rumor-mongering.
There was a news item cited here earlier that gave the horrific-sounding
news of radiation levels 1000 times normal, but didn't relate that to levels
of safety (or indeed to any actual meaning). The last thing we need is
sensationalism; this tragedy needs no hype.
NHK World (where it's available--ch 18.2 in L.A.) has been covering the
quake, tsunami, and nuclear emergency quite well and pretty much
continually. While the Chief Cabinet Secretary didn't spell out what an
"Article 15, Clause 1 event" is, he did clearly state what the conditions
were. Summarizing: Cooling efforts working, escaping radiation well below
safe levels, probably some meltdown in reactor one, some meltdown possible
in reactor three (won't be able to know for some time--can't just go look).
====
I think it would be very helpful to explain some of the culture of nuclear
energy. Safety concerns are extreme, and alarms come in at the slightest
things. Where I worked many years ago, we had, as I recall, three levels of
possible alarm, and even the lowest level (e.g. a tiny scratch in the paint)
would bury you in reports and investigations and would reverberate to the
highest levels of management. (And I never saw that level of alarm. We just
didn't scratch anything!)
So when you see and hear the concern from the officials, understand that it
doesn't translate to "Apocalypse Now", but that the nuclear people "just get
that way". An analogy would be if someone flicked you off on the freeway and
CHP swooped in, shut the freeway down, investigated, measured and
photographed everything, interrogated every possible witness, and initiated
an aggressive search for the perpetrator.
Again, I don't wish to downplay that they have a real problem; just that
we're not all doomed (at least not yet). In other words, words such as the
PG&E operator's would, as Mark Twain's obituary, be "greatly exaggerated".
BTW, so far I've seen nothing to hint that anything like the debacle at
Three Mile Island (a mixture of bureaucratic bungling) is happening here.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Andrews" <don.andrews_safeway@yahoo.com>
To: <californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2011 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: [californiadisasters] off topic
I'm thinking the PG&E Control Room operator's comment would apply here.
________________________________
From: Joann Lavis <joalis76@hotmail.com>
To: californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, March 12, 2011 8:07:10 PM
Subject: RE: [californiadisasters] off topic
this might help as to information on whats going as to the reactors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Nuclear_Disaster#2011_Sendai_earthquake_an
d_tsunami
________________________________
To: californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com
From: grams46@aol.com
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:42:27 -0500
Subject: [californiadisasters] off topic
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.nuclear/index.html
"We are assuming that a meltdown has occurred" at a quake-damaged
nuclear reactor, Japan's chief Cabinet secretary says.
------------------------------------
Be sure to check out our Links Section at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/links
Please join our Discussion Group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters_discussion/ for topical but extended discussions started here or for less topical but nonetheless relevant messages.Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
californiadisasters-digest@yahoogroups.com
californiadisasters-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
californiadisasters-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment