The Forum > Article Comments > Spinning Fukushima > Comments
Spinning Fukushima : Comments
By Jim Green, published 16/3/2011Proponents of nuclear energy have had to go into high gear to try to spin the Fukushima disaster.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- ...
- 7
- 8
- 9
-
- All
Posted by rpg, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 9:12:54 AM
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
|
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