Quote of the Day
Do not choose to be wrong for the sake of being different.
Lord Samuel
Elizabeth Taylor: RIP
What is it about violet eyes? I remember when I lived in the University of Texas dorms, there was this one coed I sometimes saw in TV lounges and in passing; she was beautiful and had a jaw-dropping figure (I knew I never had a shot...), but she also had the most gorgeous, mesmerizing violet eyes I've ever seen. I'm sure that other young women must have thought, "Oh, God, COME ON!" [Oddly the only time a woman ever mentioned my eyes was during a business trip to Brazil; this woman was staring at me and blurted out, "Your eyes are so blue!" Actually, everyone in my family has them, except one sister with green eyes.] Elizabeth Taylor's eyes were a legendary violet.
I think Elizabeth Taylor has been one of the few remaining actresses whom seem to project the mystique of an authentic movie star and was an undisputed Hollywood icon. Her personal life (including multiple marriages) was constantly covered by the media; no doubt she must have wanted at times to put the genie back into the bottle and live a more normal life. Her steadfast friendship with another next-generation former child-star-turned-adult-star entertainer, pop music icon Michael Jackson, standing by him during the most difficult times, told me something about her character. She will be missed, but fortunately she leaves behind an enduring body of work on film.
Fukushima Nuclear Incident Update
You know that things are improving when I do an early morning (East coast) sweep of the major websites I have been regularly checking over the past week and see no updates since I published my last post last night. In fact, I even turned on Fox News Channels morning show, and they went over an hour without any alarmist story on Fukushima Daiichi, but not to worry: substitute host Dana Perino ominously spoke of black smoke pouring from one of the buildings and workers evacuated (no reference to a similar situation Monday, which turned out to be an artifact of smoldering electrical wiring and other flammable materials) and then added on a related story of "spreading" radioactive contamination of twice the Japanese "safe" levels of iodine (in tap water at a local water purification plant), deemed unsuitable for infants (no discussion about the conservative nature of radiation heuristics). [Nice; is the next "expose" going to be about pregnant women or old people?] About an hour later host Bill Hemmer grimly went on about the black smoke incident, referencing fuel rod damage/melting. The FNC interviewer in Japan nonchalantly spoke of no increase in radiation levels. The context of this comment was probably lost on the less scientific literate home viewer; the reporter's comment basically neutralized Hemmer's scaremongering introduction; did they alert the home viewer that electricity had recently been restored to all the reactor units and among other things personnel are checking wiring and electrically-powered components for any disaster-caused damages (including residual heat removal systems for the spent water pool)? There was absolutely no discussion of the "big picture", of ever-diminishing ambient radiation levels.
A subsequent Google search pulled up a relevant article on today's smoke incident, possibly triggered by a test-run of a cooling pump at reactor number 3. Let me point out a couple of quotes that (surprise, surprise) have not yet made it on the air on FNC:
However, no radiation level rise has been detected since the reactor started giving off smoke. Moreover, radioactive levels had fallen in comparison with the numbers measured in the morning... Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano has officially denied the radiation levels could pose an immediate risk to human health, saying that in order to receive a half-year’s normal radiation dose, one would have to consume 100 grams of the most radioactive plant yet found daily for over 10 days, NHK World reports.
NEI reports that external electrical power is available for all reactors except 1 and 4; it also notes that the cooling pumps for reactors 1 and 2 are covered with seawater and will need to be serviced. Cesium about 1600 times normal concentration have been measured at about 6 farmland locations surrounding the Daiichi site. [This is potentially significant based on the decades-long half-life of cesium.]
IAEA provides a highly readable account of what's going on now:
Restoring external power to the power plant does not mean the reactors will immediately resume normal safety function. The earthquake and tsunami may have inflicted considerable damage... Progress of efforts to restore power may be impaired by heavy gloves or respirators...As power is restored, workers will perform checks to make certain the conditions are safe to restart individual components. They will check for grounds and ensure circuits remain intact. If damage is discovered, a decision will have to be made whether to perform repairs or move on to the next component on a prioritised list. Nuclear reactors, especially safety related equipment, incorporate multiple layers of redundancy. So a problem in one component does not necessarily mean a specific safety function will be unrecoverable. It is more likely that operators will move on to the redundant equipment in an effort to determine the most intact system and focus their restoration efforts there. This process takes time.
IAEA notes that restoration of the external power continues to roll out intra- and inter-reactor (control room), including control rooms, instrumentation, and components. Reactor 3 instrumentation connections are still problematic, with at least some instrumentation functional for the other 3 reactors; pressure readings of unit 2 were considered less reliable; temperature of reactor 1 and reactor 3 are of concern, although in the case of the reactor temperature has moderated with feed water injections. Spraying of the spent fuel ponds 2 through 4 continue, along with the separate common use pool.
NEI mentions that seawater injections are continuing for all 3 reactors; it mentions that the above-referenced smoke from reactor 3 has attenuated.
Hiroshima Syndrome focuses on additional topics, including possible explanations for the black smoke episodes on Monday and today, such as the possibility of insulating rubble for incident-related hot debris. The author warns us not to have unrealistic expectations of future drops in ambient radiation level, noting decay heat production continues to drop at a lessening rate. He also cautions us that many of the safety levels discussed in the media (in reference to food and drink) are based on a flawed LNT (linear, no threshold) (versus a statistically-validated the radiation hormesis model of risk)
Shep Smith of Fox Report did his usual grimly-toned rapid-fire summary at Fukushima Daiichi, in particular making reference to neutron beams. I did a Google search and found a relevant article from the Kyoto News. TEPCO reported the observation of a neutron beam 13 times from the vicinity of the reactor 1 and reactor 2 complex from March 13 through 15. (To provide context, very large numbers of neutron beams are generated during criticality, and there has been no criticality incident at the Daiichi site.) I don't want to speculate, but it could explain the TEPCO suspicion of some compromise of containment integrity to reactor 2. (The TEPCO report in the Wikipedia Fukushima Timeline also shows pressure in reactor 3 containment stabilizing after a March 20 blip up.) Fox News Channel, of course, didn't note there have been no such observations over the past week and that the beam "is equivalent to 0.01 to 0.02 microsieverts per hour and that this is not a dangerous level."
Libya and the No-Fly Zone: A Selective Response to Some Critics
Bill O'Reilly on his daily evening Factor generally asks viewers to vote on topics. Quite often these questions (certainly self-selected audiences to the center-right program don't constitute any kind of random sample representative of American voters) are lopsided; I believe this one split 51-49 in favor, which is highly unusual.
There were a number of questions on Libya raised during Sunday Talk Soup (my reference to standard weekly Sunday morning interview/roundtable shows such as NBC's Meet the Press, CBS' Face the Nation, ABC's This Week, and Fox News Sunday): How is this intervention in the national defense interests of the United States? Are we opening Pandora's box by intervening in the quicksand of a nation which is really tribal in nature? What if we fail--will Qaddafi return to his sponsorship of terror, in particular aimed at the nations enforcing the no-fly zone (in particular, us)? Why Libya--why not Bahrain, Syria, etc.? Where do we logically draw the line? Why are we intervening in a Libyan civil war? What if Qaddafi is right, that his opposition is being supported by Al Qaeda? Maybe the US is penny-wise, pound-foolish in the same pattern we once supported Saddam Hussein against the anti-American theocracy in Iran? The way we supported the Afghan resistance against the USSR, including Osama Bin Laden and others? How effective is it? Did American air power stop the Serbs from ethnic cleansing? (I wrote about similar questions in Saturday's post.)
I have been sharply critical of President Obama's process, as I described in that post, but I want to respond to several points being raised because I am on the record of supporting a no-fly zone. I am not going to defend the status quo foreign policy, but I'm not hearing some salient points being discussed.
First of all, there's the question of setting a precedent and hypocrisy in American policy: if we intervene in the case in Libya, aren't we just being hypocritical if we don't do the same across the board to everyone? In short, no. The US had already argued that Qaddafi had lost legitimacy, the opposition, without external assistance, had the momentum, and Qaddafi fought back with mercenaries and his Air Force, attacking not just military targets but civilians--intentionally and arbitrarily, unprovoked.
I think the Obama Administration is concerned about a precedent being set for other countries, seeing how Qaddafi, unlike the former leaders of Tunisia or Egypt, responded punishing both civilians and rebels. I would argue that the Obama Administration, by de facto supporting peaceful pro-democracy protesters and arguing that the autocratic leaders had no legitimate claim to power, had a moral responsibility here: Qaddafi wasn't just engaging in a crime against humanity, but he was sending a clear signal to remaining autocratic rulers that the world community was a paper tiger and would just stand by. It's one thing to fire into a group of protesters, which could be an unjust, single-point incident (like Kent State); it's another thing when civilians are being deliberately targeted. I think what Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama had to deal with was the question about how one could be arguing for the rights of protesters while Qaddafi is massacring civilians in a revenge killing for the protests? If America says and does nothing about a crime against humanity, what moral authority does it have to address democratic rights anywhere else?
Second, the question is, where do you draw the line? I think clearly there are a number of governments pursuing unjust actions against their citizens, for example, Christians have been treated unfairly in many Muslim-majority and Communist countries. I generally disapprove of what North Korea and Iran have done. I would like to see regime change in Cuba and Venezuela. I disagree with policies in several countries, not to mention my own. When it comes to crimes against humanity--Nazi Germany, Pol Pot, Darfur, Rwanda, Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, etc.--I would argue we need to have regional/international action. I do not believe, as I've written many times, that we are or should be the world's policeman; at the same point, we need to transition to a more effective, responsive model of regional responsibility. Clearly the UN is ineffective and needs to be reformed. Recall the fact that Saddam Hussein disregarded more than a dozen UN resolutions. A number of Security Council members had material commercial ties to Hussein and thus could be counted upon to veto any military enforcement. At the same time, we must exercise moral leadership. Where do we draw the line? I think it is a matter of judgment reflecting the risk, nature and extent of people's unalienable right to live; most people recognize it when they see it, like the above cited examples. I don't think we can and should be the only nation involved (and clearly if we didn't have personnel and resources in the area, it would be a different story), but other nations, particularly those in the region, which have to deal with relevant refugee problems, should be held accountable for their moral cowardice.
Third, a no-fly zone is ineffective without groups on the ground? There were two principal issues involving the resistance: the Qaddafi loyalists are smaller but better-trained, with better resources; second, Qaddafi was able to use his Air Force with a devastating effectiveness against the revolutionaries without comparable resources. In a sense, I see our help here in a way like the French Navy helped us, especially in the final battles of the Revolutionary War. The French did not fight our battles for us. I have no doubt, like Saddam Hussein had the support of many loyalists whose families had prospered during the Hussein years, and Qaddafi has the same. The weakness of Qaddafi's support was evident early in the campaign; I thought the revolutionaries should have been more flexible on the issue of a Qaddafi exile, and I think they learned a humbling lesson as Qaddafi used his Air Force to reverse his fortune. The no-fly zone is not for the benefit of the revolutionaries; it's to avoid catastrophic attacks by the Libyan Air Force on the civilian population, e.g., reducing a city to rubble. I do not doubt that Qaddafi's hired hands can terrorize urban areas with sniper fire, etc. But I'm also convinced that the attacks on civilians and revolutionaries are powerful motivators to the resistance. The revolutionaries never asked for foreign boots on Libyan soil. What they want is a fair chance to fight for their own freedom.
Second, the question is, where do you draw the line? I think clearly there are a number of governments pursuing unjust actions against their citizens, for example, Christians have been treated unfairly in many Muslim-majority and Communist countries. I generally disapprove of what North Korea and Iran have done. I would like to see regime change in Cuba and Venezuela. I disagree with policies in several countries, not to mention my own. When it comes to crimes against humanity--Nazi Germany, Pol Pot, Darfur, Rwanda, Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, etc.--I would argue we need to have regional/international action. I do not believe, as I've written many times, that we are or should be the world's policeman; at the same point, we need to transition to a more effective, responsive model of regional responsibility. Clearly the UN is ineffective and needs to be reformed. Recall the fact that Saddam Hussein disregarded more than a dozen UN resolutions. A number of Security Council members had material commercial ties to Hussein and thus could be counted upon to veto any military enforcement. At the same time, we must exercise moral leadership. Where do we draw the line? I think it is a matter of judgment reflecting the risk, nature and extent of people's unalienable right to live; most people recognize it when they see it, like the above cited examples. I don't think we can and should be the only nation involved (and clearly if we didn't have personnel and resources in the area, it would be a different story), but other nations, particularly those in the region, which have to deal with relevant refugee problems, should be held accountable for their moral cowardice.
Third, a no-fly zone is ineffective without groups on the ground? There were two principal issues involving the resistance: the Qaddafi loyalists are smaller but better-trained, with better resources; second, Qaddafi was able to use his Air Force with a devastating effectiveness against the revolutionaries without comparable resources. In a sense, I see our help here in a way like the French Navy helped us, especially in the final battles of the Revolutionary War. The French did not fight our battles for us. I have no doubt, like Saddam Hussein had the support of many loyalists whose families had prospered during the Hussein years, and Qaddafi has the same. The weakness of Qaddafi's support was evident early in the campaign; I thought the revolutionaries should have been more flexible on the issue of a Qaddafi exile, and I think they learned a humbling lesson as Qaddafi used his Air Force to reverse his fortune. The no-fly zone is not for the benefit of the revolutionaries; it's to avoid catastrophic attacks by the Libyan Air Force on the civilian population, e.g., reducing a city to rubble. I do not doubt that Qaddafi's hired hands can terrorize urban areas with sniper fire, etc. But I'm also convinced that the attacks on civilians and revolutionaries are powerful motivators to the resistance. The revolutionaries never asked for foreign boots on Libyan soil. What they want is a fair chance to fight for their own freedom.
Political Humor
U.S. Stung By Latest Undercover Sting: Exposing the truth about Barack Obama's presidency
(Reason.com Satire)
"We're at war? Again? Don't we already have two? Wars aren't like kids, where you don't have to worry about the youngest one because the other two will take care of it." - Jon Stewart
[Everyone knows that Obama was going for the Presidential hat trick...]
"Cocaine was found at the Kennedy Space Center. It’s one small step for man, and one giant leap for Charlie Sheen." - Jay Leno
[Well, we knew the drug barons were smuggling drugs into the country by submarines and truck shipments. But now even the Space Shuttle?]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
The Beach Boys,"In My Room". One of my Sunday morning rituals for years was playing The Beach Boys' "Endless Summer" album (early greatest hits compilation). Being the oldest of seven growing up in several small military base duplex homes, privacy was a rare thing (with prying little brothers). This song with its irresistible The Lettermen-style harmonies, along with The Little River Band's "Cool Change" and John Denver's "Looking for Space", were on my heavy rotation list.
