Fukushima Continues to Leak Radiation

[S.Artesian]

From the NYT December 5, 2011




More Radioactive Water Leaks at Japanese Plant

By HIROKO TABUCHI (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/hiroko_tabuchi/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and MARTIN FACKLER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/martin_fackler/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

TOKYO — At least 45 tons of highly radioactive water have leaked from a purification facility at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station, and some of it may have reached the Pacific Ocean, the plant’s operator said Sunday.

Nearly nine months after Fukushima Daiichi was ravaged by an earthquake and tsunami (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/world/asia/report-details-initial-chaos-at-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-plant-in-japan.html), the plant continues to pose a major environmental threat. Before the latest leak, the Fukushima accident had been responsible for the largest single release of radioactivity into the ocean, threatening wildlife and fisheries in the region, experts have said.
The new radioactive water leak called into question the progress that the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company, appeared to have made in bringing its reactors under control. The company, known as Tepco (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/index-e.html), has said that it hopes to bring the plant to a stable state known as a cold shutdown (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/18/world/asia/18japan.html) by the end of the year.

The trouble on Sunday came in two stages, a Tepco statement said (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11120405-e.html). In the morning, utility workers found that radioactive water was pooling in a catchment next to a purification device; the system was switched off, and the leak appeared to stop. But the company said it later discovered that leaked water was escaping, possibly through cracks in the catchment’s concrete wall, and was reaching an external gutter.

In all, as much as 220 tons of water may now have leaked from the facility, according to a report in the newspaper Asahi Shimbun that cited Tepco officials.
The company said that the water had about one million times as much radioactive strontium as the maximum safe level set by the government, but appeared to have already been cleaned of radioactive cesium before leaking out. Both elements are readily absorbed by living tissue and can greatly increase the risk of developing cancer.
Tepco said a check on Saturday had found no sign of the leak, suggesting that it began Saturday night or early Sunday morning. The company said it was exploring ways to stop any more water from escaping.

Since the disaster in March, workers have been struggling to cool the stricken plant’s reactors by flooding them with water, which is contaminated with radioactivity in the process and becomes a problem of its own.

Tepco installed a new circulatory cooling system in September with filters that decontaminate and recycle the cooling water. But the company acknowledges that some water has already leaked into the ocean, and thousands of tons of water remain in the flooded basements of the plant’s reactor buildings.

The Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (http://www.irsn.fr/EN/Pages/home.aspx) in France estimates that between March and mid-July, the amount of radioactive cesium 137 that had leaked into the Pacific from the Fukushima Daiichi plant amounted to 27.1 petabecquerels, the greatest amount known to have been released from a single episode. (A becquerel is a frequently used measure of radiation, and a petabecquerel is a million billion becquerels.)

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

and because this happens, everyone is going to ***** about nuclear power.
sorry if that is sexist language, but how else do you describe it?

[S.Artesian]

and because this happens, everyone is going to ***** about nuclear power.
sorry if that is sexist language, but how else do you describe it?

No, not everyone, some, apparently including you, will ignore the fact that nuclear power under capitalism is in fact a nuclear weapon, a dirty bomb just waiting to go off.

Some, like the Vegan Marxist, will reproduce puff pieces saying how the exposure of the population in Japan to radiation was "less than expected," until of course you read the data itself and realize how selective, and manipulated the data.

Some will try and convince people that the Japanese government acted properly, efficiently, and with dispatch when this event took place, denying the equivocation, cowardice, and attempts to obscure the real dangers that took place.

So yeah, I certainly hope everyone starts complaining about what happen in Fukushima and starts organizing to shut down every boiling water reactor in the world.

[Lord Testicles]

So yeah, I certainly hope everyone starts complaining about what happen in Fukushima and starts organizing to shut down every boiling water reactor in the world.

As communists we should campaign to try and make people unemployed under capitalism as opposed to help the workers in those industries organise for better and safer working conditions. If we take that stance maybe we should have supported Thatcher when she closed all the pits, because she has undoubtedly saved a generation of people from suffering with black lung disease.

[S.Artesian]

WTF are you talking about? Is your argument that opposing the bourgeoisie's development of nuclear power is going to increase employment?

We should take the stance, based on the evidence of the Fukushima events, the radiation releases at TMI, and Savannah River, and others, that the bourgeoisie are using dangerous technology that puts masses of people at risk; that the bourgeoisie are incapable of properly supervising and regulating such an industry; and that the pseudo-leftist pseudo-technocrats who pretend the risks from boiling water nuclear reactors are equivalent to the risks from coal mines are simply hacks in the service of capitalism.

Now are there any pro-nuclear "technocrats" out there, who are willing to either 1) defend the actions of the Japanese government [Vegan Marxist said he was going to do that, but ran away from the issue after a few facts were revealed] or 2) actually oppose the actions of the Japanese govt, and the US govt in handling the various releases of radiation?

2) would be a switch wouldn't it? One might think, that those claiming to be pro-nuke and "revolutionists" might be able to distinguish facts from government and ruling class deceit, and cover-ups, but apparently no such pro-nuke revolutionist exists.

Search all you want for left-technocrat critiques of the Japanese govt handling and coverup re Fukushima on revleft. Let me know when you find one.

[Kamos]

and because this happens, everyone is going to ***** about nuclear power.
sorry if that is sexist language, but how else do you describe it?



Whine
Complain
Cry

[Os Cangaceiros]

Obviously nuclear power is a disaster in the hands of those who are negligent when it comes to anything except profit. That's hardly unique to nuclear, though...the Deep Water Horizon spill and Massey Energy in regards to oil and coal respectively illustrate that. What I'd like to know is, does nuclear power represent a potential catastrophe that's far more significant than the ongoing environmental catastrophe posed by other sources of power?

[xub3rn00dlex]

Well do we need current fission type generators running until fusion is achieved and sustainable? Would we be able to convert current fission type reactors into fusion type ones in the future?

Also, how would radiation affect marine life in the pacific? Super jumbo shrimp? Or would it end up destroying the ecosystems? I'd have to imagine this would happen on a smaller scale than the entire pacific.

[S.Artesian]

Obviously nuclear power is a disaster in the hands of those who are negligent when it comes to anything except profit. That's hardly unique to nuclear, though...the Deep Water Horizon spill and Massey Energy in regards to oil and coal respectively illustrate that. What I'd like to know is, does nuclear power represent a potential catastrophe that's far more significant than the ongoing environmental catastrophe posed by other sources of power?

Birth defects. Infant mortality. These things rise even from "low-level" releases of radiation. That's what's unique to nuclear. Low level releases on TMI, drift east into NY State and the infant mortality rate spikes.

I think clearly the threat from one nuclear accident-- the devastation of land, sea, water from one nuclear plant is greater than the devastation from any single "fossil fuel" plant.

This is probably where someone will say-- well 11 people died in deepwater horizon, 29 miners were killed in W. Virginia-- and there's no doubt about that. Except 3-6-9 months after low level releases infant mortality rates for populations hundreds, and thousands of miles away spike up.

IMO, asking if the risks from nuclear are any greater than the risks from the ongoing damage to the environment is a little bit like saying "What was so bad about the atomic weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Was that toll any greater than the toll on Tokyo during the firebombing?"

Point is not that they are equal but that neither should have occurred.

The other point is that boiling water reactors are simply unsafe. These GE designed reactors from the 1970s were essentially foisted on Japan in the 1970s.

And the next point is: that the use of nuclear power is in no way shape or form going to mitigate the risk to the environment that will continue, and intensify as long as the bourgeoisie rule.

So after a revolution... I'm all for hashing out what is the safest design and seeing whether or not a realistic risk assessment can be made; but all this talk that those against the proliferation of nuclear power are Luddites, or are taking back to the dark ages, or are advocates of unemployment and Thatcherism, is nothing but propaganda on behalf of the bourgeoisie.

Especially since, as I said before, I have yet to read a "techno-leftist" pro nuker actually criticize the Japanese govt for its actions/inactions on Fukushima, or the US on its actions/reactions to TMI and Savannah River.

[RED DAVE]

What I'd like to know is, does nuclear power represent a potential catastrophe that's far more significant than the ongoing environmental catastrophe posed by other sources of power?Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant_Exclusion_Zone

RED DAVE

[tir1944]

This has more to do with building NPPs in Japan (just by the sea at that) which is like the most seismologically unstable place on Earth than with NPPs in general...

[RED DAVE]

This has more to do with building NPPs in Japan (just by the sea at that) which is like the most seismologically unstable place on Earth than with NPPs in general...Uhh, Chernobyl was not in an earthquake zone.

The issue is nuclear power under capitalism. As S.Artesian says, after the revolution we can all sit down and make a rational decision about it. But until then, the proper stance for the Left is for the dismantling of all existing plants.

RED DAVE

[tir1944]

Uhh, Chernobyl was not in an earthquake zone.
Chernobyl was a flawed desing and more importantly fatal human error bordering on sabotage.


The issue is nuclear power under capitalism.
How would it be different in socialism?


As S.Artesian says, after the revolution we can all sit down and make a rational decision about it. But until then, the proper stance for the Left is for the dismantling of all existing plants.
A)What to replace them with then?

[xub3rn00dlex]

Chernobyl was a flawed desing and more importantly fatal human error bordering on sabotage.

regardless, it portrays exactly the dangerous potential reactors have if things were too go wrong.



How would it be different in socialism?

for one, emphasis would be placed on safety and efficiency rather than cutting costs and milking it.



A)What to replace them with then?
there's other alternatives now, but hopefully in the future with fusion reactors.

[RED DAVE]

Uhh, Chernobyl was not in an earthquake zone.
Chernobyl was a flawed desing and more importantly fatal human error bordering on sabotage.Both of which are endemic to capitalism.

Remember that Fukushima is a product of capitalism.


The issue is nuclear power under capitalism.

How would it be different in socialism?As different as socialism is from capitalism. For example, (a) the decision as to whether to even have nuclear power would be democratic; (b) any power installation, nuclear or otherwise, would be democratically run by the workers; (c) the purpose of the power installation would be to provide power, not profits.


As S.Artesian says, after the revolution we can all sit down and make a rational decision about it. But until then, the proper stance for the Left is for the dismantling of all existing plantS.
What to replace them with then?That will be a revolutionary democratic decision. If you are concerned about how to replace them under capitalism, somehow, for example, the USA, the largest per power user in the world, has done quite well without building any new nukes in over 30 years.

RED DAVE

[S.Artesian]

And the information being released is even more "encouraging."


Radiation traces found in Japanese baby formula
December 06, 2011 10:01 AM EST


TOKYO (AP) — Traces of radiation spilled from Japan's hobbled nuclear plant were detected in baby formula Tuesday in the latest case of contaminated food in the nation.


Major food and candy maker Meiji Co. said it was recalling canned powdered milk for infants, with expiration dates of October 2012, as a precaution.


The levels of radioactive cesium were well below government-set safety limits, and the company said the amounts were low enough not to have any affect on babies' health even if they drank the formula every day.


Experts say children are more at risk than are adults of getting cancer and other illnesses from radiation exposure.


"There is no problem because the levels are within the government limit," Kazuhiko Tsurumi, a Health Ministry official in charge of food safety, said of the radiation in Meiji milk.


The March 11 earthquake and tsunami in northeastern Japan sent three reactors into meltdown at Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, which have been spewing radiation into the air and ocean.


Some of that radiation has crept into food, such as rice, fish and beef. But this was the first time radiation was reported in baby formula.


Kyodo News said airborne radioactive cesium contaminated milk as it was being dried at a plant in Saitama prefecture in March, citing the company. The company was not immediately available for comment late Tuesday.


Meiji has about 40 percent of domestic baby formula sales, but the amount of recalled formula wasn't disclosed. The product is exported to Vietnam under a different name, Kyodo reported.


The levels of cesium-134 and cesium-137 in the milk were up to 31 becquerels per kilogram, which is below the government limit of 200 becquerels per kilogram set for milk.


The government has been reviewing its food safety and other radiation standards because some of them were not clearly defined before the nuclear crisis.


Not all food samples are monitored for radiation, and readings have been voluntarily reported by the manufacturers, including the latest by Tokyo-based Meiji.


Many consumers are worried. Some stores are labeling where the food was grown or caught, allowing shoppers to opt for imports or products from parts of the country deemed safe.
Now remember, the same assholes who didn't administer potassium iodide pills to the population at risk are now telling everyone that the levels of radioactive cesium in the formula are "safe."

Obviously not that safe as to go undetected, as to not be significantly greater than formula prior to the event.

Hey, I'm not trying to bait anyone, but where are our pro-nukers now? Where are the technocrats telling us how well Japan handled the situation?

[Ocean Seal]

Again I don't understand the particular fetish with the nuclear industry that some of the left has. It is not any different from the majority of other energy industries like oil, coal, and natural gas. Natural gas can cause fracking and poison water supplies, oil has obviously led to several ecological catastrophes, and coal causes airborne and waterborne accidents. None of these options are good, and none of them are safe. And they're certainly not safe under capitalism. But campaigning to shut them down as a whole is simply the wrong way to go about it, it won't work. The campaign must be anti-capitalist in nature, and we have to consistently shout that no matter what the bourgeoisie use as its energy it will never be safe and that they don't want clean energy, and that the devastation of the environment is due to their horrible mismanagement of industrialization. That's the core of everything, I'm not a silly technocrat, I don't follow Vegan's line of thought that every piece of technological progress is amazing and must be defended, but I'm going to say that communists must one again hit the hard issues here. Nuclear power is relatively safe, it has caused catastrophes, but so has every other major energy source recently. I say, fight capitalism.

[S.Artesian]

Nuclear power is relatively safe,

No, it isn't. That's the point. "Relatively" safe? Relative to what? What other event can cause infant mortality rates to spike hundreds of miles away, 6 weeks or months after the event?

You think it's "relatively" safe? Would you, right now, move and live, with your children, 30-40-50 kms from Fukushima? I can see people living 50 kms from Deepwater horizon, and with the risks from that event being controlled. However with Fukushima, you can't control that risk, unless you think you can control wind and rain.

[Ocean Seal]

No, it isn't. That's the point. "Relatively" safe? Relative to what? What other event can cause infant mortality rates to spike hundreds of miles away, 6 weeks or months after the event?

You think it's "relatively" safe? Would you, right now, move and live, with your children, 30-40-50 kms from Fukushima? I can see people living 50 kms from Deepwater horizon, and with the risks from that event being controlled. However with Fukushima, you can't control that risk, unless you think you can control wind and rain.
No, I don't think that anyone wants to live anywhere near Fukushima and that the government is performing an absolutely absurd cover-up of the damage that was actually done. I wouldn't want to live anywhere near the multiple coals plants or near the chemicals industry. Had it been a coal incident, we wouldn't have heard about it because they happen all the time. And it doesn't matter if the bourgeoisie can "control" the risk. They never do, the energy/chemicals companies have always been involved in environmental devastations and health crises. Again, I think that we need to take a critical line against all energy companies and force stronger regulations on all of them, because all of them have done a considerable bit of damage in the last ten years. So we need to agitate against the special privileges that they get by the bourgeois government rather than focusing our strength on one aspect of their destruction.

[S.Artesian]

No, I don't think that anyone wants to live anywhere near Fukushima and that the government is performing an absolutely absurd cover-up of the damage that was actually done. I wouldn't want to live anywhere near the multiple coals plants or near the chemicals industry. Had it been a coal incident, we wouldn't have heard about it because they happen all the time.

No, they don't "happen all the time." Please identify coal plant incidents that have threatened as many people and as much territory as Fukushima did? And since they happen all the time, please identify the spikes in mortality and morbidity rates associated with each incident.



And it doesn't matter if the bourgeoisie can "control" the risk. They never do, the energy/chemicals companies have always been involved in environmental devastations and health crises. Again, I think that we need to take a critical line against all energy companies and force stronger regulations on all of them, because all of them have done a considerable bit of damage in the last ten years. So we need to agitate against the special privileges that they get by the bourgeois government rather than focusing our strength on one aspect of their destruction.

The risk of nuclear accident is of a qualitatively different nature than the risks from chemical plants. Even the bourgeoisie recognize that by there specific and more "rigid" regulation of the nuclear industry. Do you think the US Navy pulled its ships 100 miles away from Japanese port after Fukushima because it was "overreacting" "being hysterical"?

We're not calling for stricter regulation. That's a liberal response. That's like, exactly like, calling upon the government to impose stricter regulations on banks, on hedge funds, on those institutions which are at core, the embodiment of systemic risk.

Your suggestion amounts to requesting a government involvecd in an "absurd coverup of the damage done" more strictly regulate the industry for which it is covering. Good luck with that.

[Ocean Seal]

No, they don't "happen all the time." Please identify coal plant incidents that have threatened as many people and as much territory as Fukushima did? And since they happen all the time, please identify the spikes in mortality and morbidity rates associated with each incident.

How many people has Fukushima killed?
Because coal mining has killed over 100,000 workers in the United States.
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Mine/story?id=1475697#.Tt6HocC8zbQ
(http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Mine/story?id=1475697#.Tt6HocC8zbQ) Enough with the nuclear exceptionalism. All industries are bad under the control of the bourgeoisie.

From wikipedia


While not directly attributable, many more deaths are resultant from dangerous emissions from coal plants. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_obstructive_pulmonary_disease) (COPD), linked to exposure to fine particulates, SO2, and cigarette smoke among other factors, accounted for 26% of all deaths in China in 1988.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#cit e_note-32) A report by the World Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank) in cooperation with the Chinese government found that about 750,000 people die prematurely in China each year from air pollution. Later, the government asked the researchers to soften the conclusions.[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#cit e_note-33)
Many direct deaths happen in coal mining and processing. In 2007, 1,084 out of the 3,770 workers who died were from gas blasts. Small mines (comprising 90% of all mines) are known to have far higher death rates, and the government of China has banned new coal mines with a high gas danger and a capacity below 300,000 tons in an effort to reduce deaths a further 20% by 2010. The government has also vowed to close 4,000 small mines to improve industry safety.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#cit e_note-34) A total of 2,657,230 people worked in state owned coal mines at the end of 2006.[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#cit e_note-35)


This is worse than anything nuclear power has ever done. You are letting technophobia get in the way of a proper leftist response.



The risk of nuclear accident is of a qualitatively different nature than the risks from chemical plants. Even the bourgeoisie recognize that by there specific and more "rigid" regulation of the nuclear industry. Do you think the US Navy pulled its ships 100 miles away from Japanese port after Fukushima because it was "overreacting" "being hysterical"?

We're not calling for stricter regulation. That's a liberal response. That's like, exactly like, calling upon the government to impose stricter regulations on banks, on hedge funds, on those institutions which are at core, the embodiment of systemic risk.

Your suggestion amounts to requesting a government involvecd in an "absurd coverup of the damage done" more strictly regulate the industry for which it is covering. Good luck with that.
So what you are saying is that the goverment can't capitulate to the pressure of a working class and give reforms? We campaign against the capitalist class one step at a time.

[S.Artesian]

How many people has Fukushima killed?
Because coal mining has killed over 100,000 workers in the United States.
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Mine/story?id=1475697#.Tt6HocC8zbQ
(http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Mine/story?id=1475697#.Tt6HocC8zbQ) Enough with the nuclear exceptionalism. All industries are bad under the control of the bourgeoisie.

Enough with the nuclear exceptionalism? That's like saying enough with the "nuclear weapon" exceptionalism. After all, nuclear devices have killed maybe 250,000 people, while conventional munitions have killed millions upon millions.

You want to know the difference?: two relatively primitive "low powered" nuclear devices in a total of only 2 attacks killed that 250,000 while the millions killed by conventional munitions were killed in hundreds of thousands of attacks requiring millions of rounds of munitions, most of which did nothing as they were off target.

And even regarding conventional munitions, some are banned because the ability to control the risk to non-combatants is so impaired-- I mean specifically land-mines.

Fukushima held, and still holds the potential to kill thousands for a hundred years going forward.

How many has nuclear radiation killed? Well since those charged with regulating that industry, the government, also keep the statistics on mortality and morbidity and have been shown to alter, manipulate, and even excise those statistics, it's hard to tell. I suggest you read the book Deadly Deceit by Jay M. Gould and Benjamin A Goldman


This is worse than anything nuclear power has ever done. You are letting technophobia get in the way of a proper leftist response.
You have used the two classic, and lame, pro-nuke responses: 1) look at how many people coal mining has killed over the centuries and in each year 2) "technophobia"-- being opposed to bad technology is not technophobia. Learn to read. Learn to distinguish what is being said from what you wish were being said. It's bad technology.

I love advanced train control systems; air traffic control; collision avoidance radar; vaccinations; solar power; medical imaging systems. I even like computers and digital cameras. Nuclear power, fission reactors, boiling water fission reactors are bad technology.


So what you are saying is that the goverment can't capitulate to the pressure of a working class and give reforms?Look around son, tell me where you've seen capitulation going on when it comes to regulating capital.


We campaign against the capitalist class one step at a time.
Opposing the proliferation of nuclear power under capitalism is one of those steps.

[S.Artesian]

More Good news:

from: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/994569a6-1f2d-11e1-90aa-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1fnujoPgm




Plant operator Tokyo Electric Power (http://markets.ft.com/tearsheets/performance.asp?s=jp:9501)said about 45 tonnes of contaminated water had been found near a desalination unit that is part of the plant’s jury-rigged emergency cooling system on Sunday.
An estimated 300 litres of the water had further leaked through cracks in a concrete barrier into a gutter leading to the Pacific Ocean, raising concerns of renewed radiation contamination of nearby sea waters.
Chie Hosoda, a Tepco spokesperson, said on Monday the leak had been stopped, but that it might be two weeks before the company was able to establish if any of the water had actually reached the ocean.
“We think cooling [of Fukushima Daiichi’s reactors] will not be affected,” Ms Hosoda said.
The leak was a relatively minor new entry in the long list of problems encountered by workers at the plant since its safety systems were destroyed by the huge tsunami that hit Japan’s north east coast (http://www.ft.com/indepth/japan-earthquake)on March 11.
However, it underscores the extraordinary technical difficulties facing engineers, who have had to brave high radiation levels (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/acd8fa24-5196-11e0-888e-00144feab49a.html)to install new water circulation and purification systems needed to ensure that reactors and fuel at its crippled reactors can be kept cool indefinitely.
In the early days of the nuclear crisis, the world’s worst for a quarter of a century, workers poured huge amounts of seawater (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3651b0f4-569f-11e0-9c5c-00144feab49a.html)into the plant’s damaged reactors in a desperate effort to stop them overheating.
Some of the irradiated water leaked into the sea and much of it still lies in Fukushima Daiichi buildings. Ms Hosoda said there was currently about 90,000 tonnes of highly contaminated water at the plant, all of which will have to be cleaned.
Tepco and the government are aiming to achieve stable “cold shutdown” of all of the plant’s damaged reactors by the end of the year, with local media suggesting the goal could be accomplished in the next two weeks.
However, there will still be decades of work ahead in decommissioning the power station and decontaminating areas in surrounding Fukushima prefecture that were contaminated with radioactive fallout from the plant in the early days of the crisis.
The health impact of low level radiation exposure is hotly disputed, but the accident – including the evacuation of tens of thousands of people from area near Fukushima Daiichi – has already caused massive social and economic disruption.
Before March 11, Tepco shrugged off worries about the safety of its nuclear power plants in seismically active Japan by insisting they were built to withstand the “Largest Conceivable Earthquake”.
However, in an interim report on the failure of Fukushima Daiichi released last week, Tepco defended its handling of the accident and put the blame for it squarely on mother nature. “The size of the tsunami we came up against was far beyond our expectations,” a senior Tepco executive was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying.
The utility has also been harshly criticised by many affected people in Fukushima and nearby prefectures for what they say are slow and complex compensation procedures. Tepco has so far paid compensation to only 2,340 of the 70,000 households it has sent claim forms to, according to Kyodo news agency.
The Fukushima Daiichi crisis dealt a heavy blow to Japan’s reputation for safety and high quality infrastructure, although defenders say the old US -designed plant is not representative of the nation’s newest nuclear technology.
Yoshihiko Noda, the prime minister, still hopes to promote nuclear exports – a focus of trade policy in recent years – saying that if other nations want Japan’s technology, then it would be wrong to deny them.
Such sales could depend in part on achieving real stability at Fukushima Daiichi. For Tepco’s engineers, one obvious priority will be establishing the source of the most recent leak. “The cause is under investigation,” Ms Hosoda said.

[Dumb]

When I saw the title of this thread, I got Fukushima mixed up with Francis Fukuyama.

[RED DAVE]

Again I don't understand the particular fetish with the nuclear industry that some of the left has.And I don't understand the horrendous blindness that you and other comrades, especially younger comrades, have with regard to nukes. Maybe because you don't remember 3-Mile Island or Chernobyl.

Are you saying that the massive demos against nukes that took place in the 70s, led by the Left, were wrong?


It is not any different from the majority of other energy industries like oil, coal, and natural gas.Nonsense. It nukes are extremely different.


Natural gas can cause fracking and poison water supplies, oil has obviously led to several ecological catastrophes, and coal causes airborne and waterborne accidents.All true and beside the point. Nuclear energy is qualitatively more dangerous than any of these.


None of these options are good, and none of them are safe.But nukes are worse. Read the link I posted about on Chernobyl.


And they're certainly not safe under capitalism.But nukes are worse.


But campaigning to shut them down as a whole is simply the wrong way to go about it, it won't work.Actually it did work. The US has not built any new nukes in about 35 years, and Germany is shutting down its nukes.


The campaign must be anti-capitalist in nature, and we have to consistently shout that no matter what the bourgeoisie use as its energy it will never be safe and that they don't want clean energy, and that the devastation of the environment is due to their horrible mismanagement of industrialization.All true. But the immediate demand of "No More Nukes" i powerful and effective one.


That's the core of everything, I'm not a silly technocrat, I don't follow Vegan's line of thought that every piece of technological progress is amazing and must be defended, but I'm going to say that communists must one again hit the hard issues here.Of course we should, and nuclear power is a very hard issue.


Nuclear power is relatively safeAs S.Artesian has pointed out, this simply is not true.


it has caused catastrophes, but so has every other major energy source recently.But none of them are of the quality of Fukushima or Chernobyl.


I say, fight capitalism.Right on, Comrade. And "No More Nukes!"

RED DAVE

[Ocean Seal]

But the question I have is why isn't the left campaigning with the idea that we should shut down the coal mines, or that we should strive to make working conditions there safer. Because it seems that for the amount of power that nuclear energy can provide us its far safer for the workers.




Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity) Coal – China 278 Coal – USA 15 Oil 36 (36% of world energy) Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy) Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat 12 Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy) Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy) Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy) Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead) Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)


And I would say that this is different from the munitions/nuclear debate in that while nuclear weapons were only used twice, nuclear power accounts for a substantial amount of the world's energy. Coal does as well, but for what it produces, it is far less safe.

[Rowan Duffy]

Capitalism makes all forms of energy dangerous. Nuclear power is less dangerous than many of the alternatives even when run by capitalists. Global warming has the capacity kill millions. In that context this nuclear paranoia just looks silly.

[Rowan Duffy]

Enough with the nuclear exceptionalism? That's like saying enough with the "nuclear weapon" exceptionalism. After all, nuclear devices have killed maybe 250,000 people, while conventional munitions have killed millions upon millions.

This is a silly association fallacy as they aren't related at all. In a funny coincidence however, I'd suggest it would be a good idea to end nuclear weapon exceptionalism as well.

[S.Artesian]

This is a silly association fallacy as they aren't related at all. In a funny coincidence however, I'd suggest it would be a good idea to end nuclear weapon exceptionalism as well.


Priceless. Statement of pure genius: silly association fallacy; aren't related at all; BUT "funny coincidence"-- end nuclear weapon exceptionalism as well.

Really. To paraphrase Leon in Blade Runner "Do you make this stuff up. Or does someone write it down for you?"

And after all this: still no pro-nuker willing to take on the issue of government incapability of regulating nuclear power, covering up the incidents and the toll of the incidents etc etc etc.

[RED DAVE]

Capitalism makes all forms of energy dangerous.Okay.


Nuclear power is less dangerous than many of the alternatives even when run by capitalists.This is absolutely not true. Take a look at the info on Chernobyl and Fukushima. I have no idea why comrades are persisting in this fantasy.


Global warming has the capacity kill millions. In that context this nuclear paranoia just looks silly.Nuclear energy is constantly producing waste that will contaminate the world for thousands of years. And its use does little to eliminate global warming. Unless you can figure out how to make nuclear factories and cars.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

I'd suggest it would be a good idea to end nuclear weapon exceptionalism as well.You are out of your fucking mind. How soon comrades forget that nuclear testing in the atmosphere and the use of nuclear weapons were fought by massive left-led movements in the 50s and 60s.

ETA: Also, the proliferation of nukes was stopped by the same kind of movement. Are younger comrades trying to liquidate the past of their own movement? Or do you think we were wrong about nukes and nuclear weapons?

RED DAVE

[S.Artesian]

But the question I have is why isn't the left campaigning with the idea that we should shut down the coal mines, or that we should strive to make working conditions there safer. Because it seems that for the amount of power that nuclear energy can provide us its far safer for the workers.

But of course the "left" does exactly that-- does strive to prevent mine accidents, does try and organize workers to improve mine safety, does try and prevent massive strip mine projects in order to mitigate environmental damage.



And I would say that this is different from the munitions/nuclear debate in that while nuclear weapons were only used twice, nuclear power accounts for a substantial amount of the world's energy. Coal does as well, but for what it produces, it is far less safe.

I think that supports my argument not yours-- Chenobyl has created a zone of exclusion that will probably be a threat to human beings for thousands of years. One incident--- contamination over a wide area lasting centuries.

TMI-- one "low level" release-- one sharp spike in infant mortality in surrounding and distant areas.

You want to increase the likelihood of those events by pursuing the proliferation of nuclear power under the current social order?

[Rowan Duffy]

This is absolutely not true. Take a look at the info on Chernobyl and Fukushima. I have no idea why comrades are persisting in this fantasy.

Because I've studied it fairly extensively and it's just the case that Chernobyl, while a massive disaster, was vastly less of one then we experience from coal every year, and Fukushima may have been a very expensive disaster, but it wasn't particularly destructive in terms of human life.

There is absolutely no way to describe the reaction to nuclear power as being exceptional except to call it paranoia. No other technology is treated with the same unreasonable levels of scrutiny.



Nuclear energy is constantly producing waste that will contaminate the world for thousands of years. And its use does little to eliminate global warming. Unless you can figure out how to make nuclear factories and cars.

You see waste, I see fuel. We're saving up actinides for the future.

The "environmentalist" position with respect to actinides is ludicrous - i.e. it's so dangerous that we have to stockpile whatever we have an store it for 20k years. That position is self-contradictory.

The only sensible thing to do with actinides is burn them.

[Rowan Duffy]

Priceless. Statement of pure genius: silly association fallacy; aren't related at all; BUT "funny coincidence"-- end nuclear weapon exceptionalism as well.

Two things do not have to be associated in any way to both be true. Hopefully you understand this fact.

The association is a problem because they really are quite different arguments which must be used to argue for or against either. Conflating them is dangerously confusing.



And after all this: still no pro-nuker willing to take on the issue of government incapability of regulating nuclear power, covering up the incidents and the toll of the incidents etc etc etc.

I'm perfectly willing to take it up. Capitalists are currently running the show for technologies associated with coal, oil and gas. Those kill more people than nuclear per Terawatt hour by a huge margin. Why are you not screaming bloody murder about it?

I believe the reason is that you are experiencing a peculiar antipathy to nuclear power which is not based in reason, but based on some vague notional connection with mushroom clouds of your own fantasies. There simply is nothing particularly worse about nuclear when it comes to its management by capitalists.

I'm not fond of the way that capitalism attempts to maximise the externalisation of costs, but this doesn't magically go away by getting rid of nuclear power as a reformist stop gap measure and neither does it seem based on our historical experience that the capitalists are worse (from a workers point of view) at managing nuclear as compares other power sources - in fact it's quite the opposite.

As per nuclear weapons, that trope is mostly a way for the US to go around telling any country that they have to do what they want or they'll be bombed into the stone-age, even potentially with nuclear weapons! How is it safer for the US to have them and nobody else to. If anyone is liable to use them it's the US as they are the only ones that wouldn't risk total mutually assured destruction in the present order. I don't see any reason to feel safer with non-proliferation.

[citizen of industry]

Two things do not have to be associated in any way to both be true. Hopefully you understand this fact.

The association is a problem because they really are quite different arguments which must be used to argue for or against either. Conflating them is dangerously confusing.



I'm perfectly willing to take it up. Capitalists are currently running the show for technologies associated with coal, oil and gas. Those kill more people than nuclear per Terawatt hour by a huge margin. Why are you not screaming bloody murder about it?

Were you screaming bloody murder about it before Fukushima? I'd guess not. Probably you've only begun to scream bloody murder about it in defense of nuclear power, along with your government, after millions of people in several countries are mass demonstrating against it, with your Terawatt hour flag. Before that you probably didn't give a flying fuck about coal and gas. You'd also probably level accusations about the Japanese left being "opportunist" after Fukushima, even though it has been militantly against nuclear power for over 65 years.


I believe the reason is that you are experiencing a peculiar antipathy to nuclear power which is not based in reason, but based on some vague notional connection with mushroom clouds of your own fantasies. There simply is nothing particularly worse about nuclear when it comes to its management by capitalists.

Actually my assumption is based on having worked in conventional power plants and being able to easily prevent things like boiler explosions with the pull of a lever and being able to easily repair things afterward, without exposing children a hundred kilometers away to radiation, at the age of twenty and with virtually no experience.

My assumption is furthermore based on living through and close to a nuclear disaster, and having to search for drinking water for my infant child because the tap water would likely give him cancer. Good thing for relatives. The government, which was busy covering up a meltdown, couldn't be bothered to provide water. Nor respond to decades of nuclear mishaps resulting directly from capitalist mismanagement, e.g; using outdated and unsafe equipment to save costs, employing untrained labor to save costs, building in unsafe areas to save costs, covering up mistakes such as radiation leaks to save costs, etc. even though there were a huge number of whistleblowers. They were silenced.


As per nuclear weapons, that trope is mostly a way for the US to go around telling any country that they have to do what they want or they'll be bombed into the stone-age, even potentially with nuclear weapons! How is it safer for the US to have them and nobody else to. If anyone is liable to use them it's the US as they are the only ones that wouldn't risk total mutually assured destruction in the present order. I don't see any reason to feel safer with non-proliferation.

I wouldn't argue otherwise. In fact, I'd argue it is only the US and its allies like Isreal and India that refuse to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and then target countries like Iran for attempting to develop nuclear power, simply as a way to spread propaganda through their press organs while covering up their own crimes.

[Rowan Duffy]

Were you screaming bloody murder about it before Fukushima? I'd guess not. Probably you've only begun to scream bloody murder about it in defense of nuclear power, along with your government, after millions of people in several countries are mass demonstrating against it, with your Terawatt hour flag. Before that you probably didn't give a flying fuck about coal and gas. You'd also probably level accusations about the Japanese left being "opportunist" after Fukushima, even though it has been militantly against nuclear power for over 65 years.

Sorry but you're wrong. I've been interested in alternative power, including nuclear, solar wind, tidal, geothermal etc for decades.



Actually my assumption is based on having worked in conventional power plants and being able to easily prevent things like boiler explosions with the pull of a lever and being able to easily repair things afterward, without exposing children a hundred kilometers away to radiation, at the age of twenty and with virtually no experience.

The silent killer of deadly exhaust gases doesn't count as killing children hundreds of kilometers away? Not to mention the CO2 problem...

[Coggeh]

Well do we need current fission type generators running until fusion is achieved and sustainable? Would we be able to convert current fission type reactors into fusion type ones in the future?

Also, how would radiation affect marine life in the pacific? Super jumbo shrimp? Or would it end up destroying the ecosystems? I'd have to imagine this would happen on a smaller scale than the entire pacific.
we don't need fission generators for fusion, fusion generators are developed independantly. Also you can't shut down nuclear reactors with a switch its takes a very very long time before they become wholly inactive, another remnant of that disaster system of capitalism we will have to deal with.

Another argument that has to be dispelled is this "safe under socialism" idea. No amount of socialism could have halted what happened in Fukushima. You could say we could plan them in safer areas bu look at the many plants that are already built in unsafe areas, we can't exactly demolish them.

[Rowan Duffy]

Also you can't shut down nuclear reactors with a switch its takes a very very long time before they become wholly inactive, another remnant of that disaster system of capitalism we will have to deal with.

It really depends on what type of nuclear reactor you're talking about. Some nuclear reactor designs can indeed be shut down very quickly.


Another argument that has to be dispelled is this "safe under socialism" idea. No amount of socialism could have halted what happened in Fukushima. You could say we could plan them in safer areas bu look at the many plants that are already built in unsafe areas, we can't exactly demolish them.

We can't demolish them unless we can replace them. In which case we can demolish them. So this isn't really correct.

Nuclear power is already fairly safe comparatively. It can be made much safer if more attention is paid to nuclear power. That's going to require a lot more R&D and a lot more development of newer safer plants so the old plants can be decommissioned. In addition, the best way of dealing with our "waste" stream is to use it as fuel. India and China are serious about doing this.

[RED DAVE]

Nuclear power is already fairly safe comparatively.This is your amazing fallacy. Do we have to chip in to send you on a vacation to Fukushima? Would you volunteer to live there?


It can be made much safer if more attention is paid to nuclear power.This will never be done under capitalism. You are justifying the continuation of the status quo.


That's going to require a lot more R&D and a lot more development of newer safer plants so the old plants can be decommissioned.You are presuming a rational economy. This does not exist under capitalism. You are basically engaged in an apology for a very dangerous capitalist enterprise.


In addition, the best way of dealing with our "waste" stream is to use it as fuel. India and China are serious about doing this.You are talking about pie in the sky. This technology does not exist.

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why a bunch of younger comrades have done an about-face and adopted a liberal/technocratic position on a very important issue that the Left has held for decades AND WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY CORRECT.

RED DAVE

[S.Artesian]

Two things do not have to be associated in any way to both be true. Hopefully you understand this fact. Yeah I understand that. You might want to understand that the same government that contracts nuclear weapons, regulates the same contractors that build nuclear power plants. These things, nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants are closely related--it's a business relationship, that's what you don't get.


The association is a problem because they really are quite different arguments which must be used to argue for or against either. Conflating them is dangerously confusing.
Thinking it's just a coincidence that the same arguments, and the same people, arguing against "nuclear power plant exceptionalism" and against nuclear weapons exceptionalism, is the height of rationality, and safe thinking.



I'm perfectly willing to take it up. Capitalists are currently running the show for technologies associated with coal, oil and gas. Those kill more people than nuclear per Terawatt hour by a huge margin. Why are you not screaming bloody murder about it?
First off, I'm not screaming bloody murder about nuclear plants. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of our technocrats who had the stupidity, the ignorance, and the bourgeois mentality to get on this board last March and April and tell us how secure we should all feel given the rapid and efficient response of TEPCO and the Japanese government; how nobody could have anticipated the 10 meter high tsunami when in fact such a tsunami was anticipated and identified from past history by scientists in 2009; how the exposure and damage from Fukushima is "much less than expected" how the radiation release is "far below" Chernobyl levels blahblahblah, and when the truth is put to all that bullshit, they run away and hide.

Secondly, the same "screamers" do in fact scream bloody murder about incidents that are in fact, bloody murder-- Deepwater Horizon, Upper Big Branch Mine disaster. Do I think the bourgeoisie should be prevented from further deepwater drilling given their past record? Abso-fucking-lutely. Do I think Massey-Ferguson should be put out of the mining business? You bet your ass. Do I think BP, given what they did at Texas City, and their real failures after Texas City, should be banned from operating any petrochemical plants? Fucking A right I do.

And I bet as soon as anybody proposes those things our techo-cowards will jump back on their high hobby horses with charges about "luddites," anti-technology pastoralists, utopian blahblahblahblahblah.

So let's put it to you: Do you support actions by the working class to stop deepwater drilling by the bourgeosie? Do you support miners shutting down coal mining given what happened at the Massey-Ferguson mines?



I believe the reason is that you are experiencing a peculiar antipathy to nuclear power which is not based in reason, but based on some vague notional connection with mushroom clouds of your own fantasies. There simply is nothing particularly worse about nuclear when it comes to its management by capitalists.
Yeah there is-- the impacts of even low-level exposure are damaging to human health far above that level caused by low-level exposure to hydrocarbons.


I'm not fond of the way that capitalism attempts to maximise the externalisation of costs, but this doesn't magically go away by getting rid of nuclear power as a reformist stop gap measure and neither does it seem based on our historical experience that the capitalists are worse (from a workers point of view) at managing nuclear as compares other power sources - in fact it's quite the opposite.
You're repeating yourself here. Saying it's so, doesn't make it so. At the same time as the Fukushima earthquake, tsunami, a petroleum refinery, or storage plant, or a petrochemical plant in Japan was compromised with an explosion and fire following. How many people required evacuation, how much petroleum residue found its way into infant formula; into food supplies miles away?




As per nuclear weapons, that trope is mostly a way for the US to go around telling any country that they have to do what they want or they'll be bombed into the stone-age, even potentially with nuclear weapons! How is it safer for the US to have them and nobody else to. If anyone is liable to use them it's the US as they are the only ones that wouldn't risk total mutually assured destruction in the present order. I don't see any reason to feel safer with non-proliferation.Who's arguing that the US should have them? You're against nuclear exceptionalism. You think everyone should have them. I'm against nuclear exceptionalism, I don't think anyone should have them. I'm not threatening Iran. I don't think the US has any business imposing it's will on Iran; or rather I think the US has only business in imposing it's will. I specifically think the US and its allies should not have nuclear weapons, based on the track record of capitalism. Kind of exactly the way I feel about BP and chemical plants, Massey-Ferguson and coal mining.


The silent killer of deadly exhaust gases doesn't count as killing children hundreds of kilometers away? Not to mention the CO2 problem...Yeah, it does. Pay attention, Marxists oppose the introduction of more coal fired plants given the emissions related by same, which have been linked to childhood asthma increases. I might even say some Marxists are opposed to fracking by the bourgeoisie as it will be done without a single blink of regard for the social costs, long term impacts, destruction of the water table etc etc. Uh oh, there's the old Luddite me, with my broadband connection, dual core microprocessor computer, being a technophobe again.

The bourgeoisie build a dam in Brazil supposedly to provide electricity to the rural environment, and the agro-industry that is expanding there. It's "developmental"-- do you support it? I don't. Not because it's a dam, a use value, but because it's a commodity which will destroy the surrounding environment, dispossess indigenous and small rural producers, enable the bourgeoisie to create greater pools of waste.




Another argument that has to be dispelled is this "safe under socialism" idea. No amount of socialism could have halted what happened in Fukushima. You could say we could plan them in safer areas bu look at the many plants that are already built in unsafe areas, we can't exactly demolish them.

The technology in the Fukushima plant is GE's 1970 technology. The plant was scheduled to be closed down prior to 2011 but received an extension [actually I think extensions] to keep operating. Yeah, socialism would have 1) prevented the US government from foisting the unsafe technology [and boiling water reactors have always been unsafe] on Japan. Socialism would have prevented extending the operating life of the plant. And perhaps most importantly, socialism would have prevented TEPCO from [I]actually lowering the ground height above sea level by 30 feet prior to construction, to make it easier to access cooling water. Socialism might have even prevented the emergency generators from being built and located underground, essentially below sea level. I think once we abolish profit, value, as the raison d'etre, we'll be able to make really rational decisions.


Nuclear power is already fairly safe comparatively.
You know, Mrs. Lincoln, going to the Ford theatre is already fairly safe comparatively. I don't know what you're worried about.


It can be made much safer if more attention is paid to nuclear power. That's going to require a lot more R&D and a lot more development of newer safer plants so the old plants can be decommissioned. In addition, the best way of dealing with our "waste" stream is to use it as fuel. India and China are serious about doing this.What was it someone said: "If you don't understand the first 3 chapters of Capital, if you don't understand the difference and unity of use value and exchange value, then you really understand nothing."

All those things you talk about more R&D, safer plants, dealing with the 65,000 tons of solid nuclear waste as fuel-- require the overthrow of capitalism, expropriation of the bourgeoisie, abolition of production for value.

[Rowan Duffy]

Yeah I understand that. You might want to understand that the same government that contracts nuclear weapons, regulates the same contractors that build nuclear power plants. These things, nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants are closely related--it's a business relationship, that's what you don't get.

Thinking it's just a coincidence that the same arguments, and the same people, arguing against "nuclear power plant exceptionalism" and against nuclear weapons exceptionalism, is the height of rationality, and safe thinking.

Repeating association fallacies with veiled allusions to a conspiracy without demonstrating the motivation or the method of the conspiracy or any evidence of it is hardly very convincing.

If you want to make Pu for bombs you don't use a BWR if you're the US. You use a fast reactor.

They're only related in the sense that everything is related by being under bourgeois management. That is, you can also say that it is a business relationship when people use wind power. In fact, here you can at least give a demonstration of how the profit motive functions as wind power just happens to be a very inconsistent source of power that will guarantee the need for power plants which can start quickly to even loads. Strangely enough that just happens to be oil, coal and natural gas.

Yeah, I get it. Everything under bourgeois management is for profit. That doesn't mean that everything is the same.



First off, I'm not screaming bloody murder about nuclear plants. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of our technocrats who had the stupidity, the ignorance, and the bourgeois mentality to get on this board last March and April and tell us how secure we should all feel given the rapid and efficient response of TEPCO and the Japanese government; how nobody could have anticipated the 10 meter high tsunami when in fact such a tsunami was anticipated and identified from past history by scientists in 2009; how the exposure and damage from Fukushima is "much less than expected" how the radiation release is "far below" Chernobyl levels blahblahblah, and when the truth is put to all that bullshit, they run away and hide.

You're taking a remote risk and elevating it to gargantuan proportions and then claiming that anyone who wants to qualify the risk is a hypocrite.

It's true that you can be ultra-consistent about technologies by denouncing all of them equally under bourgeois management but it's not the case that they're all the same. Burning coal just kills more people full stop. I suppose you think bourgeois management of tidal is just like tar sands?



So let's put it to you: Do you support actions by the working class to stop deepwater drilling by the bourgeosie? Do you support miners shutting down coal mining given what happened at the Massey-Ferguson mines?

I support workers directing the course of technological development through the class struggle and certainly in attempts to reduce the externalities to workers health.



Yeah there is-- the impacts of even low-level exposure are damaging to human health far above that level caused by low-level exposure to hydrocarbons.

That statement is absurd in the absence of any idea of dose - you could easily construct a counter-example. In addition it attempts to sweep the entire global warming question, explosions and threats to workers safety under the rug. Hydrocarbons kill more people per TWh by a big margin and when we figure in the likely impacts of global warming nuclear deaths will be lost in the noise.



You're repeating yourself here. Saying it's so, doesn't make it so. At the same time as the Fukushima earthquake, tsunami, a petroleum refinery, or storage plant, or a petrochemical plant in Japan was compromised with an explosion and fire following. How many people required evacuation, how much petroleum residue found its way into infant formula; into food supplies miles away?

How many people have exploded from petrochemicals? Lots of people have exploded in homes from gas lines. The greatest cause of cancer from radiation is in natural gas use. How much risk is really associated with a small increase in radiation from infant formula? Whatever incident you're describing is abstracted from dose. You do realise that you have high-speed muons zapping through your brain, the floors at your favourite resturaunt contain monazite and you probably haven't the foggiest clue how much Radon is in your water.

The relative risks come out in the numbers - and the numbers for nuclear are just better. if you don't look at the numbers you can always point at anecdotes to support your reasoning and hope for unfounded generalisations in your audience. The approach you are using here is the abstract fear approach which is identical to the one used by terrorism scare mongers. Yes, some people die from terrorism. It's irrelevant compared to car crashes - yet it's soaking up all the interest. Why? Scare mongering and sensationalism.



Who's arguing that the US should have them?

This sentiment is entirely idealist. It's true we can equally well demand that everyone abides by non-proliferation but this will actually only serve the current nuclear states. It should be obvious from the actual phrase itself which means "no more people get them who don't already have them" which is exactly how the US wants it.


I don't think anyone should have them.

Again a totally idealist notion that can't possibly make sense in our context. Genies don't go back in bottles and neither do imperialist states give up their advantages because you ask them to.



Yeah, it does. Pay attention, Marxists oppose the introduction of more coal fired plants given the emissions related by same, which have been linked to childhood asthma increases. I might even say some Marxists are opposed to fracking by the bourgeoisie as it will be done without a single blink of regard for the social costs, long term impacts, destruction of the water table etc etc. Uh oh, there's the old Luddite me, with my broadband connection, dual core microprocessor computer, being a technophobe again.

You can demand whatever you like, but power requires power sources. You don't get to just demand that we use nothing and get everything. There has to be some power source and the best one is nuclear which makes the demand against it crazy. You have to have some alternative for the demand that it be eliminated to make any sense. Now, if there is a better alternative, I'm all for it. But that's not how anti-nuclear advocates like yourself like to play it. You'd rather it was situated entirely outside of comparison where you can point out all its deficiencies. Well the world is full of deficiencies - we can only choose the best course among them.




The bourgeoisie build a dam in Brazil supposedly to provide electricity to the rural environment, and the agro-industry that is expanding there. It's "developmental"-- do you support it? I don't. Not because it's a dam, a use value, but because it's a commodity which will destroy the surrounding environment, dispossess indigenous and small rural producers, enable the bourgeoisie to create greater pools of waste.

Again you demonstrate your credentials by showing how you hate bad things. I hate bad things too. Which is worse though, a population which is under powered or a population that has some environmental downsides and forced relocation? Look at the numbers and the rate of death from poverty correlated against power shows you a pretty clear answer. If you're against power, you're not just against bad things, you're for people starving. There is no neutrality here, and now decision without downsides.



Socialism would have prevented extending the operating life of the plant.

Ttechnical projects are hard. Making big power plants puts people at risk even as it saves greater numbers. Even putting solar panels on your roof has significant health risks to the worker who does the installation. Realistically socialism can avoid certain problems to do with the externalisation of cost but it can't eliminate risks.



What was it someone said: "If you don't understand the first 3 chapters of [I]Capital, if you don't understand the difference and unity of use value and exchange value, then you really understand nothing."

If you think there is a failure of reasoning, you point out how it takes place or you're just playing a debating game.



All those things you talk about more R&D, safer plants, dealing with the 65,000 tons of solid nuclear waste as fuel-- require the overthrow of capitalism, expropriation of the bourgeoisie, abolition of production for value.

No it absolutely doesn't any more than increased health-and-safety in cars or factories required socialism. It certainly would be best if the working class could direct the development of nuclear technology itself rather than having to act essentially negatively - as breaks on unwanted development which is a much less effective and desirable state of affairs.

[Rowan Duffy]

This is your amazing fallacy. Do we have to chip in to send you on a vacation to Fukushima? Would you volunteer to live there?

How about you come install solar panels on my roof?



This will never be done under capitalism. You are justifying the continuation of the status quo.

Are you claiming that it's impossible for technologies to become safer under capitalism? Would suggesting that technologies can be made safer under capitalism be a justification of the continuation of the status quo?

The argument is obviously absurd - otherwise you wouldn't be able to advocate against nuclear as opposed to anything else. You'd just have to be against everything.

Capitalism is a system long past its prime which is putting huge fetters on the progress of society - there is no question about it. Yet from this it does not follow that advocating for a particular technology in capitalism is a justification of capitalism any more than saying that volvos are safer than pintos is a justification.




You are talking about pie in the sky. This technology does not exist.

It does exist.



I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why a bunch of younger comrades have done an about-face and adopted a liberal/technocratic position on a very important issue that the Left has held for decades AND WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY CORRECT.

There is nothing liberal or technocratic (a word which you're certainly using incorrectly here) about stating that some technologies are more suitable for particular uses than other technologies.

Are you worried about climate change? To me it seems OBVIOUSLY CORRECT that we're going to need to do something about this. If we had a socialist society tomorrow would people's anti-nuclear paranoia based in OBVIOUS CORRECT sentiments of which they are completely unable to assign evidence outside the anecdotal disappear? I think it's unlikely. I think our fight for communism is going to be a hard slog, and when I get there, I'm hoping that we have the productive power to ensure that it's a stable and long lasting communism. That's why it's better that we don't have a huge global warming problem and we have had the benefit of a period of bourgeois development of nuclear power when we get there.

[citizen of industry]

UPDATE: As of last week, all nuclear plants in Japan have been shut down. This is a temporary victory for the anti-nuke movement in Japan, as the pressure from the movement has created a problem for the ruling class. Initially, the prime-minister wanted to restart them, but now the government is now split on the issue.

It is also a theoretical victory or sorts, because after the crisis the propaganda machine kept spewing out the same bullshit about how Japan's energy demand was too high to shutdown the plants, that shutting down the plants would lead to blackouts, etc. That the non-nuclear energy infrastructure could not support the country. The left consistently claimed this was a lie. Now Japan is functioning on 0% nuclear power, for the time being.