Quote of the Day
True religion is the life we lead, not the creed we profess.
Louis Nizer
Dr. Josef Oehmen Viral Post Revisited
Regular readers may remember that I had recommended what turned out to be a viral post authored by Dr. Josef Oehmen, a research scientist from MIT. In last Tuesday's post I wrote a commentary critical of the ad hominem attacks on Oehmen's competence and motivation (e.g., the expose that he was not a nuclear scientist and his feckless reassurances over safety). A current opinion post in New Scientist, entitled "How Josef Oehmen's Advice on Fukushima Went Viral", fills in certain fuzzy facts and is consistent with my comments:
Using an online tool such as diffChecker to compare Oehmen's original essay with the version edited by the MIT's department of nuclear science, it appears that – with the exception of minor corrections – his explanations of how boiling water reactors work remains largely intact. But Oehmen's predictions regarding radiation leakage have been cut.
I will point out a few takeaways from the piece. Josef Oehmen's father had worked at the German national nuclear research center, and the son had grown up nuclear-literate. On March 11, a cousin, Jason Morgan, living with his own family in Kawasaki, Japan was getting pressured by his mother in Australia, to evacuate and was trying to cope with conflicting information on which to make that decision and contacted Oehmen. Oehmen wrote something up, using standard (e.g., NRC) sources, for Morgan to reassure his mother that his family was safe in Kawasaki. Morgan posted the paper online, and several business media sources, including CNBC's Jim Cramer, promoted the post as a definitive piece against hyperbolic reaction (including anti-nukes seeking to politically exploit fear, uncertainty and doubt).
Oehmen himself did not post or promote his paper and never claimed to be presenting original research or having credentials as a nuclear scientist. He certainly did not have direct access to specific reactor conditions and problems, and as we know, there have been steam releases with trade amounts of cesium and iodine; there are natural sources of radiation, and some people undergo medical tests with a certain exposure. There are certain standards or benchmarks of safety, and some issues can be controlled simply by thoroughly washing surfaces. I have not done research on the reliability and validity on the various heuristics. When you say "safe" it's in terms of context, for example, if I'm wearing protective gear or a breathing mask. Clearly an ultimate criterion is mortality from radiation exposure.
"..is safe and will continue to be safe"? Well, speaking as a researcher, this is troubling; any scientist knows hypotheses must be subject to empirical validation. Perhaps if nuclear incidents were as plentiful as blackberries (thank God they are not), he could provide some context for these conclusions. I think from the nature of the incidents and the nature of the reactor designs, clearly there is no Chernobyl-type incident; perhaps I would have used alternate wording, like "the Fukushima reactor designs have a number of redundancy safety features which serve to mitigate the likelihood of a Chernobyl-type incident". Nevertheless, if I had been given this manuscript to peer-review for an academic journal, I would have jumped all over the assertion. But when you see the anti-nukes presenting a Chicken Little perspective, equally not based on site data but far more one-sided, Dr. Oehmen can be forgiven for being forceful for emphasizing a personal, versus scientifically-justified judgment, particularly to ease his aunt's concern; what he probably can be faulted for doing is not emphasizing his opinion was not based on empirical data (hence, my earlier statement that he was in need of a good editor, although I thought that the lack of context-specific data was obvious).
Fukushima Nuclear Incident Update
After my rant on Fox News' irresponsible coverage on Fukushima last Thursday, I refused to watch Fox News over the weekend. After Energy Secretary Chu struck a note of guarded optimism for Fukushima stabilization, I decided to check in on Fox News this morning. Almost immediately I got an alarmist rapid- fire dose of stories on smoke emerging from two reactors and radiation in food and drink. Do we get any voice in moderation reminding viewers not all fires or smoke in a building result from reactor resources? Of course not. Do we hear that most of Japan away outside a few miles from the Daiichi plant is generally considered safe? Do we hear that even if ingested for a year at specified radiation level in leafy vegetables--most of which is controlled by thorough washing--and milk, it would amount to little more than exposure in a medical test? Do we hear, in contrast to the earthquake and tsunami that have resulted in over 9000 confirmed deaths, that the number of fatalities related to related nuclear power incidents are--ZERO?
The excellent website Hiroshima Syndrome website further debunks media speculation, including allegedly compromised containment structures, preexisting plant maintenance/safety procedures given short shrift, "empty" spent fuel ponds, and "fleeing" workers (in panic versus standard operating procedure). The reported smoke from reactor 3, speculated to have come from the containment vessel, seems to have been the result of smoldering electric wiring and other flammable materials. The author points out the feedwater pumps are steam-driven, not electric, and the amount of steam has lessened given slowing heat generation by radioactive decay since the control rods dropped at the time of the incident (stopping nuclear fission), hence longer periods between manual injection of seawater. (I wonder who this e-mailer "Ronald G" is...)
I want to emphasize the counter-skepticism that the above-cited author, others and myself. The first author and I both have philosophy degrees (one of my undergraduate majors, plus I minored in philosophy on my first master's). One very famous principle dating back from medieval philosophy is Ockham's razor: at the risk of oversimplification, don't look for elaborate explanations for things when simpler explanations are possible. Keep in mind the opposite case must be consistent with available facts, subject to empirical verification. For example, if the situation is not improving, how do we account for lowering levels of detected radioactivity? Of workers returning to work within the reactor buildings? If the spent fuel pools were significantly ruptured by the earthquake, how do we account for the fact that helicopter pilots have found water in the pools and were able to test water temperature at an acceptable level, the fact that pool statuses were normal on backup power, the facts that reactor pools 5 and 6 have fully stabilized after resumption of power, or no evidence to date of flooded areas beneath the top level pools? If today's smoke from the reactor 3 building was reactor-based, why were the reported radioactive levels invariant?
NEI notes include:
- [Clarification: In yesterday's post, I mentioned confusing information about walls and tsunami heights.] The reactors and the diesels were built 10 to 13 meters above sea level, and the design called for 5.7 meters (and a Richter scale 8.0 earthquake). TEPCO believes that the tsunami wave reached 14 meters, and the earthquake has been measured at Richter scale 9.0. Hence, the natural disasters exceeded design specifications.
- smoke was observed for a limited coming from secondary containment (building) at reactors 2 and 3. NISA reported higher radioactive readings at reactor 2 for a period of 3.5 hours and no change at reactor 3 (see above discussion).
- electrical connections have been rolled out for reactors 1 and 2 (earlier done for reactors 5 and 6), and are expected to be made for reactors 3 and 4 by tomorrow. Keep in mind components and circuits must be reviewed and tested for usability and safety (and no doubt seawater has adversely effected some reactor infrastructure).
Some parts (like pumps) have already been tagged for replacement.
IAEA has additionally noted that water is being added to the separately stored common spent fuel pool (fuel transferred after at least 18 months in the reactor spent fuel pools).
The MITNSE site, initially started with an edited version of Dr. Oehmen's (see above) paper, continues to post excellent articles, including fission products and radiation and decay heat.
A Democratic Challenger to President Obama?
I always think that challengers to an incumbent President are almost invariably doomed. Even Ted Kennedy couldn't get traction against President Carter whose approval ratings had dropped to the lower 40's by the early spring. The dissatisfaction of progressives with Obama is growing daily. Let us count the ways: the failure to get even a public option (versus a preferred single-payer) health care system, the missed commitment on Gitmo, the Afghanistan surge, the failure to nominate more ideological Supreme Court justices, the deal to extend all the Bush tax cuts for 2 years, and now a third military commitment, the no-fly zone in Libya: I suspect some candidate like Russ Feingold will run. However, I haven't ruled out a candidate like recently retired Senator Evan Bayh perhaps trying to claim the political center on fiscal responsibility if the GOP nominates a polarizing right-wing candidate (say, Michele Bachmann or failed VP nominee/ex-governor Sarah Palin).
I wouldn't rule out Obama bowing out if, say, the economy heads into a double-dip recession, not wanting to spent the next 4 years negotiating budgets with the GOP, even if he wins.
I still believe the Democratic Party may be entering a death cycle, with the great liberal/progressive Barack Obama being the final straw. I think that when we see Obama arguing over a modest $61B GOP cut out of a budget of over $3.7T, and only giving a single-digit billions cut, the voters are dissatisfied with both sides. NOTE: I am not giving the GOP a pass; I think there are a lot bigger fish in the sea than the funding for NPR. I'm just not seeing how a party that depends on high-cost federal programs, class warfare and union partnerships is sustainable given a massive national debt in a tough global economy.
I don't think you can run a party under the name of centrist, middle of the road, independent, etc. I suspect we will see the emergence of a third way, under a positive name or American archetype, e.g., Frontier, American Spirit, First Principles, Foundation, or Pioneer. Something like Town & State (vs. national/statist). Or maybe a reworked party name of the past, e.g., Federalist or Union. Perhaps even the name of our first (nonpartisan) President, George Washington.
Political Humor
"President Obama told middle school students that he was always in trouble in the 8th grade. In fact, he was once sent to the principal's office because he said the dog ate his birth certificate." –Jay Leno
[Actually, student Barack Obama blamed his being late on George W. Bush having driven the Obama family car into the ditch... In fact, he claimed George Bush had driven the car recklessly for all 8 years Obama was in elementary and middle school.]
"Hillary Clinton visited Egypt today for the first time since the uprising. When asked why she went, Bill Clinton said, "Believe me, if anyone can stop an uprising, it's Hillary." –Jimmy Fallon
[Well, the Egyptians told Hillary Clinton that she didn't have any idea what it was like to be under a man for 30 years whom was obsessed with his own power and out for himself; Hillary said, "Yes, I do..." ]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
America, "A Horse With No Name". This is my last segment for the group America. The next post will start a new group series, featuring the Beach Boys.
