowing aid and support in from outside to help with the disaster.
My over-whelming fear is in the longer term fallout (no pun intended) but if the wind patterns are correct, couldn't this fallout find its way accross the ocean to USA/Canada? If that's the case, then this problem could truly become global. It seems that if the wind were blowing our way, we could be copping this too. Now that's scary.
Thanks
Posted by Radar, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 2:46:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jedimastr .. check your facts please ..

your reference .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggy_Switkowski

has this on Ziggy (you need to read your references, not just point at them, it's a common thing among more junior and sloppy researchers)

"He then studied at the University of Melbourne, where he earned a Bachelor of Science and a Doctor of Philosophy in nuclear physics, and went on to complete six years of postdoctoral research. In 1993, he graduated from the Advanced Management Program of the Harvard Business School"

the man is highly qualified and a respected nuclear academic.

that's the second time in 24 hours you have misrepresented Ziggy's qualifications .. is this deliberate or just ignorant?

I note you have no complaints about various paid activists, arts/law persons, climate club members or unqualified journalists giving advice, writing articles and more .. but a highly qualified person you find reason to lambast .. why is that

your bias is showing again ..

get some perspective .. at least Ziggy has authority on his side, I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by misrepresenting him.

(the red cross is the one to push, to tell Graham on me, again)
Posted by rpg, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 2:47:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister

I will try to ignore your opening sentence as I have grown accustomed to your reflexive habit of abusing those who do not share your opinions.

Here are some points that you have not mentioned (I don't know if you overlooked them):

1. There are about 40 nuclear power plants world wide that are about 40 years old. There are about 200 more than 30 years old and only about 80 less than 20 years old. (http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm). How many of these fall into your category of "well what do you expect from an old reactor?"

2. Understandably, you use the fatalities figures to claim that nuclear is safe. Most authorities do this. But it's the "morbidity" numbers that are of greater concern. For example, there are about 2,500 road deaths each year in Australia, but 10 times that number of seriously injured and 100 times that traumatised. In the case of the nuclear reactor accidents, we don't know the morbidity numbers (Curmudgeon thinks he does), but the number who are psychologically affected is in the 100s of thousands, not to mention the loss of amenity

3. Japan has just written off about $20 billion worth of power supplies. I don't know of any other power supply that has, or is likely to have that kind of write off. And what about those other 40 geriatric reactors?
Posted by Jedimaster, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 3:21:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rpg I'm perfectly aware of that. What you don't seem to know is the difference between a physicist and an engineer. I do I am a physicist. I have worked most of my career with engineers. Im not one, nor is Ziggy. It's engineers who build and fix things.
Posted by Jedimaster, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 3:24:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to CNN at 4.40 this afternoon there are 50 people working in these reactors to prevent a major release of radio activity and putting their own lives at risk . They have several days of exposure to this radiation already and are heroes needing our respect

Samples of radio active dust from helicopters from the US aircraft carrier being analyzed by the Pentagon and Japanese scientists are monitoring what is happening. People on this list need to wait till we know what has happened and why before making silly comments
Posted by PEST, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 3:58:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent points Jedimaster.

Shadow Minister

"1 The Plant was one of the first in Japan built in the 70s before the 3rd generation of safety upgrades, and cannot be compared to those being built today, but still has many more safety devices than Chernobyl such as a concrete containment vessel."

Any future nuclear facilities (being built in say 100 years) will be pushing the same old line ie. "cannot be compared to those built in 2011".

Point is you would have been out there spruiking the pro-nuclear line in the 70s because at that time none of us knew just how bad the failures in building or safety standards and the same crowd would be minimising the risks.

"2 There was a 9 point earthquake, one of the strongest in the last 100 years anywhere in the world followed by a Tsunami probably the largest in living memory, and the plant could have easily survived one of these catastrophes, but not both..."

That is the point... natural disasters are real and unpredictable. You are arguing the case for the anti-nuclear stance.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 4:09:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jedimaster - come now, if you're a physicist as you claim to be, you should know better to make references which you are known to be wrong, such as saying I claim to know about death rates from nuclear activities.

The simple point I was making, beyond that of saying that only the bare details of incident are really certain at this state, is that the author's reference to the death rate from Chernobyl is an activist fantasy, which it is.

The official death rate is still around 30 something. It may well be much higher - the Russians didn't keep proper records, and never tracked those they evacuated - but the death toll figure in the thousands referred to is an indefensible projection.

This is the trouble with these stories. Even decades after the event, activists obdurately refuse, in the teeth of all evidence, to give up much-debunked fantasies. And it seems that some physicists are prepared to assist them in these fantasies.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 4:12:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jedi,

Any time an incident occurs, be it the GFC etc, there are plenty of "chicken little" doom sayers claiming the world is ending. This one is no different.

The plants of design older than these were decommissioned a while ago, and while there are still 40 odd of these older reactors, it would be advisable to re evaluate their systems (and those of the newer reactors) given this recent failure.

The age of the reactor is in itself not an issue, but the design and inherent safety given that in the 70s the technology was only a couple of decades old. The newer reactors are better designed. - Pelican, I have no doubt that reactors in 100 years will have some design features we have not yet thought of.

That the failure was in the order of what happened at Chernobyl, but the emissions are only a tiny fraction, would indicate that at least some of the protections are working.

As for risk, you can never build any thing that is completely failure proof, but you can make it fail far less frequently and reduce the consequences when it does. If you are completely risk averse then you could never drive, fly or even walk outside.

Nuclear does, and still will have the fewest fatalities per unit of power compared to any other technology, and as an engineer, there is typically a pyramid ratio between low level injuries and high level injuries. This applies to pretty much every field.

The measurement of fatalities (top of the pyramid) is a recognised and easily defined one. Trying to drag in psychological "injuries" is simply trying to muddy the waters and create a new measure that can be fudged to show that other power systems are safer.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 4:40:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jedimaster,

<< The second interesting point is the responses by rpg, spindoc, atman and Curmudgeon, who have unleashed their well-rehearsed personal vilification routines on the authors. No attempt to provide an alternative view that is substantiated by facts. Just heaps of abuse that the editor seems to think is just part of the rough and tumble of OLO.>>

Just for the record, sorry to be so “prissy” but, since when has it been incumbent upon us to dig you out of the hole you made for yourself, and started digging?

<< rpg I'm perfectly aware of that. What you don't seem to know is the difference between a physicist and an engineer. I do I am a physicist.>>

OK, now we have it. You are a physicist. Let me tell you about physicists from an engineer’s perspective.

Engineers make it happen; we design it, implement it, install it, ensure its economic viability, make it operational and maintain it.

Physicists are regarded by engineers as the “condoms on the prick of progress”. They sell out to whatever; social, political, economic, religious or ecological influences are paying the highest dividends to the academia that employs them or the highest bidder for your “expert” opinion.

The value of your comments is thus valued against the background radiation within which you exist.

It has long been contested by those who actually “make it happen”, that Physicists in particular and academia in general, should never be confused with those who have a real world contribution to make. The contribution to modern society by academia is only inflated by those with a political agenda which adds no value whatsoever to the daily lives of those who actually “earn a living”. Which means that the rest have a parasitic relationship with society?
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 5:10:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Beets the Min Min light.
Posted by Dallas, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 5:30:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc- I'm pleased to see you succinct description of an engineer:

"Engineers make it happen; we design it, implement it, install it, ensure its economic viability, make it operational and maintain it."

I couldn't agree more.

However, your description of physicists:

"Physicists are regarded by engineers as the “condoms on the prick of progress”. They sell out to whatever; social, political, economic, religious or ecological influences are paying the highest dividends to the academia that employs them or the highest bidder for your “expert” opinion."

- is problematic. As Ziggy was eminently qualified as a physicist, then I can only assume that he is included in your all-embracing statement about physicists. Perhaps you should inform him (with your name, please) of your views of him.

I have no personal views about him, only professional. As a professional, one should qualify technical statements that you make that are outside your expertise, and correct people who state that you are an expert when you are not and acknowledge one's technical errors. Ziggy doesn't.

Beyond that, unlike architects and medical practitioners, anyone can call themselves an engineer. It is a mode of behaviour. Of course clients may require certain certificates and memberships, but they can't stop you from calling yourself an engineer. For example, I have operated in "engineer" mode many times, including overseas engagements, as many people with physics qualifications have.

And as to "pricks", I am reminded of GM Hopkins poem, "Binsey Poplars"

"O if we but knew what we do
When we delve or hew—
Hack and rack the growing green!
Since country is so tender
To touch, her being só slender,
That, like this sleek and seeing ball
But a prick will make no eye at all,
Where we, even where we mean
To mend her we end her,
When we hew or delve.

If there were a choice, I'd prefer to be a condom than the hand on the "prick of progress".
Posted by Jedimaster, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 6:05:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rpg I'm perfectly aware of that. What you don't seem to know is the difference between a physicist and an engineer. I do I am a physicist

I do too, I'm an engineer .. we like facts, not hysteria based on hyperventilating media commentary.

We don't exist on grants or academic paper writing and have no truck with the perverted "sciences" or the cherry picking of facts.

Nuclear Power is incredibly safe and has been strangled by zealots for years based on restricting progress and plain outright jealousy of people who work hard and accomplish something with their lives..
Posted by rpg, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 6:07:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nuclear fission is old,dangerous technology.Fusion or the Sun's burning of hydrogen to helium is the way to go.Far less radiation and nowhere near the lengthy half lives.We have 30% of the world's uranium and so expect the spin to make it more palitable.

The biggest fear of the elites is that we move to independant cheaper means of energy.Nuclear fission is seen as a replacement to fossil fuels since they are finite.The elites want high tech nuke energy, since only monolithic enterprises such as theirs, can create it.

Solar technology is in it's infancy.It can be far more efficient but not owned by a central authority.Aye there's the rub!
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 6:21:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah yes, Friends Of The Earth: those unbiased, caring activists who preferred that Africans be left to starve rather than set aside their irrational, un-scientific opposotion to GMOs.
Posted by Clownfish, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 7:30:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jim Green is quite wrong to insinuate that commenters were banned from BNC for being 'silly and unhelpful'. The posts concerned were invariably personal attacks of various descriptions, many were libellous, and in at least one case that I'm familiar with, malicious lies. Prof Brook has been generous to a fault in allowing 'silly and unhelpful' comments. What's more, I suspect Jim Green knows all this. My respect for him has plumbed new depths.
Posted by Mark Duffett, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 9:17:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Could you imagine the recovery in Japan if they were to rely on windfarms or solar panels. The people are cold enough without having to put up with misinformation from Green zealots who want to fly the world, keep warm and use computers but are unable to grasp simple realities that it is either nuclear or coal that actually works.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 10:00:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author shoots himself in the foot with the very line that spindoc identified: "A clear pattern is evident - those with the greatest ideological attachment to nuclear power have provided the most inaccurate commentary."

One needs look no further than Dr Green's blurb to see that he has a great ideological attachment to nuclear power. Googling him confirms this.

From his own assertions, then, it seems reasonable to draw the conclusion that he is providing us with quite an inaccurate commentary.
Posted by Otokonoko, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 11:28:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"This whole episode has been fascinating for the role played by so-called "expertise".

The expertise of knowledgeable pro-nuclear power people on various threads who get quite snippy and condescending to lay people relying on MSN. The expertise of the anti-nuclear lobby saying "we told you so".

Then there's the expertise we assumed would be brought into play by the authorities in Japan who, dealing with an event of a magnitude way above any anticipated, have left many of us bemused by their struggle to get control of the situation.

We have experts telling us it's dire and experts telling us it's hardly anything to worry about at all.

When all is said and done, the whole episode is beginning to take on farcical dimensions. As each day goes by and another reactor building explodes, authorities seem ever more desperate for a cobbled together solution. There was a report that at one stage a fire truck was driven up to a convenient crack in the outer housing and a fire hose pushed through. The latest is a request to the police for a "water cannon". This, after a plan to drop water using a helicopter was abandoned - apparently due to "high radiation levels around the plant"(?)

So much for expertise.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 17 March 2011 4:13:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ironic that a Muppet-sounding Friends of the Earth hero is preaching about spin. History tells us (again and again) that the author’s activist group is extremist.
Posted by BPT, Thursday, 17 March 2011 9:29:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's an Engineer and Expert who sounds quite convincing:

A hands on American engineer who has worked in power stations for 39 years http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/japan/110314/japan-nuclear-meltdown-disaster

"GlobalPost: Officials have said the possibility of a large-scale radiation release is small. Do you agree?

Arnold Gundersen: I think that the probability of a large scale release is about 50-50, and I don’t call that small.

GlobalPost: Why do you think that?

Gundersen: For several reasons. One, you’ve got three reactors involved. Two, you’re already picking up radiation on aircraft carriers [including USS Ronald Reagan] a hundred miles away at sea, on helicopters 60 miles to the north, and in town. So clearly, as these plants become more and more difficult to control, it becomes quite likely that a containment now will have a gross failure. And a gross failure will release enormous amounts of radiation quickly."

But their is a bright side of this tragedy - at least Assange hasn't been able to steal the spotlight for about a week.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 17 March 2011 9:30:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Quite so, Poirot.
If only the combined "expertise" of this broad range "experts" could be used as a fire suppressant, the problem would be resolved.

- Building a nuclear reactor on a known fault line?
- Not including multiple contingency levels on one of the fundemental requirements for a "safe" reactor - a supply of water to cool the rods?

A couple of fundememntal oversights there I think.
Posted by Radar, Thursday, 17 March 2011 9:34:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's all the fault of Twitter.

>>We have experts telling us it's dire and experts telling us it's hardly anything to worry about at all.<<

The sad reality is that we have become so obsessed with "instant information" that we have already started to use it as a kicking-off point for discussion, instead of waiting for fact-checking and verification to click in.

As far as I can tell from what I have so far seen, heard and read, no-one actually knows for certain what the extent of the damage is, or the likelihood of it turning into a massive nuclear disaster.

So the phenomenon we are witnessing here is commentators making their "observations" and drawing "conclusions" from absolutely no real data whatsoever. Which is why every single one of them merely reflects their own pre-existing prejudices and ideals.

And thanks to our apparently insatiable appetite for 24-hour news coverage, the media are forced to drag out of hiding anyone with even the vaguest notion of what might be happening, and put them on the spot for their "views".

No wonder the stories range from "business as usual" to "armageddon".

Given the damage caused by the earthquake and the tsunami, I doubt whether anyone yet has actually been able to make a detailed analysis of what the danger might be.

But it would appear that we want to hear, instantly, someone, saying something.

So we can all go ahead and argue about it.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 17 March 2011 9:50:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Doh! Get thouest real.

Unlike some - I'm not deferentially keeping my head in the sand.

Yes we should wait some years for agreed information from an international committee (not).

We should be informational kowtowers until our betters tell us to form an opinion.

In fact we have a right to know how far the radiation is spreading.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 17 March 2011 10:29:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some of the posters here are talking about this as if it is all cut and dried. “It in not as bad as Chernobyl, it is easily fixed” and so on. This is an ongoing nuclear disaster and could eventually mean the indefinite evacuation of the whole of the North Island of Japan.
No one at this stage has any idea of how long this emergency will go on for and how many it will effect.
The pro nuclear lobby is already with a set of pat answers from “ well it was an old plant” to "well we could build it with 100% safety now” and they are still hoping that their dream will come true one day.

The whole point about Nuclear power stations is that they cannot be retrospectively brought up to date correcting design faults. The enormous costs in dismantling even a working plant in good condition (not to include safety aspects) show that. To rebuild a plant that has been the subject of an accident from whatever cause is not feasible.
So it is better to not have them in the first place but to find another solution.
There are other solutions but the nuclear lobby will not make money out of them so they are ridiculed.

I think this event is a blessing in disguise if it stops any further push for nuclear power.
Posted by sarnian, Thursday, 17 March 2011 10:57:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sarnian it might all be fine as well .. we're not saying it is not troublesome or that there are no difficulties, but you guys all seem to be saying it is either zero or one .. it is either nothing or WORSE THAN CHERNOBYL .. !! with nothing in between

I do note the anti nuclear lobby are the ones out there wailing and writing articles in the "I told you so OMG we're all going to die" vein, and people such as yourself seem to be very happy to bury the nuclear industry without any evidence or data at all, though on AGW you want to side with scientific "authority" .. why ditch it now?

let's wait and see .. or are you of the theory we need to DO SOMETHING .. NOW! Even if it's wrong!

Wait .. give them time .. take it easy

"The pro nuclear lobby is already with a set of pat answers"

The "anti" nuclear lobby is already with a set of pat hysterics .. fixed
Posted by rpg, Thursday, 17 March 2011 11:05:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well done, Jim.

And over in A. Bolt's most predictable diatribe, he ignores:

• that it's six reactors, not "a reactor"
• that the fire at the spent fuel rods pool has no safety containment vessel - just like the Chernobyl disaster
• that it's Associate Professor Tilman Ruff of the Medical Association for the Prevention of War (www.mapw.org.au), not "Dr" Ruff, an "activist".
• that the WHO Chernobyl report ignored the latent periods of cancers, that most (53%) of the radioactive fallout actually landed on Europe (conveniently omitted in many studies of the '86 disaster), and that the WHO has a fundamental relationship with the IAEA and its vested interests.

Bolt is long overdue in being sacked for spreading blatant untruths concerning matters of public health.
Posted by Atom1, Thursday, 17 March 2011 12:19:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atman, yes indeed: "The author is a long term campaigner against Nuclear power and is definitely not a dispassionate observer."

So where lies the greater integrity? In someone who, if he wins his campaign is out of a job? Or in those who, if they win via disinformation hope to further their vested interests in the uranium market?

Meanwhile, this week Ziggy has attempted to sprout amazingly ignorant statements that somehow Australia is immune from tsunamis, hurricanes (cyclones), seismic activity, floods, fires or heatwaves - all of which have caused shutdowns of nuclear facilities...

Reliable baseload, or baseless load of bs?
Posted by Atom1, Thursday, 17 March 2011 12:43:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atom 1 said
"So where lies the greater integrity? In someone who, if he wins his campaign is out of a job? Or in those who, if they win via disinformation hope to further their vested interests in the uranium market?"

Green environmentalists invent new jobs for themselves overnight. So there's no danger of the author being unoccupied should he manage to close every nuclear plant in the world. Such people won't be happy til they've shut down all sources of cheap power in favour of expensive, inefficient ones lowering our standard of living along the way.

There is currently no replacement for nuclear and coal fired power. If there were and it was economical we would be there right now.
Posted by Atman, Thursday, 17 March 2011 1:27:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atman,
Your statement that there is currently no replacement for nuclear and coal fired power.

Is of course misleading. Solar Thermal with Salt heat storage providing base load has proved to be as cheap (if not cheaper) than Nuclear and if the subsidies that coal enjoys were removed it would be on a par.
Totally emission free after the construction phase and providing employment to operate.
Wave power works well and also provides a lot of employment opportunities but has been ignored here in Australia.
Wind is intermittent but can be a good cheap source.
The main advantage with all of these is:
No gambling with a possible environmental disaster.
Posted by sarnian, Thursday, 17 March 2011 1:56:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarnian,

I am afraid that Salt storage solar power is much more expensive than nuclear. There are also no subsidies for coal, so I am greatly interested in where you get this information, especially since there is no commercially sized plant presently in existence.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 17 March 2011 2:06:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't mention the disposal of radiactive waste.
Posted by skeptic, Thursday, 17 March 2011 3:36:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,
Here is a list of solar thermal plants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_thermal_power_stations
and a solat/salt plant
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/22/first-molten-salt-solar-power

I will follow up with info on coal subside later. Too busy right now
Posted by sarnian, Thursday, 17 March 2011 4:12:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another example of human error:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/fukushima-nuclear-plant-owner-falsified-inspection-records/story-fn84naht-1226023073141

skeptic, good point about nuclear waste disposal. Imagine if a few underground containers were to leak perhaps due to earthquake or a weakness in the external covering. Last thing the ecology needs is radiation contaminated ground water.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 17 March 2011 5:14:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its simple. If there were efficient and cheap alternative energy systems they would be marketed now. As there are none, the Carbon Tax has to be introduced to make alternative energy artificially cheaper and coal and oil artificially more expensive. Subsidising expensive energy and taxing cheap energy is a means to an economic disaster because it falsely creates value in one item while falsely subtracting it from another.
Posted by Atman, Thursday, 17 March 2011 9:07:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Things are now really bad:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/17/501364/main20044142.shtml

"The chief of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said all the water is gone from one of the spent fuel pools at Japan's most troubled nuclear plant, raising the possibility of widespread nuclear fallout. But Japanese officials denied the pool was dry.

Tepco executives said Thursday that they believed the rods in that pool were covered with water, but an official with Japan's nuclear safety agency later expressed skepticism about that and moved closer to the U.S. position.

"Considering the amount of radiation released in the area, the fuel rods are more likely to be exposed than to be covered," Yuichi Sato said.

[The chief of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said further] My understanding is there is no water in the spent fuel pool, he said. I hope my information is wrong. It's a terrible tragedy for Japan."

If the US assessment is correct a large chunk of Japan may not be quite safe for years.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 17 March 2011 11:49:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atman,
Contrary to your last, it is coal (and Nuclear if it gets off the ground) that is subsidized as you can see by just some of the info below.
If it was not blocked by vested interests, the Alternative power systems would be up and running now instead of having to move offshore to the US and Spain to name but two. These interests have such clout, through the donations to political parties system that they are in a position to stifle any furthering of the Alt power industry.
You may remember a 4 corners program that exposed this in the Howard era called “ the greenhouse mafia” that is now long forgotten in the usual way but is still very active,
Google http://www.google.com.au/#q=subsidies+paid+to+Australian+coal+industry&hl=en&prmd=ivns&ei=aISCTYIthsq9A-e-2dwI&start=10&sa=N&fp=9de2688f68b31204
http://climateactioncanberra.wordpress.com/coal-and-climate/
Nationally subsidies to the coal industry total 7-9 billion dollars a year.” This year $1.7 billion was paid to industry in rebates for diesel use. ”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_transport_subsidies_in_Australia
Total energy and transport subsidies: $9.3 billion to $10.1 billion, of which: - $9 billion to $9.8 billion went to support the production and use of fossil fuels - $371 million to $334 million, which is only 3.1 to 3.6% of the total amount of subsidies.
Energy and transport subsidies in Australia - Wikipedia, the free ...
Coal power industries subsidized under the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program (GGAP). ... By energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers.” ... Energy and Transport Subsidies in Australia” [1] |accessdate=2008-08-04 ...
en.wikipedia.org/.../Energy_and_transport_subsidies_in_Australia - Cached - Similar
Renewable Energy News 09 JUNE, 2009 In the recent Australian federal budget, $4.5 billion was earmarked to go towards clean energy, but over half will go towards low-emissions coal technologies, also known as “clean coal” or “new generation coal”.

81% Of the funds allocated so far under the Howard government’s (The Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund) 81 per cent has gone to subsidize fossil fuel companies
In early 2007 the Howard government granted $100 million (the LETDF) to subsidize a new brown coal fired power station in Victoria
Posted by sarnian, Friday, 18 March 2011 8:38:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarnian, So you expect me to believe that Worldwide, clandestine forces are working to stop clean efficient energies from surfacing? Why hasn't ONE SINGLE country been able to convert to these wonderful new technologies? Sounds like another conspiracy theory to me or an episode from Batman.

The answer is simple, there are no cheap and efficient replacements for coal and oil. If there were we wouldn't need a Carbon Tax to take money from oil and coal and give it to inefficient and expensive alternative energy programs.
Posted by Atman, Friday, 18 March 2011 9:34:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atman,
It is strange that you do not refute the answers I gave about there being no equivalent to Coal or Nukes.

You seem to be of the Goebels way of thinking that if you say something often enough, people will believe it.
you reiterate your previous answer ie “The answer is simple; there are no cheap and efficient replacements for coal and oil. If there were we wouldn't need a Carbon Tax to take money from oil and coal and give it to inefficient and expensive alternative energy programs.”

I have demonstrated in one of my posts that some countries ARE indeed well on the way to converting to these replacements but you have chosen to ignore that.
As for the “So you expect me to believe that Worldwide, clandestine forces are working to stop clean efficient energies from surfacing?” I did not actually say Worldwide, as you would have no doubt noted, but in fact spoke about the factually proven strong coal lobby in Australia.
I would say that you are really motivated in arguing just for the sake of arguing and have no real thoughts on this, so I will conclude my posts on this matter.
Posted by sarnian, Friday, 18 March 2011 2:04:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It would seem that that the total cost of ownership of nuclear plants is nowhere near as cheap as some think, certainly much more than the cost of merely constructing or operating on the cheap.

For instance, the cost of building such within structures unaffected by earthquakes or tsunamis. Such can only be ameliorated by building within rigid structures unaffected by geological or ocean movement. Think "battleship on an ocean" and project a similarly rigid structure upon the earth. That is a *lot* of concrete and steel, several times more than the basic facility. on the upside, such a site may house several generations of facilities.

The further cost of remotely accessible control points, the laying of flexible access ports from safely remote locations for sending surveillance/water etc.

The cost of a permanent-standby emergency team, underwritten to be available 24/7/365.25, with all equipment. regardless of circumstances including death of own family, or extremity of risk.

The cost (including generous family support in perpertuity) of insuring workers willing to remain onsite and perform duties in face of potentially extreme conditions. What extreme danger pay do such deserve?

The cost to an economy of losing even a single facility in terms of electricity production, let alone the cost of contaminating surrounding countryside (how much is an acre worth each decade in production?). The cost of nationwide rolling blackouts.

No, nuclear is not as cheap as some propose, perhaps so insufficiently cheap that renewables look much more competitive.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Friday, 18 March 2011 11:25:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarinian,

You completely failed to show any plant that can generate peak power at the peak periods. The first molten salt storage is being built as a 5MW test site.

Try again.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 19 March 2011 1:02:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarnian,
I did refute the 'answers' you gave. They were not in fact answers to my assertion that coal and oil has no equally efficient and cheap competitors though you did claim 'Salt storage solar power' as being cheaper than oil/coal etc but this was refuted by another poster.

Apart from that, your responses were about your theory that 'vested interests' were preventing the development of alternative energies. Then you referred to every paranoid lefty's bogeyman, John Howard who hasn't been in office for 4 yrs. Are we to blame Obama and Gillard now?

You still have provided no evidence that there are alternative energy sources which are equally efficient and cheap as oil and coal.
Posted by Atman, Saturday, 19 March 2011 7:27:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pete/plantagenet.. oh, wait! "The IAEA radiation monitoring team took measurements at seven different locations in Tokyo and in the Kanagawa and Chiba Prefectures. Dose rates were well below those which are dangerous to human health.... "

and to put the contamination of food in some perspective "In the case of the milk samples, even if consumed for one year, the radiation dose would be equivalent to that a person would receive in a single CT scan"

So try to read all the hyperventilating hysterical MSM with a pinch of salt, after all the average journalist in Australia is a drama driven type of person. Evidently that sells.

Go to the IAEA site and other expert sites, stay away from those with a clear vested interest in doom (greenpeace, WWF etc) all these people use people's pain and suffering to get yet more money into their coffers, all in the name of protecting you of course.

Especially stay away from the gleeful sites and "opinion" generators, who are ecstatic about this nuclear issue, to the point of ignoring the actual tsunami disaster.
Posted by rpg, Sunday, 20 March 2011 7:43:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Renewables are not expensive.

My family farm has bores serviced by windmills, solar, and electric pumps.

No prizes for guessing which of these is cheapest over a fifty year period for total cost, including installation, maintenance and replacement.

Even if I factor in considerations like assuming the windmill cost 150 times its installation cost, at 15% interest, it was a clear winner, followed by the solar DC pump, followed by mains power driven pumps.

Renewables are not bogus.

Concentrated energy sources that are easily damaged by disaster or malice, these are the threat to our stability, and to local autonomy in the face of government breakdown.

The cost of big coal and big nuclear is too great, in event of a demonstrated worst far less than that possible.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Friday, 25 March 2011 10:21:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy