Hey Leo: is there anyone who disagrees with you who isn't a shill, a member of the nuclear industry, or a hater of mankind?
Hey Leo: is there anyone who disagrees with you who isn't a shill, a member of the nuclear industry, or a hater of mankind? Just curious.
Someone posed this thoughtful question- the answer is 'yes'.
That is a very thoughtful question. The answer is 'yes'.
In terms of individual belief systems, I would not shortchange the variable complexities of each 'individual human' anymore than I would shortchange the complexity of 'radioactive fallout' utilizing 'nature's methods of distribution'.
For example, there are many within the industry who are very good people, who wish to 'change the industry from the inside'.
The battle of 'Reliability Centered Maintenance Culture/Preventative Maintenance Culture' VS 'Firefighting Culture' within 'the industry' has been 'ongoing', since 'the industry' has been in existence.
Working Mom's can consider 'Reliability Centered Maintenance Culture/Preventative Maintenance Culture' as 'installing a 'fire extinguisher' in the house, just to be 'safe'.
Working Mom's can consider 'Firefighting Culture' as 'intervening in' or 'stopping the installation' of a 'fire extinguisher' in the house. Reasons cited might be 'cost', or 'disingenuous safety concerns'. (i.e.: What if someone bumps their head on the fire extinguisher, has anyone thought of that? That's a dangerous safety concern!!!)
The real reason of course, to avoid the fire extinguisher is to save some money in the process. Of course, the 'anticipated criticality' gives the 'fire' a fighting chance. (Oh well, at least there is the 'silver lining'- we can always make additional profit when we rebuild the burned down house, yes? Oh, someone died in the fire? That's so unfortunate. But that's life. We're all gonna die right?)
Such 'culture' is taught from the very beginning, in college for instance.
The industry 'weeds out' Preventative Maintenance advocates as best it can. At times it offers them 'carrots' if they will do something the industry needs (Providing a 'cover' in the form of a 'safety study', for instance), or if they will 'remain silent' on certain issues to which they've been exposed.
Such 'managed silence' issues may include public health concerns. 'Thank You For Smoking' and the 'Ford Pinto' come to mind. (It's difficult to prove 'intent', if one obviously has no way of knowing in advance which particular family will purchase that particular Ford Pinto prone to exploding upon rear impact, isn't it?)
Soon , if it's not happening already, the NRC and other Pro Nuclear Industry advocates will begin conducting 'Scientific Dog and Pony Shows' in an effort to create 'the illusion' that these egregious issues which caused this tremendous failure in Fukushima, related to 'individuals' and not the overall 'culture' promoted within the industry.
This is a commonplace 'method' within the industry. This is the 'illusion' of 'due diligence' which the industry is adept at providing.
So who is winning the culture war within the industry? How can we gauge where 'industry culture' is leading the nation and the world?
?Within one year and between 2 individual industry failures, the entire USA has been contaminated by both petrochemical and radioactive industrial fallout, as well as Canada and parts of Mexico.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/05/10/oil_spill_causes_climate_pr...
How many of those whom disagree with me would have believed that possible two years ago?
Yes, there are good people who disagree with me. Education and experience is key to understanding 'why' that is. Management is very sophisticated within the industry.
I have not come to my conclusions overnight. I have been 'beaten into submission' by industry 'culture'.
"They were deliberating among themselves as to how they could give
Wings to Death so that it could, in a moment, penetrate everywhere,
both near and far."
-Jan Amos Komensky (Comenius)
-The Labyrinth of the Worlds (1623)
Yes, there are good people who disagree with me.
They should refute my scientific argument if they wish to convince me that I am wrong. We haven't seen very much of that, have we?
In contrast, the 'non-scientific-venom' was quickly unleashed once I dispatched the 'Airplane Analogy' and 'Effective Dose', was it not? Is that what UC Berkeley stands for?
As of yet, I have not been 'beaten into submission' as regards that particular question. However, I am as 'subject' to the 'uncontrolled variables' which exist within 'reality' as everyone else is.
________________
Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident
European Committee on Radiation Risk
Documents of the ECRR 2006 No1
Eds: C.C.Busby and A.V Yablokov
http://www.euradcom.org/publications/chernobylebook.pdf
Subject: Fukushima Releases Into The Pacific Sea
(This thread is from me as well)
I read this on another thread:
"Atmospheric emissions from FK are negligible compared to early releases.
Now we live with the junk that came over in that wave, which is bad, but not end-of-the-world bad."
Is that really the scientific way to think about 'releases'? Have all releases been accounted for?
Here is an animation tracking application which illustrates how many earthquakes have occurred off of the East coast of Japan since March 11, 2011. The full count as of today is just over 1400 quakes.
(click on the 'fast forward' a couple of times to speed up the simulation- there have been so many earthquakes that it takes significant time to run through them all)
http://www.japanquakemap.com/
Have you ever heard of 'liquefaction'?
Here is a quick introduction to liquefaction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn3oAvmZY8k
Here is another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc8SjDLjdTU
So help me out here...who is the authority on what is happening beneath the surface of those reactors? How do we know that they are not completely exposed to the sea? What evidence do we have of that? Were those reactors and accompanying fuel equipped with GPS monitors/sensors?
If the reactors and their accompanying fuel ARE exposed to the sea, what repercussions will that have upon our hydrologic cycle? (water cycle)
http://www.sawater.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/657AC917-D6E3-4E55-AAD1-38119A0AC...
What repercussions will that, in turn, have upon our food cycle, crops, etc?
Isn't there some type of 'sustainable organic movement' in Northern California? (I seem to recall hearing something about that.) These organic growers and farmers are very good people from what I understand.
Of course, they don't wield the power which the NRC and the Nuclear Industry at large does, but they are good people, who have been leading the country in a direction of environmental balance, who now find themselves trapped within this mess, as we all are:
http://www.strausfamilycreamery.com/video.php?file=457724044e1bd.flv
Vetter, Chivers, Bandstra & The Rest Of BRAWM Get An 'F'.
Of course- in reality we always knew you'd get an 'F', didn't we?
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/cae69a7523db45408eeb2b3a98c0c9c5/Article...
And by the way- I read your FAQ. It seems to have some 'Grand Canyon' like 'flaws'.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling/FAQ#halflife
"#6. How long will these isotopes be in our environment?
The short answer: the radioactive isotopes from Japan may no longer be strong enough for us to measure by approximately mid-April, depending on atmospheric transport. They are already at safe levels for the public."
Did you make mistakes?
Were you incompetent?
Or did you just flat out LIE?
None of the above.
It's your IGNORANCE of the science that is at fault.
BRAWM is correct. They haven't made mistakes; they are not incompetent; and they didn't lie.
You not only get an "F" - you don't even deserve to be in the class.