And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
Anais Nin
Fukushima Daiichi: Recent Developments and A Short Commentary
As faithful readers know from the tragic circumstances, for several weeks after last year's unprecedented massive earthquake and record tsunami in Japan, I issued a daily update, initially the lead segment. My segments eventually tapered off as the situation stabilized to the point of semi-weekly updates by key blogs, which I attempted to summarize in a more readable fashion. I finally stopped the periodic commentaries, promising to resume coverage with any adverse developments; at that point, food, water, and air were generally safe for humans except for limited areas on site and surrounding areas. The big issue was trying to switch from manual pumping of coolant into reactor containment vessels and spent fuel ponds, made necessary because heat removal systems after shutdown weren't working after electrical power failed and batteries were knocked out with tsunami waves, leading to suspected partial meltdowns with fuel rod exposure in the vessels.
The primary goal at the time I suspended coverage was finally achieving cold shutdown in the first 3 reactors. (The concern of the fourth reactor was the large number of fuel rod assemblies in the spent fuel pools; the reactor itself was not loaded. The last two reactors went into cold shutdown shortly after battery and/or electrical power was resumed.)
Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda on Dec. 16 announced that all the Fukushima Daiichi reactors were in cold shutdown. (For a capstone account, see here.) It's considered a controversial announcement because of fears that local residents may have unrealistic expectations of safety. The story isn't completely over; the Japanese had already announced that they are going to shutter the site; there is concern whether another freak earthquake and/or tsunami will strike during this final phase, although the Japanese have shored up relevant defenses.
The reader may wonder: why would a political blog cover this story? A lot of it had to do with my critical view of other scientists and researchers have done in terms of aiding and abetting a political agenda, especially Al Gore and his unconscionable alarmist propaganda, to the point of the Climategate scandal, with manipulation of data and censorship of opposing points of view; counterproductive government handling of a crisis (there were competing bureaucracies, some of a crony nature; inconsistently enforced work safety procedures and possible government intervention in maintenance activities in the early stages of reactor failure); it seems as though there was a "not-invented-here" syndrome and older Japanese plants like the Daiichi site, despite regional vulnerability for earthquakes, did not meet comparable, updated standards enforced in the US; there was a lot of post-event finger-pointing and political grandstanding. I was also sharply critical of the US government's unreasonable and overreaching evacuation, which contributed to a global Hiroshima syndrome knee-jerk reaction to the point of banning Japanese food products or all but boycotting travel to Japan, even though the crisis was relatively well-contained.
I was especially upset with fear-mongering coverage in the news media; I can't really compare how relatively bad Fox News coverage was versus other media; as I recall, CNN also had problems in coverage. The fact that you would interview scientists with a political agenda (one prominent FNC advisor was an anti-nuke scientist, which Fox News never pointed out, to the best of my knowledge), looking for their 15 minutes of fame and pouring gasoline to the fire, constituted, in my judgment, a violation of professional journalistic ethics. When did they go to, say, MIT's nuclear engineering department for an independent opinion?
This leads to my final observation of this commentary. There was a recent failure of a scientific journal review process in allowing the publication of a sensationalized study. Michael Moyer has a good Scientific American blog post up entitled "Researchers Trumpet Another Flawed Fukushima Death Study". He points out that a study he had criticized last June had been published by the International Journal of Health Services suggesting that up to 14,000 American babies and others died as a result of direct or food supply exposure to radiation from the notorious plume. (Keep in mind that all detected amounts fell well inside safety limits, and moreover the type of radiation in question had a half-life of about 8 days (iodine-131), and it took days for the plume to reach the continental US.) Moyer does a good job pointing out some of the methodological flaws in the study (involving the questionable, incomplete measure of fatalities, the unconventional nature of extrapolations, the arbitrary dismissal of EPA measurements of radiation samples, etc.); I used to review empirical research articles for MIS Quarterly, DSI national conferences, and various other outlets, and I have published peer-reviewed empirical studies of my own, but this is a political, not research blog. Let me simply quote an excerpt of what Moyer reported on the earlier version of the study this past June:
In June I wrote about a claim that babies in the U.S. were dying as a direct result of Fukushima radiation. A close look at the accusation revealed that the data used by the authors to make the argument showed no such thing. “That data is publicly available,” I wrote, “and a check reveals that the authors’ statistical claims are critically flawed—if not deliberate mistruths.” The authors appeared to start from a conclusion—babies are dying because of Fukushima radiation—and work backwards, torturing the data to fit their claims.This is a variation of the same kind of "pick and choose your sample to fit the desired results" nonsense we saw in the Climategate/hockey stick controversy. Absolutely disgraceful!
Political Potpourri
Santorum bounce? How about the Romney bounce? The Washington Times boasts a "big jump" in response to Santorum's close second in Iowa's caucuses, but it turns out Santorum bounced up to 11% in one NH poll. Let me point out in the same poll (not in the headline) Romney has 38% and Ron Paul has 24%. In a different NH poll, Romney has 41% and Ron Paul is the only other candidate in double digits at 18%. We should also point out that the NH primary is open, which means independents and moderates not registered Democrats can enter; these voters are more likely to vote for Romney, Huntsman and/or Paul than Gingrich, Santorum or Perry. In the meanwhile, Gingrich's fourth place finish in Iowa is probably reflected in Gallup's daily tracking going up to 27% vs. second-place Gingrich's 18%, whle Rasmussen has Santorum 8 points behind Romney at 21% surging past Gingrich at 16%. Rasmussen also has Romney tied with Obama at 42% (but you know, most undecided will likely track against the incumbent... Of course, we're still 10 months away from the election.)
I want to rant a bit here about the trite listing of Romney as a "mainstream/establishment Republican", as every other candidate in the GOP field seems to be implying. I would like to know who's more an establishment Republican--two former federal legislators whom spent roughly a generation in the Congress or a one-term governor of Massachusetts? I don't know what Gingrich and Santorum have been smoking, but the last time I checked (in the 2010 elections), there were at least 3 former CEO's (like Romney) whom sought statewide office (Linda McMahon (CN), Whitman (CA) and Fiorina (CA)) and all of them failed to win their races.
So help me if I hear the same tired media conservatives allege one more time that pragmatic conservatives like Romney are unprincipled deciders, I want Cher to slap their faces like that guy's in Moonstruck.
Let me take this opportunity to Cher-slap Gingrich's disgraceful characterization of Romney's gubernatorial record by quoting a critical report on Romney's record of vetoes:
Romney was hamstrung in his veto efforts by the overwhelmingly Democratic makeup - nearly 90 percent - of the Massachusetts legislature. Nearly all of Romney's vetoes - of bills that dealt with access to birth control, increased funding for state zoos, and the creation of a Massachusetts Asian-American commission, among other issues - were reversed by the legislature, sometimes by unanimous votes...In his last year as Massachusetts governor, Romney vetoed nearly 250 items in the state budget. All of those vetoes were overturned by the legislature.
Now what if a President Romney has enough GOP legislators in either chamber in Congress to sustain a veto? What about 250 budget items vetoed in just one year as governor? How are 250 vetoes part of the establishment? If anything, some of the elected Republican legislators in Massachusetts also voted to override Romney's vetoes? What about Romney's record shows that he is part of the establishment? He didn't have to veto anything--not like Senator Santorum who voted yes to fund $223M to build the Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere or anything else the Alaskan legislature wanted to fritter it away on? (Oh, but Gingrich will argue that Romney didn't change Massachusetts enough: tell me, Mr. Gingrich, what can you do when the opposition outnumbers you 9 to 1? Maybe Christ could multiply fish and loaves to feed the people, but Romney is only human: he can't multiply Republicans in a fiscally irresponsible Massachusetts Democratic legislature... How else can you explain how Massachusetts has voted vapid progressives like Kennedy, Kerry, and Dukakis into statewide office? For God's sake, some Democrats in Massachusetts are considering voting this year for Elizabeth Warren, a debt-tsunami progressive!
Political Humor
"In her concession speech, Bachmann said, 'I mean what I say. Then she thanked her speech writer, Popeye." - Conan O'Brien
[Of course, Barack Obama's speech writer is Wimpy ("I'll Gladly Pay You Tuesday For A Hamburger Today"). In fact, even Republicans who have never seen a single Popeye cartoon call members of the Obama Administration 'wimpy'.]
"Mitt Romney won the Iowa caucuses by defeating Rick Santorum by only eight votes. That's a record. To give you an idea of how close that is, if all of Newt Gingrich's ex-wives voted for Santorum, he would have won by 15." - Conan O'Brien
[Whew! For a minute there, I thought Conan was going to say Gingrich's wives would have voted for Mitt Romney or Jim Hunstman....] You see, Romney and Huntsman are Mormons... (Yes, I know that LDS Church policy has been monogamy for generations; the joke is really aimed at Gingrich. I know I'll never be a comedian when I have to explain my jokes..)
An original:
- Newt Gingrich's fourth-place finish surprised former client Freddie Mac executives. He certainly didn't finish out of the money when he worked for them...
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Styx, "Babe"
