The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.reply to post by Aircooled
That's a very significant video and well worth watching. It was not just the details about Fukushima that interested me, but also the Professor's
insights into the "maternal" versus "paternal" cultures -- the latter being an underlying cause of nuclearization (both military and civilian).
In essence, he was saying that trying to solve the nuclear problems on a world-wide scale is virtually impossible as long as we have cultures that are
driven by motivations of greed and in which disharmony and inequality are the norms. And yes, we know that in many cultures these days, these are the
norms: a disaster occurs somewhere and often there is great discussion about the economic impact -- as if money is more important than people or the
And so it is that disasters like Fukushima not only can happen, but will continue to happen.
Overall, the Professor's assessment of modern "westernized" society as a whole was pretty damning. It was also very realistic. The problem is not just
the reactors, but why they were built in the first place -- and why even now, with this disaster still ongoing and with little hope it can ever be
fully contained, there are still plans to build more
of these things!
The problems of neutron irradiation embrittlement are well known to those who work in the field, and it is also well known that no containment we can
devise can overcome this problem. But still, those in power are giving the go-ahead to build more plants that will create more waste that will need to
be stored for generations. Why? Because the short-term matters more to them than the long-term.
We are faced with a very small number of very powerful people who have greater wealth and greater personal power as their primary motivation.
Whatever horrors they may leave behind for future generations just doesn't seem to concern them at all.
If it did, then there would be many, many thousands working on Fukushima's multitude of serious problems. It would be taken for what it is --
potentially the single greatest threat to all of us in human history. Monetary costs and providing technological and human resources would not be an
issue if those who truly make the decisions were willing to make the right ones. But no, they plod along as if they had almost an open-ended time
schedule, and instead are using a relatively small number of workers on site and keeping them there beyond what is probably safe.
I don't see any way this is going to end well, even by the darkest definitions of what a good ending might be. We now have confirmation that Unit 4 is
sinking, we already knew that Unit 1 is doing likewise (and forgive me if I missed any updates on 2 and 3).
What are the possible causes? There are several, but simply put, building very large, non-interlinked*** heavy structures that close to the coast in
an earthquake zone was a recipe for disaster from day one. In fact, it would probably have been a blessing if last year's huge quake had hit some
decades earlier when the Fukushima plants were still in the construction phase. At least then they probably would have delayed matters and revised
their designs to allow for such a huge event.
*** By non-interlinked I mean that we're looking at individual buildings, not a large and complex but interconnected structure like a suspension
bridge, for example. Major bridges in high-seismicity regions are often designed to spread quake shocks over a greater part of the structure and may
even have elements built in that can fail to some degree without the whole thing collapsing. These buildings, however, just stand in isolation from
each other and when they shake, they have no backup structural system outside their own close confines to alleviate the stresses.
Picture this: get a brick and sit it on some sand in a sand box. Add a little water, then kick the edge of the box a few times. Watch what happens to
the brick: it will begin to sink.
An over-simplified analogy, I know, but it's one aspect of what happened. Things have taken longer in the Fukushima case because the scale is
different and also the amount of damage to the substrata can vary a great deal. Then there's ingress of ground water and erosion or saturation and so
That's why pumping in concrete won't necessarily help much. It can't offset the full effects of the damage that has already occurred, never mind what
may still be ongoing.
Anyway I've written enough for now.
Thanks to all of your for your great work.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.