[LINK] Radiation

Sylvano sylvano at gnomon.com.au
Wed Mar 16 22:29:31 AEDT 2011

On 16/03/2011, at 9:03 PM, Robin Whittle <rw at firstpr.com.au> wrote:

> Thanks Janet for the link to http://mitnse.com.  This has a
> non-logarithmic chart of the decay heat for the three reactors.
> I will add a link from http://www.firstpr.com.au/jncrisis/ - where I now
> have links to wind and IR satellite image information, such as:
>  http://www.jma.go.jp/en/amedas/205.html?elementCode=1
>  http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/smallc.html?area=0&mode=JST
> Can anyone point to other sites where this crisis is being discussed
> with any degree of insight, or with reliable technical information.


> Tom (Koltai), you criticised me for stating my opinion without
> qualification - that the situation is out of control.  Yet you advanced
> no argument as to why it is under control, or what your criteria of
> "under control" is.
> What would it take for you to admit that things were out of control?
> Do you have no understanding of, or belief in, the real risk of meltdown
> and massive radiation release?  Do you need to see multiple HD video
> reports of people falling sick and dying from radiation poisoning before
> you admit that this is a serious and perhaps disastrous crisis?
> Andy Farkas likewise.  What is your criteria for deciding that we should
> consider the situation to be one of "doom and gloom"?
> Specifically, both of you, what further developments would have to occur
> before you admitted that the concerns that I and many other have
> expressed in recent days were in fact realistic, and that your criticism
> of the expression of these concerns was unreasonable?
> You are not alone in what I consider to be an extraordinarily avoidant
> and irresponsible attitude to a situation with clear and obvious dangers.
> The whole design of reactors is intended to prevent everything which has
> so far happened - for very good reason.  *Everything* has gone wrong so
> far (with the vital exception that Mother Nature has generally had the
> wind blowing out to sea).
> If you look at the decay heat chart at:
>  http://mitnse.com/2011/03/16/what-is-decay-heat/
> you can see that the fuel in these reactors is going to generating
> megawatts of heat for weeks to come.  Now there is no-one is at the site
> to run the petrol/diesel driven fire-pumps which have been used in
> recent days, for the last-ditch approach of evaporative cooling.
> How do you suppose that the situation is "under control" to the extent
> that the fuel will in fact be kept cool enough not to melt and coalesce
> into a much more dangerous and radioactively emitting liquid mass, with
> consequent risk of a fission explosion or at least melting through the
> reactor vessel into the now wide-open "secondary containment" building?
> I have encountered and I think understood some pretty odd aspects of
> human psychology.  However this attitude you and quite a few others
> share - of increasingly bold and unrealistic denial of the seriousness
> of the situation as it becomes much more serious, day-by-day - has me
> completely puzzled.
> Tom, you argued against me communicating to others my concerns and
> trying to provide information such as at:
>  http://www.firstpr.com.au/jncrisis/
> If you have specific reasons for thinking any of this is unreliable,
> unrealistic or whatever, please let me know.
> At what point does your optimism allow for warning people of dangers and
> attempting to explain to them what is going on?  This is particularly
> important since the Japanese government has released so little
> information, not even a diagram of the reactors.
> Regarding optimism, to the point of habitually shying away from anything
> "negative" because it is supposedly bad for people, or at least more
> trouble than it is worth, do you have any thoughts on this book?
>  Smile or Die: How Positive Thinking Fooled America and the World
>  by Barbara Ehrenreich
> I would argue that optimism, unrealistic thinking or whatever is the
> root cause of this crisis and any disaster which it turns into.  The act
> of building the reactor on a tsunami-prone coast, with wiring, switching
> gear, control systems and motors in the basement, is the cause of this
> problem.  If the plants had been designed to work properly when the
> entirely predictable tsunami hit, everything would be OK.
> How is your thinking any different from the thinking which caused the
> plants to be designed, built and run as they have been?
>  - Robin
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

More information about the Link mailing list