I have to thank everyone for helping our review of the situation and it's most salient areas of concern.
Many may have noted the array of perspectives which are offered; and the spectrum seems as wide and diverse as our membership itself.
There are those who caution that this may be yet another fear-peddling ploy; there are those who conversely feel this is not sufficiently exposed to
the opposite effect. There are some who recognize elements of misinformation, and others who are sensitive to the underpinnings of the event and
it's potential unraveling into an untenable nightmare.
It is exceedingly difficult to 'take a side' here because most have presented plausible presumptions upon which to base their opinions. But If I
may take the liberty I would like to stoke the fires of this discussion a bit further... (before this thread gets moved to the Japan disaster forum)
just to allow the opportunity for others to see what they may have been missing by not visiting or monitoring that forum.
It appears that getting a grasp of this situation is not as easy as picking what you choose to believe; there are too many aggregate factors to
exclude troubling possibilities which render our preferred stance as 'debatable.' I apologize if this should cause discomfort but:
Assuming all is well
Let us not forget that just like the majority of the Nuclear Industry is maintaining today; TEPCO saw (or admitted to) no danger in their operation at
Fukushima. They designed it, they built it, and they operated it all the while assuring the local community how "safe" it was. All Nuclear
industry operations do. In fact, all those who broach the vulnerabilities of Industrial Nuclear Power generation are generally seen as leaning
towards the 'fringe' - and even today, after 3-Mile Island, Chernyobl, and Daichi; that meme is still nurtured by the global media.
The industry will not grant under any circumstances that they are neither equipped nor prepared for the kinds of emergencies that are peculiar to the
'service' they provide to society.
Any effort to compel safety precautions are met with threats of price increases. Any debate about liability is met with government-fueled political
The there is the further wrinkle of the government's direct contravention of media coverage, making it locally "illegal" to report anything that
contradicts TEPCO statements without their direct involvement. As well as the Energy Cartel's editorial policy filtering down to the networks they
own to only "whisper" Fukushima... if not remain completely silent.
I say all of this to mean that a better case needs to be presented than "TEPCO's handling it."
Science is poorly understood
Often we seem to have been treated to a 'climate-change' style dialogue of the situation; presenting heavily biased, long-time anti-nuclear
activists' clarion call regarding their favorite hated technology development. Rife with hyperbole and overblown world-class meltdown scenarios
(there's a pun in there somewhere), and filled with the romantic anti-establishment notion that this source of energy is evil... as opposed to the
evil of the theater they and their counterparts produce.
Most of the sell is made by using names of people who are academics ... who's knowledge is neither unique nor secret... hence it's just as valid
coming from a text book than from a person wearing a "Don't Nuke the Whales" t-shirt. We are casually convinced that we are too dumb to understand
the rocket surgery of atom storage boxes.
(The "I'm running out of space, so I have to sum it up already" section)
- We can't predict earthquakes, but there will surely be more;
- The storage facility is damaged, and it's subsequent repair is fails to meet the original specifications
- based on mass and material, any disaster will result in an unmanageable scenario
- millions of lives are at stake
- we are purposefully deprived of factual unfiltered data, and
- many officials are exclaiming the serious nature of our failure to act proactively.
I can't attribute human emotional motives to this event; it seems unlikely that any would 'set-up' a nuclear disaster without being identified as
an actual, true-to-life, threat to everyone - terrorist. But even had it been a "plan" ... it does not serve any purpose other than to 'watch
the world burn.' Down that road, by definition, lies a madness we cannot contend with socially.
Anyway... thanks everyone, for joining in the discussion.