[Marxism] (no subject)

Ralph Johansen mdriscollrj at charter.net
Mon Mar 12 12:56:27 MDT 2012

DW wrote:

Your conclusions are faith-based and not science based.

And in an earlier message:

those "expected victims" are few and far between, relative to all other 
forms of base load power


Nuclear Engineer Arnie Gundersen: Fukushima Meltdown Could Result in 1 
Million Cases of Cancer


",,,the first lesson is that this is a technology that can destroy a 
nation...the Fukushima accident was on the verge of causing the 
evacuation of Tokyo. And had the wind been blowing the other way, across 
the island instead of out to sea, Japan would have been cut in half and 
destroyed as a functional country. So, this is a technology where 
perhaps accidents don't happen every day, but when they do, they can 
destroy a country.

"The other things are, the cost is astronomical. To fix this is going to 
be something on the order of half-a-trillion dollars. All of the money 
that Japan saved on oil over the 40 years that they've had nuclear 
plants just got thrown away in the half-a-trillion-dollar recovery effort.

"And the other piece is the human issues. The health impacts to the 
Japanese will begin to be felt in several years and out to 30 or 40 
years from cancers. And I believe we're going to see as many as a 
million cancers over the next 30 years because of the Fukushima incident 
in Japan.

"The tsunami---the myth of the tsunami is that the tsunami destroyed the 
diesels, and had that not happened, everything would have been fine. 
What really happened is that the tsunami destroyed the pumps right along 
the ocean. It doesn't matter that Diablo Canyon's plant is up on a hill. 
The pumps have to be at the ocean, because that's where the water is. We 
call that the loss of the ultimate heat sink. And the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission hasn't addressed that in the short-term issues coming out of 
Fukushima. Without that water, the diesels will overheat, and without 
that water, it's impossible to cool a nuclear core. So, as a country, we 
haven't addressed this issue of the loss of the ultimate heat sink, and 
we're kicking that can way down the road, not addressing it for years to 

So this is bunkum? (incidentally, Arnie Andersen in agreeing here with 
Gorbachev that Chernobyl "destroyed the Soviet Union" I think is 
misstating, but unintentionally. I doubt that is what Gorbachev meant, 
as far as that goes. Final straw or precipitant, OK.) Nuclear technology 
is not one of the most dangerous experiments ever undertaken? We can't 
wait for the science-based precautionary principle? Mistakes happen? 
Consequences to the human and other natural environment as collateral 

Moreover, and very much on point, to what extent is it the drive to 
expand and accumulate, amidst untold waste, mindless use of fossil fuels 
in agricultural chemicals and machine production, pesticides, 
fertilizers, long-distance transport, regional specialization, 
diminishing returns on ruined soil, putting ten calories in for every 
calorie out, agricultural produce designed for increased profitability, 
not nutrition or intrinsic value, and savage maldistribution, in 
combination with uncontrolled experiment on nature through alteration of 
gene structure, and not at all the continued viability of the planet and 
the species, that dictates the urgency that David sees as necessitating 
crash-course nuclear power? Should we on the left, with our orientation 
toward nature-aligned solutions, accept this? Check out Robert Biel on 
urban agriculture, for example, which was posted here recently 

More information about the Marxism mailing list