It is so fun being attacked isn’t it?

A September 2013 Forbes magazine article takes the opposing side of the argument about how dangerous Fukushima is to people and to the ocean. According to Tim Worstall, “… the dangers are somewhere between vanishingly trivial and non-existent. Indeed, an entirely reasonable and sensible solution to the radioactive water at the plant would be to simply dump it all into the ocean.” 5

Mr. Worstall’s suggestion is to filter out as much radioactive material as possible, dilute what’s left, and dump it in the Pacific. Bingo, the problem is solved. By the way, it should be noted that Forbes is not the only capitalist tool mouthing off about Fukushima as a non-issue benign situation.

So, why then is TEPCO storing all of the radioactive material in hundreds of storage tanks? Are they too stupid to realize all they have to do is filter out some radiation and then dump it into the ocean? Boy, oh boy, the TEPCO operators are dumber than anyone, especially Mr. Worstall, could’ve ever guessed, by not taking advantage of his clever idea.

So much fun.

For what is it that Tepco is doing with that radioactive water?

Tokyo Electric Power Co. on Friday resumed testing of the ALPS water processing system and add a new ALPS machine next September, raising hopes that radiation in the water churned out by the Fukushima No. 1 plant can be reduced to safer levels.

Because ALPS (short for advanced liquid processing system) can remove all radioactive materials except tritium, it can sharply reduce the seriousness of any environmental pollution being caused by water leaks at the plant.

The purpose of ALPS is to “clean up the increasing amounts of tainted water as much as possible to reduce the risk. In that sense, it may sound strange to say that (reactivating it) is a matter of national importance in various ways, but it has that aspect,” Shunichi Tanaka, head of the Nuclear Regulation Authority, told reporters Wednesday.

Filtering the radiation out of the water. Game set and match to me I think?

And, now Japan is once again about to enter a new nuclear dimension, as TEPCO gets ready to remove 400 fuel rods from the rickety, collapsing Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Reactor 4 Building, which is currently tipping and sinking. A decent-sized earthquake would likely topple the entire structure, and the consequences are unthinkable, possibly creating havoc on the order of 14,000 Hiroshima bombs.

And where on Earth does that come from? Does Robert Hunziker actually believe that fuel rods will go bang?

15 thoughts on “It is so fun being attacked isn’t it?”

  1. All radiation is damaging… from the article.

    We know it is true because these guys spend too much time outdoors and the radiation from the sun scrambled their brain cells hence the reason for them talking shit.

  2. More fun:

    Even though Forbes claims Worstall’s article is his responsibility, they printed it, and Worstall made a bloody fool out of himself and, by association, of Forbes magazine as well by having the temerity to suggest the world’s oceans and millions of people should not worry about one of the biggest major catastrophes in the history of capitalism.

    The anti-capitalist stand of this article is hilarious. The event was indeed the biggest nuclear energy accident in “capitalist” history, releasing about 10% of the radioactivity compared to the biggest accident in communist history, and kiling one person during cleanup vs 56 direct deaths in that other unfortunate event.

  3. Does Robert Hunziker actually believe that fuel rods will go bang? No, I don’t think so. I believe he thinks that the rods will emit the same amount of radiation as 14,000 nuclear bombs.

    To prove this point he says “One slip-up could cause a massive radiation release, and the cesium alone would match the fallout of 14,000 Hiroshima bombs.”

    The fact that one method of radiation release is different and causes different effects slips him by, either deliberately to push his agenda or stupidly because he believes his own hype. I suppose that technically he is correct, the cesium from a nuclear bomb is small compared to that from a fuel rod weight for weight, but a nuclear bomb creates much more radiation and devastation.

    But in the usual method of campaigners, place a small truth in the midst of a massive lie and the lie will appear truthful too.

  4. I was in England when Fukushima got flooded. I can’t forget the sheer glee with which the TV and all the greenies were predicting millions of deaths.

  5. I’ve always assumed that if the Russians had built and used an atom bomb before the USA and nuked Berlin to end the war in Europe then the Left would have been very pro nuclear as a product of superior Soviet technology, and its entirely down to the fact the capitalist USA built and used one first that they oppose the use of nuclear power so much.

  6. I notice Mr Hunziker doesn’t have comments on his piece. I see he as a degree in economic history, so clearly he’s so much more of an expert than Tim. Anyway, he’s a ‘radical’ ‘progressive’ blah blah blah, so he’s always right.

  7. @BIF

    My memory was of a much shorter media focus on the tragedy itself and the many thousands of real deaths from the tsunami – compared to that then focused on Fukushima (which produced one death – was it really just one?).

  8. PF, there was only one death in Fukushima, a crane operator who died when his crane collapsed in the earthquake.

    Though in the usual manner of hypochondriac greenies who claim they have cancer from fracking/electricity/radio waves/etc immediately, they say the death of the head of TEPCO from cancer was due to the nuclear accident. They seem to ignore the fact that he had cancer before and that cancer typically takes years after an incident before killing the patient. Oh, and that he didn’t actually work at Fuki also skips them by. But don’t let facts spoil a greeny’s campaign.

  9. To be fair to the Greenies, TEPCO did demonstrate total incompetence (as did the left leaning government of the day). The accident could have been greatly mitigated if they had actually kept their safety measures up to spec and the nuclear regulator not been complicit in covering up errors.

    I dont understand Hunziger – he seems to think that this is a terrible global scale disaster – it isnt. It is barely more than a regional one and one could even call it local. The closing of all of Japan’s nuclear plants is a national disaster – but given how utterly incompetent the regulators and the operators were, it isnt terribly surprising.

  10. So Much For Subtlety

    SadButMadLad – “there was only one death in Fukushima, a crane operator who died when his crane collapsed in the earthquake.”

    I agree with you totally, but strangely there was one lone relatively sane voice – Alexis Madrigal in the Atlantic, of all places, pointed out that over six hundred people died in power-related accidents in 2010. Just none of them in Fukushima:

    I am sure he is an ar$e the rest of the week, but it is worth a little praise if he gets one thing right.

  11. This is a common ecofascist argument. Why do wicked capitalists not dump the waste water in the sea/spend so much more building windmills if nuclear is cheaper/not tell politicians they should stop blowing billions on the EU if the EU is really wasteful/let the Chinese (or American) government dictate to them.

    The obvious answer is because it isn’t the capitalists who set the rules it is government, every time, The capitalists will go for any inanity so long as it means the politicos will let them make profits – that’s how it works.

    The Fukushima reactor owners know as well as anybody that this Kabuki theatre about radioactivity is nonsense but they play it because they know that telling the government parasites to fuck off is not an option.

    That big government fascists don’t know this, or among the more thinking, pretend not to know it, and instead use this patently circular argument merely shows they have nothing more intelligent.

  12. Ah. He’s not a scientist, is he? He’s making up for a chronic lack of understanding with references to “more proper” scientific articles than your own.

    I love this sentence: “The EPA says any exposure to radiation poses some risk; i.e., there is no level below which we can say an exposure poses no risk.”

    Well, yes. As a physicist and environmental consultant I assure you that there is not a site on God’s green earth (or beyond) that would be classified as having “no risk”. No one can ever say there is “no risk”, only that risks are “negligible” – and the background level of radiation in the sea in general would likely be classified as higher than negligible.

    Physicists will largely agree with your assessment (and hence TEPCO are following your outline plan), but cannot use the kind of certainty you do in your language.

    Still, I presume he’s better with his hedge funds.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *