Australian Politics Forum - Fukushima

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #90 - Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:20pm

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:05pm:

I will paraphrase the Independent British Nuclear Engineering Consultant John Large

"....When constructing these plants, nuclear power plant designers, and that includes myself, gamble with the safety of the public and the environment. We balance economics with scenarios that can happen but are remote. The Titanic was designed to be unsinkable but still sank before it even reached port on its maiden voyage"

It depends on context, and who pays the piper in this case. John Large has been commissioned to report on the accident for Greenpeace International. (that other multinational corpocracy)

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #91 - Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:29pm

muso wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:20pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:05pm:

I will paraphrase the Independent British Nuclear Engineering Consultant John Large

"....When constructing these plants, nuclear power plant designers, and that includes myself, gamble with the safety of the public and the environment. We balance economics with scenarios that can happen but are remote. The Titanic was designed to be unsinkable but still sank before it even reached port on its maiden voyage"

It depends on context, and who pays the piper in this case. John Large has been commissioned to report on the accident for Greenpeace International. (that other multinational corpocracy)

Greenpeace is not a profit making organisation, it thrives on donations and volunteers. its a charity with political agenda. Hardly a RIO TINTO now is it muso?

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #92 - Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:43pm

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:16pm:

muso wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:05pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 3:28pm:

If you are taking about something relatively small, then that would usually be picked up by individual businesses.

However, depending on the organization, even then they may well be able to pass the costs onto the public.

That said, once these events move into the size of a Katrina hurricane, Australian Floods, Christchurch earthquake, Japanese earthquake/tsunami/nuclear & the daddy of the all, the current GFC, then the Public are the ones who wear the final costs.

The final GFC bailout costs that the Public will pay for, will be counted into the many Trillons of $'s or Amero's or Renminbi or Amchindia$ or whatever the Global currency reverts to, after the US$ collapses.

I would be surprised if, TEPCO is not bailed out by the public purse, in one way, shape or form and therefore that Public pays!

[/b]

TEPCO is not exactly strapped for funds.

I wonder why?

Funny how even though these big Corporations are pulling in enormous profits they still feel its valid to falsify safety reports to the international and Japanese Atomic regulatory bodies.

In the corporate world, the worker is an expense item - a consumable, an item that needs to be minimised on the annula balance sheet.

The CEOS however are corporate assets and must be funded and fondled to the very limit.

This is the Corpocracy that we are enslaved by.

And the corporation also externalises its detrimental effects on humans, society and the environment. In fact these are referred to as "externatlities" on their balance sheet.

The worse that can happen to a corporation is that it is consumed by another or ti disolves onto receivership so as to avoid paying its shareholders the money they invested.

The corpocracy continues

I'm sure there's more than one way to pluck a duck!

The duck being the public.

But, a way will be found!

Perhaps, the Japanese government may do a Freddie Mac and put TEPCO into " Conservatorship" or "guardianship" or something similar, which is just another way of saying the government (read - the Public) will guarantee liabilities, to enable the business & the government, time to sort out of its current mess.

Btw Muso, TEPCO is quite a large business, but it also now has large liabilities & it may quite possibly have to write off a large asset, shortly, that being the Fukusima plant and funding is going to become more difficult.

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #93 - Mar 29^th, 2011 at 5:29pm

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:29pm:

muso wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:20pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:05pm:

I will paraphrase the Independent British Nuclear Engineering Consultant John Large

"....When constructing these plants, nuclear power plant designers, and that includes myself, gamble with the safety of the public and the environment. We balance economics with scenarios that can happen but are remote. The Titanic was designed to be unsinkable but still sank before it even reached port on its maiden voyage"

It depends on context, and who pays the piper in this case. John Large has been commissioned to report on the accident for Greenpeace International. (that other multinational corpocracy)

Greenpeace is not a profit making organisation, it thrives on donations and volunteers. its a charity with political agenda. Hardly a RIO TINTO now is it muso?

HAHAHAHAHAHAH Cheesy

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #94 - Mar 29^th, 2011 at 7:30pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 5:29pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:29pm:

muso wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:20pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:05pm:

I will paraphrase the Independent British Nuclear Engineering Consultant John Large

"....When constructing these plants, nuclear power plant designers, and that includes myself, gamble with the safety of the public and the environment. We balance economics with scenarios that can happen but are remote. The Titanic was designed to be unsinkable but still sank before it even reached port on its maiden voyage"

It depends on context, and who pays the piper in this case. John Large has been commissioned to report on the accident for Greenpeace International. (that other multinational corpocracy)

Greenpeace is not a profit making organisation, it thrives on donations and volunteers. its a charity with political agenda. Hardly a RIO TINTO now is it muso?

HAHAHAHAHAHAH Cheesy

according to gizmo, EXXON-MOBIL corp is a relgious charity and Greenpeace is a profit motivated multinational corporation.

I could laugh harder than you gizmo but I wont

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 29^th, 2011 at 7:38pm by Foolosophy »

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #95 - Mar 29^th, 2011 at 7:37pm

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:43pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:16pm:

muso wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:05pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 3:28pm:

If you are taking about something relatively small, then that would usually be picked up by individual businesses.

However, depending on the organization, even then they may well be able to pass the costs onto the public.

That said, once these events move into the size of a Katrina hurricane, Australian Floods, Christchurch earthquake, Japanese earthquake/tsunami/nuclear & the daddy of the all, the current GFC, then the Public are the ones who wear the final costs.

The final GFC bailout costs that the Public will pay for, will be counted into the many Trillons of $'s or Amero's or Renminbi or Amchindia$ or whatever the Global currency reverts to, after the US$ collapses.

I would be surprised if, TEPCO is not bailed out by the public purse, in one way, shape or form and therefore that Public pays!

[/b]

TEPCO is not exactly strapped for funds.

I wonder why?

Funny how even though these big Corporations are pulling in enormous profits they still feel its valid to falsify safety reports to the international and Japanese Atomic regulatory bodies.

In the corporate world, the worker is an expense item - a consumable, an item that needs to be minimised on the annula balance sheet.

The CEOS however are corporate assets and must be funded and fondled to the very limit.

This is the Corpocracy that we are enslaved by.

And the corporation also externalises its detrimental effects on humans, society and the environment. In fact these are referred to as "externatlities" on their balance sheet.

The worse that can happen to a corporation is that it is consumed by another or ti disolves onto receivership so as to avoid paying its shareholders the money they invested.

The corpocracy continues

I'm sure there's more than one way to pluck a duck!

The duck being the public.

But, a way will be found!

Perhaps, the Japanese government may do a Freddie Mac and put TEPCO into " Conservatorship" or "guardianship" or something similar, which is just another way of saying the government (read - the Public) will guarantee liabilities, to enable the business & the government, time to sort out of its current mess.

Btw Muso, TEPCO is quite a large business, but it also now has large liabilities & it may quite possibly have to write off a large asset, shortly, that being the Fukusima plant and funding is going to become more difficult.

As we speak the Japanese government is considering whether to NATIONALISE the Fukushima nuclear power plant company.

I wonder why? It must be for all the profits that it will make in the future,

A great deal for the Japanese public hey folks?

Corporatise/privatise PROFITS and socialise risk and losses

That is the CORPOCRACY MODEL that enriches the few and empoverishes the rest.

The GLobal psuedo-captalist system is a fraudulant Fascist tyranny

Obama showed that when he nationalised GMH in the USA and effectively became a 60% majority share holder.

Interesting how ehn the GMH shares were refloated recently the USA had a 30% cut in the company. LOL

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #96 - Mar 29^th, 2011 at 7:56pm

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 7:37pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:43pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:16pm:

muso wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:05pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 3:28pm:

If you are taking about something relatively small, then that would usually be picked up by individual businesses.

However, depending on the organization, even then they may well be able to pass the costs onto the public.

That said, once these events move into the size of a Katrina hurricane, Australian Floods, Christchurch earthquake, Japanese earthquake/tsunami/nuclear & the daddy of the all, the current GFC, then the Public are the ones who wear the final costs.

The final GFC bailout costs that the Public will pay for, will be counted into the many Trillons of $'s or Amero's or Renminbi or Amchindia$ or whatever the Global currency reverts to, after the US$ collapses.

I would be surprised if, TEPCO is not bailed out by the public purse, in one way, shape or form and therefore that Public pays!

[/b]

TEPCO is not exactly strapped for funds.

I wonder why?

Funny how even though these big Corporations are pulling in enormous profits they still feel its valid to falsify safety reports to the international and Japanese Atomic regulatory bodies.

In the corporate world, the worker is an expense item - a consumable, an item that needs to be minimised on the annula balance sheet.

The CEOS however are corporate assets and must be funded and fondled to the very limit.

This is the Corpocracy that we are enslaved by.

And the corporation also externalises its detrimental effects on humans, society and the environment. In fact these are referred to as "externatlities" on their balance sheet.

The worse that can happen to a corporation is that it is consumed by another or ti disolves onto receivership so as to avoid paying its shareholders the money they invested.

The corpocracy continues

I'm sure there's more than one way to pluck a duck!

The duck being the public.

But, a way will be found!

Perhaps, the Japanese government may do a Freddie Mac and put TEPCO into " Conservatorship" or "guardianship" or something similar, which is just another way of saying the government (read - the Public) will guarantee liabilities, to enable the business & the government, time to sort out of its current mess.

Btw Muso, TEPCO is quite a large business, but it also now has large liabilities & it may quite possibly have to write off a large asset, shortly, that being the Fukusima plant and funding is going to become more difficult.

As we speak the Japanese government is considering whether to NATIONALISE the Fukushima nuclear power plant company.

I wonder why? It must be for all the profits that it will make in the future,

A great deal for the Japanese public hey folks?

Corporatise/privatise PROFITS and socialise risk and losses

That is the CORPOCRACY MODEL that enriches the few and empoverishes the rest.

The GLobal psuedo-captalist system is a fraudulant Fascist tyranny

Obama showed that when he nationalised GMH in the USA and effectively became a 60% majority share holder.

Interesting how ehn the GMH shares were refloated recently the USA had a 30% cut in the company. LOL

We will see, but as I said, there is more than one way, "to pluck a duck"!

Back to top

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #97 - Mar 29^th, 2011 at 8:56pm

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 7:56pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 7:37pm:

[quote author=perceptions_now link=1300795269/90#92 date=1301381010][quote author=Foolosophy link=1300795269/75#89 date=1301379416][quote author=muso link=1300795269/75#87 date=1301378751][quote author=perceptions_now link=1300795269/75#84 date=1301376538]

We will see, but as I said, there is more than one way, "to pluck a duck"!

Really? I thought you just had to pull the feathers out

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Fukushima - Consequences? Reply #98 - Mar 30^th, 2011 at 7:52am Foolosophy wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 7:37pm: As we speak the Japanese government is considering whether to NATIONALISE the Fukushima nuclear power plant company. I wonder why? It must be for all the profits that it will make in the future, The last I heard was that they ruled that out.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #99 - Mar 30^th, 2011 at 8:00am

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:29pm:

Greenpeace is not a profit making organisation, it thrives on donations and volunteers. its a charity with political agenda. Hardly a RIO TINTO now is it muso?

No, but it drives an agenda of feel-good environmentalism that detracts from the real issues and hampers progress. I used to a member many years ago.

The multinational bit was a tongue in cheek remark to some extent. My main point was that your nuclear expert has a very good reason to paint the picture in shades of deep green to match the colour of the bank bills he gets from Greenpeace.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #100 - Mar 30^th, 2011 at 12:34pm

muso wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 8:00am:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:29pm:

Greenpeace is not a profit making organisation, it thrives on donations and volunteers. its a charity with political agenda. Hardly a RIO TINTO now is it muso?

No, but it drives an agenda of feel-good environmentalism that detracts from the real issues and hampers progress. I used to a member many years ago.

The multinational bit was a tongue in cheek remark to some extent. My main point was that your nuclear expert has a very good reason to paint the picture in shades of deep green to match the colour of the bank bills he gets from Greenpeace.

John Large's main income stream is still from the nuclear power and nuclear waste industry itself.

His reputation as an independent nuclear engineering consultant is not in dispute here.

Everything he has said int he first few days of the Fukushima disaster has come to fruition.

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #101 - Mar 30^th, 2011 at 11:17pm

4 of 6 Daiichi reactors can’t be fixed; Tokyo Electric president hospitalized

TOKYO — Four out of six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant were damaged beyond repair in Japan’s devastating earthquake and tsunami, the chairman of the Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Wednesday.

Chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata said he is taking over daily operations at Tokyo Electric, which owns the crippled plant, because company President Masataka Shimizu has been hospitalized for an illness brought on by stress.

Katsumata, appearing before reporters Wednesday for the first time since the earthquake, said the company would prefer to remain privately held.

He expressed his “deep apology” for the “grave accident” at the plant, and for the “anxiety, concern, and inconvenience caused to the society over the spread of radioactive substances to the atmosphere, water, and the impacts on crops and drinking water.”

He said that reactors No. 5 and 6 at the plant can still operate, but “we have no choice but to scrap” reactors 1 through 4.

“Experts are trying to analyze the situation and looking at all possibilities,” said Japan’s chief cabinet secretary, Yukio Edano, in a televised news conference. “We are considering the worst-case scenario. ... If the radiation goes up and it affects health of people in the area, we will advise people immediately.”

Link -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/4-of-6-daiichi-reactors-cant-be-fixed-tokyo-...
=====================
It may be a little late, to be saying those things?

Back to top

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #102 - Mar 30^th, 2011 at 11:35pm

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 11:17pm:

4 of 6 Daiichi reactors can’t be fixed; Tokyo Electric president hospitalized

TOKYO — Four out of six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant were damaged beyond repair in Japan’s devastating earthquake and tsunami, the chairman of the Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Wednesday.

Chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata said he is taking over daily operations at Tokyo Electric, which owns the crippled plant, because company President Masataka Shimizu has been hospitalized for an illness brought on by stress.

Katsumata, appearing before reporters Wednesday for the first time since the earthquake, said the company would prefer to remain privately held.

He expressed his “deep apology” for the “grave accident” at the plant, and for the “anxiety, concern, and inconvenience caused to the society over the spread of radioactive substances to the atmosphere, water, and the impacts on crops and drinking water.”

He said that reactors No. 5 and 6 at the plant can still operate, but “we have no choice but to scrap” reactors 1 through 4.

“Experts are trying to analyze the situation and looking at all possibilities,” said Japan’s chief cabinet secretary, Yukio Edano, in a televised news conference. “We are considering the worst-case scenario. ... If the radiation goes up and it affects health of people in the area, we will advise people immediately.”

Link -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/4-of-6-daiichi-reactors-cant-be-fixed-tokyo-...
=====================
It may be a little late, to be saying those things?

Did they say anything about whether they can FIX the cancers in the 180 workers who are doing 15 minute shifts at the Fukushima nuclear waste dump?

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #103 - Mar 31^st, 2011 at 8:20am

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 11:35pm:

Did they say anything about whether they can FIX the cancers in the 180 workers who are doing 15 minute shifts at the Fukushima nuclear waste dump?

Come on - Let's have a reality check here. There are 19 workers in total who have elevated exposure of between 100 and 200mSv. The emergency exposure limit in Japan is 250mSv per year. The occupational exposure standard seems to be 100mSv per year in Japan. It's 50 in Australia.

The kind of elevated risk of developing cancer we're talking about for this kind of exposure is a bit less than 1 in 1000. In other words, if there were several thousand workers, all aged around 25, one of them would contract cancer in their lifetime as a result of this exposure. The 'dead cert' cancer is thyroid cancer. If somebody gets thyroid cancer, it's more often than not usually associated with some radiological exposure. Most of the workers are older (45+). Thyroid cancer generally develops between 15 and 25 years after exposure, so they would be 60 - 70 by the time they develop it if it's going to happen. Cancers in older people are usually far less aggressive. I know of two older people who have lived for 10 years with potentially life threatening cancers that did not grow, and that's quite common. Treatment is often worse than the cancer.

To put it in perspective, the risk of cancer from a lifetime of smoking is approximately 300 in every 1000.

(You can check my data. I relied on recall, so they may not be entirely spot on. )

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 31^st, 2011 at 8:38am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #104 - Mar 31^st, 2011 at 9:18am

muso wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 8:20am:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 11:35pm:

Did they say anything about whether they can FIX the cancers in the 180 workers who are doing 15 minute shifts at the Fukushima nuclear waste dump?

Come on - Let's have a reality check here. There are 19 workers in total who have elevated exposure of between 100 and 200mSv. The emergency exposure limit in Japan is 250mSv per year. The occupational exposure standard seems to be 100mSv per year in Japan. It's 50 in Australia.

The kind of elevated risk of developing cancer we're talking about for this kind of exposure is a bit less than 1 in 1000. In other words, if there were several thousand workers, all aged around 25, one of them would contract cancer in their lifetime as a result of this exposure. The 'dead cert' cancer is thyroid cancer. If somebody gets thyroid cancer, it's more often than not usually associated with some radiological exposure. Most of the workers are older (45+). Thyroid cancer generally develops between 15 and 25 years after exposure, so they would be 60 - 70 by the time they develop it if it's going to happen. Cancers in older people are usually far less aggressive. I know of two older people who have lived for 10 years with potentially life threatening cancers that did not grow, and that's quite common. Treatment is often worse than the cancer.

To put it in perspective, the risk of cancer from a lifetime of smoking is approximately 300 in every 1000.

(You can check my data. I relied on recall, so they may not be entirely spot on. )

...check your data?

How reliable do you think the exposure rates are for the Japanese workers? All 180 workers have received radiation exposure to some degree. Then there are the initial 700+ workers that were exposed prior to them being evacuated

The officials have already increased the safe exposure levels by a factor of 2.5 so that they workers could be sent in again.

Are you aware of the team of workers that were sent in to clean up Chernobyl? The Russians (Ukranians at the time) called them the liguidators.

Their job was to pick up fuel rods and other radiaoactive material after the Chernobyl accident. The ones that did this job were dead within 2 weeks - most within the first couple of days due to organ failure and internal bleeding etc.

Ar eyou also aware that the World Health Organisation is forbidden to investigate radiological incidents without the explicit permission of the IAEA?

You know the body that overseas the PROMOTION of the nuclear power industry. (and apparently they are also concerned about safety standards - thats the rumour going around anyway)

Back to top

IP Logged