It’s fascinating to watch the right-wing “news” outlet peculiarly known as Pajamas Media try to persuade everyone that nothing bad is happening at the stricken nuclear plants in Japan. I just got an email that reads as follows:
It would seem impossible to overstate the severity of the crisis in Japan. The media, however, has risen to the challenge, with a combination of poor information, ignorance, and alarmism, along with antinuclear activists passing themselves off as unbiased experts.
Relax: this is not another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, and Charlie Martin tells you exactly why.
If you click through, you’ll find that Mr. Martin does indeed opine at length about something that, frankly, he doesn’t appear to know very much about. After all (this is from the email),
Charlie Martin ‘s areas of expertise include intelligence collection and analysis, computer security, cryptography, the business and technical impact of Web technologies, and the climate change debate, especially the impact of the release of the Climategate Files in November 2009. Martin holds a Masters in Computer Science (with additional concentrations in mathematics and electrical engineering) from Duke University.
LOL Just the guy I want telling me there’s nothing to worry about in an ongoing nuclear disaster. Anyway, Martin does indeed assure us that
this is not another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, and I’ll tell you exactly why. The only thing to fear is the sensationalist reporting that has the world panicked.
He goes on at great length to castigate the media for making some mistakes. And the media has no doubt made mistakes – few if any reporters are nuclear engineers, and mistakes are bound to be made, especially in a fast-moving story like this one in which people are scared. But he then makes a classic error.
What we can say is that it’s not very likely to be a catastrophic accident, and gets less likely with every minute. The Japanese are cooling the reactors down, and adding boron, which “poisons” the nuclear reaction by absorbing neutrons, the “sparks” that make the reaction go.
The amount of radiation that has been released is, so far, actually very minor. Instead of being “another Chernobyl,” which the IAEA put at INES level 7, this is INES level 4 – and Three Mile Island was level 5. So far, Fukushima is not just not another Chernobyl, it’s not even another Three Mile Island.
First of all, I have not seen any reports suggesting that this is “another Chernobyl” – to the contrary, every time I’ve seen Chernobyl mentioned, it’s been to say that this event so far does not approach the severity of Chernobyl. So in that respect, the media has gotten it right.
Second, this is a fast-moving and unpredictable situation, as Martin should have known if he knows so much about nuclear energy. But, apparently, he doesn’t, so Martin’s confident assertions that things were unlikely to get worse as time goes on were undermined by events, namely, the fact that spent fuel rods appear to have become partially exposed and may be on fire. Even Martin admits that the situation is now more serious.
While I was asleep, there was a new and unhappy event at Fukushima Daiichi: stored spent fuel rods apparently caught fire. At least right now, this is considerably more exciting than the actual reactor problems…. The frustrating part about writing on this stuff is that people don’t seem to have any middle setting between “everything is fine” and “run in circles scream and shout”. So saying “no, it’s not Chernobyl” is interpreted as “it’s nothing.”
So let’s go ahead and make this clear: no, it’s still not Chernobyl. But no, it’s not nothing.
Of course, nobody is saying that it’s Chernobyl. So thanks, Charlie, for knocking down that strawman again. His update doesn’t mention his previous confident assertions about Three Mile Island, probably because there is now controversy as to how serious the events in Japan are, with some experts arguing that the situation is actually worse than Three Mile Island.
And I think he’s precisely wrong to say that people don’t have a middle setting between “nothing” and “Chernobyl.” In fact, from what I’ve seen, that middle setting is exactly where most of the world is right now: it’s not as bad as Chernobyl, but it’s bad. It’s folks like Martin who are pushing too hard for the “it’s nothing” end of the spectrum.
What I really wonder is why. Why write such a long, smug, and now embarrassingly outdated post? Just to take a few potshots at the “liberal media”? To shill for the nuclear industry? Really, what’s the point?
My reading of various scientists on this say that it’s likely that no one will be exposed to more radiation than having one chest X-Ray. Much, much less dangerous than smoking one cigarette a day.
<
p>Things could go horribly wrong to make things worse, but the actual experts also think that’s highly unlikely.
<
p>Contrast this to climate scientists, who are telling us that climate change has and will cause serious problems.
Even Japanese officials are calling it a level 4 accident, while some neutral observers are saying it could be as high as level 6. Even level 4 is high enough when human health can be affected within the contaminated area. If there was no serious risk, they wouldn’t have evacuated 20 km around the plant.
<
p>The bottom line is the incident is on going and we really don’t know how bad it will be or even how bad it is already. Anyone who is saying with confidence that there is no radiation leaks of any consequence is shilling for the nuclear industry and anyone who is calling this is a disaster on par with Chernobyl is fear mongering with an anti-nuke agenda. Like David says, it’s in between, and we don’t have enough evidence to make definitive conclusions yet.
At the very least coal plants dont have accidents that kill hundreds and lead to increased cancer risk for thousands more.
<
p>People use a lot of electricity, and generating enough of it is dirty and dangerous.
they just do it a teeny bit at a time, emitting all sorts of nasties into the atmosphere.
<
p>Better or worse? Both are major problems that we’ve got to work hard to mitigate. Mitigate them we can if we decide to work hard at
* efficiency improvements
* demand side management
* expansion of various renewables
* increasing regulation requirements of fossil and nuclear fueled power generation
Really, as nice as the first two items on your list might be, they will not, and cannot solve, anything. Instead, efficiency improvements will increase demand, much as adding extra lanes increases traffic, and “demand side management” will be a non-starter for any government that has to face a real election.
<
p>These things are the equivalent of trying to solve STDs with abstinence education, in that they require a change in human nature in order to work.
<
p>Your third item is great, but faces the difficult issue of scaling up in an expeditious manner.
<
p>The last is a different flavor of the second.
<
p>I think you need to find a way to reduce carbon emissions without changing the demand for power, which will almost certainly continue on the same upward trajectory that it has traveled for a century, efforts at “demand reduction” notwithstanding.
Changing human nature through good education really does seem to work. Abstinence education doesn’t work because it’s based not on education but ‘only’ behavior modification.
<
p>With regard to the spread of STDs among youth, actual good education does seem to make a difference.
are more than enough to give people cancer in the vicinity of the factory. 4x that amount, according to the NYT today.
<
p>I don’t think that’s an overreaction. It would be an overreaction to suggest the worst case scenario is definitely going to happen — and that people in a wide area would be exposed to that much radiation — but I don’t hear very many people suggesting that’s a likely scenario.
<
p>Or maybe it goes further than that, nuclear has been the Republican counter to alternative energy. Instead of taking the good with the bad an have honest discussion, sites like Pajamas attack and try to discredit anything they believe might hurt political leverage.
Wikipedia, here as elsewhere, is an invaluable tool for greater understanding.
<
p>Pyjamas Media, and the wing of the Republican Party they represent, is not a member of the reality-based community:
<
p>
<
p>The limitations of this approach to the world are on full display at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, where the power of reality, as opposed to wishful thinking, is manifest.
I’m getting sick of people who are doing everything except openly hoping for a thermal core meltdown. Fukushima is no Chernobyl, but according to the French at least it may be worse than 3 Mile Island. So be it.
<
p>If anyone has a power source that would survive a historically unprecedented earthquake on the ring of fire, I’d love to hear it. What kind of conflagration would come from a natural gas terminal? Or an oil refinery? Factor in the effects of this once-in-a-generation accident, you still have far fewer cancer rates than caused by coal emissions.
<
p>I’m all for wind and solar power, but anybody who can do arithmatic knows that isn’t a viable option for decades to come. Until then, what do we do? Aside from asking India and China to stop using energy, and smiling anytime a disliked source of power tremors on the lip of catastrophe?
Neither PV nor wind would have caused a health risk for folks who were nearby the site of the accident. They may have broken, but they sure as heck wouldn’t put folks at risk anywhere near like nuclear or natural gas.
But even going at breakneck speed, it will be several decades before PV or wind can meet the world’s energy needs. I respect the depth of understanding you have on energy, but I’m getting sick of the “just build more turbines” line from the fallout cheerleaders. That’s a slogan, not a strategy. I just fail to understand why people are insisting that lethal results of a 9.0 earthquake should be taken as a rule of thumb…is there any sector of any industry that is not going to deal poorly with a 9.0?
<
p>For that matter — and this is a serious question — if a 9.0 hits a wind turbine such as the one astride the IBEW hall in Boston, would the turbine survive, or smash into the surrounding neighborhood?
It was the tsunami. This is often missed. Subduction zone earthquakes occur at great depth and are therefore less intense than strike/slip quakes of significantly smaller magnitudes.
Since the world, and in particular the US, has limited financial resources and an energy habit that far exceeds the rate sustainable using current technology, I think the key question is “Dollar for dollar, what investment yields the greatest immediate return in reduced fossil-fuel consumption?”
<
p>The winner, by an enormous margin, is energy conservation. Our next $1B investment in “renewable energy” will yield far greater results (measured by how much we reduce our fossil fuel consumption) if we spend that $1B in reducing demand.
<
p>Let me offer a simple and obvious example. Do you understand that nearly every American (including, almost certainly, you and me) uses nearly all of the energy you buy for domestic hot water to heat the sewer?
<
p>That’s right. Most of us have a hot water heater that burns natural gas or oil and keeps 40 or so gallons of water at 140 degF (maybe 120-130). Each time we take a shower, wash our clothes, or do the dishes, that expensively-heated hot water spends about 10 seconds in contact with us and then rolls down the drain, where it transfers all that expensive heat to the ground.
<
p>A small investment in a heat recovery unit in each drain has an enormous return.
<
p>You asked:
<
p>I don’t know. I do know that that turbine is far more likely to be taken down by an airplane strike, a weather event, a terrorist attack — whatever — than a 9.0 quake. For that matter, I’d guess that the mathematical risk of a premature failure induced by faulty workmanship is probably several orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a 9.0 earthquake.
<
p>As devastating as the still-unfolding catastrophe in Japan is, it really doesn’t change the fundamental risk analyses — or the economic decisions driven by it — at all.
<
p>I’m not arguing that PV and wind solve all our problems — merely that yet another good reason to spend lots of extra money to expand wind and PV is that their worst case scenario doesn’t include putting many, many people at risk due to man-induced or natural disaster.
<
p>
<
p>As for your other question: generally, wind turbines aren’t being built in heavily populated areas, but if it fell over, yeah, it might kill a few people. Maybe. In a freak accident. Hell, a hurricane might rip the blades right off and that could kill a few people too. Hardly the same order of magnitude in human or economic suffering as the worst case scenario in coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear power. This isn’t to say that worst case should drive the decision, just answering your question.
Apart from the fact that the world is going to blow up and we are all going to die……..
<
p>I get annoyed at how so much of the news coverage I see focuses on the Americans who happened to be in Japan and how it seems so much more important when one of them is found safe or so much more tragic when one of them is missing or dead. The same thing happens with any disaster coverage…Haiti etc. American lives are considered so much more important and valuable than everyone else’s.
Just like I wouldn’t be surprised if the BBC had stories of British citizens or French media talked about French who were in the wrong place, wrong time, etc. It’s human nature to have strongest empathy for someone like you. However, all those responding with “How can I help?” are certainly aware that many people are affected and are more than happy to assist anybody.
Russians who live and study in Japan. And the Chinese are probably doing the same. It’s known as ethno-centrism and seems to be a universal among all cultures as you correctly point out.
The BBC isn’t nearly as Americo-centric. I can say the same for the CBC and ABC (Canada, Australia) as I tend to follow those sources as well.
<
p>It’s arguable that some national interest reporting may make sense here, but American media have a well-earned reputation as more myopic than any other. Just watch the American Ga–, er, Olympic Games.
I remember a thread complaining about that during the last games, and I also commented then that I fully expected American media to focus on American athletes.
or Russian tv. Expand your horizons a bit before you assume that the Americans are the most provincial in this regard. And why on earth would the BBC be americo-centric?
Which it isn’t. Nor has NPR been Americo-centric for that matter.
<
p>I don’t know how other British media have been covering the earthquake, but it doesn’t seem all that different from American commercial news to me.
<
p>I think this, like the “our terrible olympics” complaints, involve comparing America to some European ideal that does not exist except in the imaginations of Americans with Europe-envy.
I watched a few Olympiads while in Canada, and there is no real comparison. Fewer commercial breaks, too — and commentators who don’t seem to thing they’ll die of asphyxiation if they stop talking for a second. Granted, there may be a prosaic reason, as there’s no real way to fill up hundreds of hours of programming just with Canadian or Irish medal hopes. NBC can (but notice how they never showed fencing until women’s fencing was added, a sport which Americans dominate?)
I do watch TV5 from time to time. Actually was interviewed on it for a report during the 2004 campaign — funny story, that one. Agence France-Presse has been dessicated faster than the AP. I do check in with Le Soir from time to time because the Belgian situation is fascinating for anyone who cares about government.
<
p>As I don’t speak Russian, I don’t watch much of it. Is any Russian TV still operating that doesn’t merely broadcast what Putin tells it to broadcast?
<
p>I’d put my consumption of world media up against yours any day — a result of living abroad for many of my formative years. I stand by what I said. (And why is that it’s only conservatives who protest whenever someone points out American habits of parochialism?)
I have been horrified by the dominance of stories about the economic impact (I use Google news mostly) on US interests.
<
p>I have found it very difficult to get current information about events that are actually happening. For example, there are multiple reports of a second fire that occurred “early Wednesday” at Fukishima number 4.
<
p>What does “early Wednesday” mean? Is it contained, or still burning? Surely somebody noted the actual time!
<
p>We have essentially real-time communication with Japan. I’m shocked that so little hard information about ongoing events is being published.
<
p>
The inadequacies of the corporate media establishment, interestingly, appear to be thrown into sharper relief by the web.
Granted, teachers often criticised me for not including specific details in my writing growing up, but I’m not going to get worked up about whether a news report said “early Wednesday” or “at 3:52 AM local time”. I would assume than any official report or investigation would include the more specific information.
What’s upsetting me is that we have close contacts who live in Japan, and we want to know what is happening now.
<
p>Let me paint two scenarios, and openly confess that the difference between them does upset me:
<
p>Scenario 1: A pump leaks oil that catches fire at 9:50a local time. Workers on-site extinguish the fire by 10:30a, and a press release is issued at 11:30a describing the minor incident.
<
p>Scenario 2: The water level covering spent fuel rods at reactor 4 boils away enough that the rods are uncovered. They burst into flame at 2:50a local time. Workers on-site flee the scene by 4:00a, unable to contain the rapidly-spreading conflagration. Emergency workers attempt to extinguish the now-raging inferno, and by 11:00a local time are forced to withdraw because of skyrocketing radiation levels. A press release is issued at 11:30a minimizing the impact of the now full-scale radiation catastrophe, in order to avoid widespread panic.
<
p>Both scenarios involve a “fire” that began “early Wednesday”.
<
p>I don’t know if the difference between these two scenarios matters to you; it does matter to me.
I guess I was hoping and assuming that people with specific need to know based on needing to contact people could get that info through a hotline or something. News for public consumption is often just summary and move on.
According to ABC, NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko told Congress today that:
<
p>Not surprisingly, Japanese government officials deny this report.
<
p>I’m disappointed that we aren’t seeing more widespread distribution of current information about events unfolding in Japan.
All Google news can do is aggregate the behind-hand dead tree media.