[Marxism] An escalating crisis in Japan,

DW dwaltersmia at gmail.com
Thu Feb 16 21:02:12 MST 2012


Richard, I like your sense of humor. Actually, since no one ever asks, I
don't  talk about my own issues with nuclear energy. I think, generally,
btw, not that anyone is asking, is that BWRs suck, generally. I don't like
them because you have a direct steam flow from the water boiling around the
fuel rods to the turbine outside containment. There has never been an
accident involving the *design* of BWRs, per se, but the NIRS report raises
some important issues.

You bring up some serious concerns so let me address them. First let me say
that the *issue* here was the NRC approval of the Construction and
Operating License for the Voglte plant in Georgia. The point being that
someone raises the AP1000 reactors and everyone...everyone...on the 'anti
side' yells back "Fukushima". OK, fine, but wholly irrelevant. You can't
tar a brand new design like this Westinghouse unit by yelling about a 40
years old design in Japan that got hit by a tsunami. Makes no sense.

Secondly, the fool from the Southern Clean Energy Alliance stated on the
News Hour yesterday "The C&OL should not be approved for a plant that's
never been built in the U.S." !!!! WTF dude!!! What the hell does that
mean? In otherwords don't build the plant until one is built. Seriously,
this is the level of the discussion on national television. Ho hum...

Wasserman quite honestly, as much a mench as he is, is the anti-nuclear
equivalent of a 9/11 Truther. He says, virtually, *anything*. He's no more
and expert than I am and I've consistently torn him apart when he posts to
the Daily Kos. So much so I stopped doing it because I feel sorry for him.
He says the most idiotic things.Off list if you want I can send what I've
written to him. So using his name means absolutely nothing.

I don't know who your friend Celia is but there are no less than 8 books in
the process of 'being published' about Fukushima, in English alone. So what
she says in response to Wasserman (who was screaming along with other
non-exper*t* Michio Kaku that all the fuel ponds were "on fire and burning
out of control") is that the building is listing terribly. OK, so? I
understand this is terrible and they will have to do something to ease the
burden, shore the building up, etc. What does this have to do with AP1000
or the Georgia plants?

The reason I raised this is that Harvey raises this in his idiotic
Counterpunch piece. That there is  potential for more bad things occurring
in Japan is true. That this is has a thing to do with the AP1000 is in
Harvey's very active, and often immature, imagination. Keep in mind that
one of more science based anti-nuclear people out there suggested I was
paying Harvey to make the antis seem more like anti-science bigots than
people who are concerned about energy. Not true, but it's a thought.

So Richard, your thoughts are expressed here. You write "AFAIK, at the very
least, unless and until all nuclear is in the regulatory and
production/distribution control of the producers and consumers, reliably
so, and thoroughly beyond the machinations of those who produce for profit
(and their complicit public servants) and public be damned, I don't want
any more nuclear power in my world."

So that's a serious comment I respect. I think the idea that nuclear is run
the way other industries are run and regulated is something more an urban
legend than factual. If in 50 years of commercial nuclear energy in this
country with only one nuclear accident, one where the safety systems
contained any threat to the public, then the regulatory regime in place
appears to work. Not without bumps, blemishes, etc but one that had
delivered 80% of our carbon free energy for the same period without a
serious mishap save for the TMI accident. That's *better* than any other
industry in the US bar none. So the 'risks' of something happening because
of private ownership with for profit plants seems to me to be worth it
*until* we can bring all energy industries under some form of consumer and
workers control in a planned, national, public power entity.

But closing all nuclear or not building what are clearly safer newer plants
for is ass backward.

And that's rub. The antis don't want these newer plants because they know
they are safer, last longer, and keep carbon from being emitted into the
air. If newer, safer plants come on line, privately own or not, and the in
fact run safer, are bought in at budget and on schedule, much of hoopla the
antis throw at the technology disappears. And they can't have that, can
they?

So I say no, keep them open, make them safer, adopt better regs, build
safer plants and organize a campaign to nationalize energy in the U.S. and
everywhere.

David


**



More information about the Marxism mailing list