Then there’s Josh Marshall, at Talking Points Memo, who comes down somewhere near the same side after wisely calling for everyone to wait-and-see before the political analysis begins.
There’s so much we don’t know yet about the situation in Japan. And there’s so much yet to happen—we don’t know how bad this is all going to get. For that and many other reasons, I don’t want to try to say anything definitive. But as we watch this very frightening situation unfold in Japan, I think it’s worth keeping a few thoughts in mind.
We saw a catastrophic accident with fossil fuels in the Gulf last year. What seems more relevant to me is that the proper and planned use of fossil fuels—in other words, when everything goes just according to plan—is creating what appears to be catastrophic damage on a planetary scale. What’s more, setting aside global warming, there is a detailed scientific literature showing the number of deaths and chronic illnesses tied to the release of fossil fuel pollution into the air—lung diseases, asthma, cancer, etc. Again, when all goes just according to plan.
Of course, this “anti-anti-nuclear” left aren’t the only ones making noise. The Guardian cautions readers today against swallowing what Japanese officialdom is feeding reporters regarding the nuclear problems the country is facing, and suggests a nuclear cover-up that might give the lie to those claiming the anti-nuke contingent is overreacting. In a piece titled, “Japan radiation leaks feared as nuclear experts point to possible cover-up,” the paper reports that some engineers are skeptical of the Japanese government’s remaining mum about radiation leaks. (Though, as with many stories coming out of Japan, it’s hard to tell whether the government is remaining mum—this report, for just one of many, suggests they’re being more open than that.) The Guardian report goes back to WikiLeaks cables to back up its case.
In a newly released diplomatic cable obtained by WikiLeaks, politician Taro Kono, a high-profile member of Japan’s lower house, tells US diplomats that the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry—the Japanese government department responsible for nuclear energy—has been “covering up nuclear accidents and obscuring the true costs and problems associated with the nuclear industry”.
In 2008, Kono told them: “The ministries were trapped in their policies, as officials inherited policies from people more senior to them, which they could then not challenge.” He mentioned the dangers of natural disasters in the context of nuclear waste disposal, citing Japan’s “extensive seismic activity, and abundant groundwater, and [he] questioned if there really was a safe place to store nuclear waste in the ‘land of volcanoes’.”
Interesting—but impossible to say that the same pattern (if indeed there is evidence to support Kono’s claims) is being repeated here until the story is completely told.
I never thought I would agree with Josh Marshall, but he’s right, the only way to know how bad this is going to be is to wait until its all over. What made Chernobyl so deadly was the large scale loss of containment of nuclear material: combustion byproducts from the graphite moderator and actual pieces of the fuel rods were sent all over. Fukushima is going to be expensive to clean up but barring a large scale loss of containment the contamination is going to stay localized.
As far as Palast is concerned, the guy is a strait up moron. Think about it, every time a hurricane or power blackout happens nuclear plants rely on their diesels during offsite power failures. If emergency diesel backups were at failure prone as he would have us believe we would have suffered multiple accidents in the US as well.
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 12:58 PM
McClatchy puts together a report:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/14/110430/crisis-at-japanese-nuclear-complex.html
"Five of the six reactors at the Japanese plant, which suffered a second explosion Monday, use the same General Electric reactor that are at 23 nuclear plants in North Carolina, Georgia, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Alabama, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Vermont, according to a database maintained by the NRC.
All but two of them began operating in the 1970s.
"These need to be examined," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, an anti-nuclear organization. "When the reactor designs are the same, and the reactor's ages are the same, comparisons seem more than appropriate.""
The japanese were getting ready to mothball the Fukushima plants. Regardless whether or not the environmental circumstances are different, your standards are different, or your position on Nukes is different, the American plants that have been operating for 4 decades on old GE designs should probably get looked at for potential wear and tear, if not design upgrades.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 01:48 PM