It took a few years for him to be exposed...but President Obama has now proved it. Finally in the first few months of his second term we can conclude: HE IS NOT THE SMARTEST MAN IN THE ROOM, as some have claimed. Though what "rooms" he was entering and who populated them still remains a good question. But today, the pile up of second term scandals speak for themselves; with Obama at the helm, his administration has staggered from one crisis to another---the IRA scandal, the NSA scandal, the embarrassing Snowdon fiasco, perfidious behavior concerning Egypt's coup, the distortions and untruths he mouthed about domestic and world wide-spying, and now this---the Syria catastrophe.
Looking back on his predecessor, one begins to think perhaps Obama's IQ is not much higher than old GWB, a proven dummy. Furthermore, the administration's crises are too often of this President's own making such as his distortions on NSA spying and his loose lips on the civil war in Syria (his first mistake on that score). On Syria, in a too casual speech, he drew a line in the sand that foolishly boxed him in to "do something" if Syria used chemical weapons. In making that statement he put the ball in Assad's hands and Assad's enemies too. Had he just kept his mouth shut he might have still appeared "presidential". Now he appears ready to go off half-cocked, with no UN cover, and with a mere 9% of the nation supporting his belligerent Bush-like actions. He couldn't even drag along the UK's blustering David Cameron, whose Parliament wisely denied their PM support for this stupidity. At home, his loose speech has handed his opponents a cudgel to strike him with:"he's a wimp. He did not act decisively". So to appear "decisive" he has rattled sabers, has sent warships to the MED and threatens cruise missile-attacks on Syria.
Were Mr Obama really as smart as he thinks, he would have waited for the key question regarding this Sarin gas tragedy to be answered first. WHO RELEASED THE GAS? To mete out lethal punishment, we-the USA--must have that question answered clearly and decisively. We need more than the bluster of dusty old Joe Biden to reassure us. If we strike a nation with devastating effect, killing innocent civilians, and others as Obama would do, (for "humanitarian reasons") without the UN, and without the moral authority of well-established facts on who used the gas, we are simply as evil as the other "bad guys" in the world, and are simply falling back into a form of "Bush-behavior" we rejected so overwhelmingly in the last two elections. Being a powerful, but ill informed, law-breaking, bully nation is not my image of America.
On the question of who committed this act..we have little to go on. But motivation may point the finger at some possible culprits. One must ask, who would gain from such a tragedy? The unbiased observer finds blaming Assad, unlikely. Why would he do it? To bring down promised cruise missiles on his palace? Not likely. Assad, with the help of Iran, Russia and Hezbollah is presently, if slowly, winning the civil war. He would have no reason to use chemical weapons and undermine his recent successes. (And perhaps that fact--the war turning in Assad's favor--may be the single element which underlies the sinister motivations of this whole affair) On the other hand, those on the "loosing" side, al Qaida, various jihadists, the Israelis, the Saudi princes, and others have the clear motivation and opportunity to hand over to the Syrian insurgents a few, perhaps diluted, Sarin gas canisters with the evil hope that their use would, given the President's foolish line drawing statement, present the USA and its allies with a causus belli. So whether Obama has been hoodwinked into this fiasco, or stumbled into it stupidly, or schemed it up himself, it is still dumb. It is unconscionable for a nation in our present financial situation to spend billions on ill advised and unwarranted warfare, when our own populous is suffering so grievously. Think of it, just the funds expended to SEND our fleet to the MED (cash by the way, which we do not have and must borrow)would more than solve the awful fiscal problems for millions of people in Detroit!
This kind of ill-conceived belligerency is not what we expected from a seemingly smart guy, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and a legal scholar. The progressives in this nation who elected Mr. Obama expected more than just a black face in the White House. But that is all it seems that we got for our efforts. The faces and skin tones of our leadership changed after the election, but our nation under Obama continues on its self destructive course.
Get the picture?
Rjk
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Monday, August 19, 2013
FRACKING: LOOKING BACK AFTER A DECADE
FRACKING IN BRIEF
Just a few years back, as a nation, we were wondering where our next tank of home heating-fuel or gasoline was to come from. The recent (2003) development known as "fracking" has changed all of that. Fracking has turned our interst to natual gas, a cleaner fuel, and one which has now become much more available to us. Fracking is a term coined by oilmen working on the Barnett Shale in Texas in 2003 who linked the technology of driving horizontal wells with that of high pressure underground fluid injection wells to fracture deep sedimentary deposits so as to recover natural gas trapped in sedimentary rock. Since that time thousands of such horizontal wells have been drilled and enormous quantities of natual gas have become available to consumers at low prices. Some descibe our new situation as becoming the "Saudi Arabia of Natural Gas". This new method has a colorful and interesting history.
Way back in the 1930s oil drillers learned how to "slant" oil bore pipe to reach hard-to-get oil reservoirs, or to illegally poach oil from neighboring high-production wells. In 1973 the Eastman Whipstock Company developed a slightly curved "whipstock" at the base of the well to gently turn the drill bit into another direction. Estman became the largest "directional" oil drilling company in the world, able to bend its drill pipes into a curve way below the surface. But the technology was time-consuming, expensive and not put into general use. About that time too a new motor was developed which turned the drill bit by means of the circulating drilling mud. With these new "down hole" "mud motors" the bit could continue to turn at the bottom of the hole while the upper lengths of pipe remained stationary. Placing a bendable stub of pipe between the vertical pipe and the motor would cause the bit to change direction. Since that time oil drillers have continued to perfect ways of determining direction and depth while drilling so that the drill bit and the following string of pipe could be very accurately located and positioned even thousands of feet down. They can even use this technology to turn an oil rig drill bit and the string of steel pipe thousands of feet underground to make it drill horizontally rather than just straight down. In that way it could follow a rock stratum or seam of oil or gas bearing rock underground It was a neat trick that made it possible to keep a rig in place and drill several locations of a reservoir, or tap into reservoirs not easily approached from directly above, like one under a town or under an ecologically sensitive area.
Sadly these technical advances in oil drilling in the late 1980s are often sited as contributory factors to the bloody First Gulf War. Since that conflict also led to the Second Gulf War, the Afghanistan War, and its economic impacts even may have contributed to the Arab Spring the effects of this new technology may have been very far reaching indeed.
In Kuwait, in the late 1980s, British and American-operated oil rigs used directional or slant drilling technology to siphon oil from neighboring Iraq. By slant drilling they could be sited directly above the center of the Kuwait oil reservoir but when no one was looking, turn the drill bit so it would "slant" into the rich oil-pool under neighboring Iraq. When US-supported dictator Saddam Hussein learned that "his oil" was being siphoned off to Kuwait, a traditional competitor and enemy, he complained bitterly to Kuwait and to the USA authorities, but to no avail. When diplomatic intervention failed to end the oil siphoning practice which Iraq claimed cost them some $8-9 billion dollars in lost revenues Saddam threatened war. With the loss of oil revenue and other severe economic problems weakening his regime, Saddam threatened to use his million man army and considerable military hardware (supplied by the USA during the Iran-Iraq War) for an invasion of Kuwait. On 2nd of August, Saddam did just that. The first Gulf War 1990-91 an example of war precipitated in large part by new oil drilling technology was the result.
Back home, here in the USA our oil reserves had been pretty much depleted by the turn of the millennium. Formerly a major oil exporter we became a major importer...heavily dependent upon ME oil and willing to cut corners and use our superior technology, and military might to get it--as in Kuwait But at home to eke out profits, from depleted wells oil companies began experimenting with means to extract remnant oil in underground reservoirs. They soon discovered that many of these fields had little oil left, but plenty of gas. But in many places the gas was trapped in shale formations that were only minimally permeable. Some companies, working the Barnett Shale in Texas realized that they could combine the new horizontal drilling techniques with newly designed high pressure pumps on the surface to force water into these resistant gas bearing, shale formations. The pressurized water would force its way into tiny fissures in the rock and expanded them. When the pressure was eased, the fractured rock released the gas which then would flow back up the drill pipe to the surface where it was collected and stored They also discovered that by adding certain chemicals to the high pressure fluids injected into the wells, they could more effectively enlarge the fractures and enhance the gas flow. Adding grit and sand, called "proppants" to these pressurized liquids were found to help to keep the tiny fractures open and enhance gas flow.
This is a brief explanation of the process called "fracking" or hydraulic fracturing shale rock formations underground to release trapped gas. With expansive areas of our nation underlain by these sedimentary formations, it soon became apparent that the USA might well be termed the "Saudi Arabia of natural gas". Some geologists estimate that we may have more than 2,000 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of likely, probable, and potential reserves of natural gas. At present rates of use (@ 24 tcf/ year) they estimate we might have reserves that could last our nation a hundred years!
SAY NO TO NATURAL GAS EXPORTERS
SAY NO TO EXPORT OF NATURAL GAS!
Gas companies want to exploit our newly abundant natural gas, sell it to China at high prices, and make themselves richer than Croesus--once again. They would leave the physical mess from "fracking" the shale deposits in our back yards, the polluted water, flammable water taps, warming climate and high unemployment for us to deal with. All this so we can buy trinkets from Walmart made in China, where employment remains high---all with our natural gas. Does that sound fair or wise to you?
Most Americans are still trying to digest the idea of "fracking" (See previous blog: " Fracking?"). Some of us have mastered the idea and now argue over the safety of the process, and whether we should or should not permit it in our own state. While the majority of us are thus occupied, others in industry and government have moved on. These business moguls have concluded fracking is a "done deal" and are now arguing over HOW they are going to "divvy up" our new-found wealth and abundant gas reserves for their benefit. Some favor exporting the product for quick sale...others more wisely would protect it, and use it as our primary, cheap domestic fuel to renew our faltering industrial base. If we do not get "up to speed" on this issue, the proverbial horse would have slunk out of corral, and then we closed the gate! The decisions being made now are critical while the majority of us are still deciding if the process is safe.
In a New York TImes opinion piece entitled: "Foreseeing Trouble in Exporting Natural Gas" by Cliff Krauss and Nelson Schwartz, August 15, 2013, the authors explain why Dow Chemical Corporation's chief CEO Andrew Liveris has made himself into an outcast among his fellow business leaders with his stand against exporting gas.
Andrew Liveris is one of the few leaders of industry here in the USA who is AGAINST exporting the USA's newly found reserves of natural gas, and instead favors using the cheap fuel to power our own US industries and energize a massive renewal of manufacturing and industry at home.
His angry business detractors call Mr. Liveris a "hypocrite" and worse because they see his proposal as self-serving (Dow Chemical uses a great deal of natural gas), but more importantly it is a blow against the first commandment of big business--- "free markets". The authors state:"Mr. Liveris says that he also favors free markets, but that energy, like defense and food, requires special care to protect the national interest. Exporting natural gas is fine, he says, but not at the price of importing it back in the form of goods made with cheap gas elsewhere." See op cit NYT August 15, 2013. This author agrees wholeheartedly.
That is, if we were to tap OUR natural gas and keep the vast majority of it to encourage our own heavy industries again we could reinvigorate our whole economy. Such a plan would tend to keep natural gas prices low here in the USA and permit a rebirth of industries which are heavy consumers of energy, such as chemical companies, metal extraction firms, manufacturing firms, etc. The dream of many in the middle class is that we would return to an America which actually builds things and has a flourishing industrial base. Cheap and abundant natural gas could stimulate such growth, bring back industries and increase demand for labor. Such generalized growth of the economy would would mean a surge in our GDP and a rebirth of jobs for middle class workers...now suffering from unemployment and low wages.
On the other hand the--"make a fast buck"--specialists in the oil companies would rather exploit OUR gas and export it to gas-poor regions and states such as the EU, China and elsewhere which would pay higher prices and generate more quick profits for producers. Those nations importing our natural gas would use it to fuel THEIR industries and employ THEIR citizenry to produce manufactured goods, and then we would have the "opportunity" to buy back these manufactured products--produced with energy pumped up from OUR back yards. Thus we would not only have to suffer the pain and indignity of environmental degradation, air and water pollution, but lose out on the return of the American dream as well.
If we are going to exploit the gas and suffer for it, let us at least see some improvement in our employment and economic plight! Say NO to exporting natural gas! Kudos to CEO Liveris for taking his principled and sensible stand.
Get the picture?
rjk
Gas companies want to exploit our newly abundant natural gas, sell it to China at high prices, and make themselves richer than Croesus--once again. They would leave the physical mess from "fracking" the shale deposits in our back yards, the polluted water, flammable water taps, warming climate and high unemployment for us to deal with. All this so we can buy trinkets from Walmart made in China, where employment remains high---all with our natural gas. Does that sound fair or wise to you?
Most Americans are still trying to digest the idea of "fracking" (See previous blog: " Fracking?"). Some of us have mastered the idea and now argue over the safety of the process, and whether we should or should not permit it in our own state. While the majority of us are thus occupied, others in industry and government have moved on. These business moguls have concluded fracking is a "done deal" and are now arguing over HOW they are going to "divvy up" our new-found wealth and abundant gas reserves for their benefit. Some favor exporting the product for quick sale...others more wisely would protect it, and use it as our primary, cheap domestic fuel to renew our faltering industrial base. If we do not get "up to speed" on this issue, the proverbial horse would have slunk out of corral, and then we closed the gate! The decisions being made now are critical while the majority of us are still deciding if the process is safe.
In a New York TImes opinion piece entitled: "Foreseeing Trouble in Exporting Natural Gas" by Cliff Krauss and Nelson Schwartz, August 15, 2013, the authors explain why Dow Chemical Corporation's chief CEO Andrew Liveris has made himself into an outcast among his fellow business leaders with his stand against exporting gas.
Andrew Liveris is one of the few leaders of industry here in the USA who is AGAINST exporting the USA's newly found reserves of natural gas, and instead favors using the cheap fuel to power our own US industries and energize a massive renewal of manufacturing and industry at home.
His angry business detractors call Mr. Liveris a "hypocrite" and worse because they see his proposal as self-serving (Dow Chemical uses a great deal of natural gas), but more importantly it is a blow against the first commandment of big business--- "free markets". The authors state:"Mr. Liveris says that he also favors free markets, but that energy, like defense and food, requires special care to protect the national interest. Exporting natural gas is fine, he says, but not at the price of importing it back in the form of goods made with cheap gas elsewhere." See op cit NYT August 15, 2013. This author agrees wholeheartedly.
That is, if we were to tap OUR natural gas and keep the vast majority of it to encourage our own heavy industries again we could reinvigorate our whole economy. Such a plan would tend to keep natural gas prices low here in the USA and permit a rebirth of industries which are heavy consumers of energy, such as chemical companies, metal extraction firms, manufacturing firms, etc. The dream of many in the middle class is that we would return to an America which actually builds things and has a flourishing industrial base. Cheap and abundant natural gas could stimulate such growth, bring back industries and increase demand for labor. Such generalized growth of the economy would would mean a surge in our GDP and a rebirth of jobs for middle class workers...now suffering from unemployment and low wages.
On the other hand the--"make a fast buck"--specialists in the oil companies would rather exploit OUR gas and export it to gas-poor regions and states such as the EU, China and elsewhere which would pay higher prices and generate more quick profits for producers. Those nations importing our natural gas would use it to fuel THEIR industries and employ THEIR citizenry to produce manufactured goods, and then we would have the "opportunity" to buy back these manufactured products--produced with energy pumped up from OUR back yards. Thus we would not only have to suffer the pain and indignity of environmental degradation, air and water pollution, but lose out on the return of the American dream as well.
If we are going to exploit the gas and suffer for it, let us at least see some improvement in our employment and economic plight! Say NO to exporting natural gas! Kudos to CEO Liveris for taking his principled and sensible stand.
Get the picture?
rjk
Friday, August 16, 2013
MANNING, SNOWDON EXPOSE GAP BETWEEN USA IDEALS AND WHAT GOV. DOES
MANNING, SNOWDON, EXPOSE HUGE GAP BETWEEN WHAT OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAYS AND WHAT IT DOES.
Our recent history has many examples of courageous whistleblowers who somehow in the course of their careers and duties came upon evidence of government (or industry) wrongdoing and had the courage and determination to reveal it to the public. The names of Daniel Ellsberg (the Pentagon Papers), Mark Felt (Deep Throat)of the Nixon scandals, Frank Serpico who exposed corruption in the NY City Police Department, Karen Silkwood, who lost her life trying to expose lies and wrong-doing in the nuclear industry are all ensconced now in history as beneficent and even model citizens to be emulated. Over time, when society finally comes to realize their contributions many have had films produced and encomiums written of their lives. Two recent examples of these idealistic and courageous souls are those of Edward Snowdon, who exposed a massive domestic (and foreign) spying system secretly and probably illegally employed by the Obama government, and Bradley Manning who courageously revealed the wide-spread corruption and incidence of war crimes by American troops in Iraq.
These courageous sorts, have all experienced or somehow become aware of what our government or industry was doing and concluded that those actions were seriously in conflict with our ethics, morals, public statements, postures and Constitution. They understood they would suffer for their actions. Serpico was led into a shootout by his colleagues where he was shot in the face. His coworkers deserted him leaving him to lie bleeding on a Brooklyn, staircase. Silkwood, in face of death threats continued her work to expose wrongdoing. Manning knew he would be court-martialed and punished. Snowdon clearly knew he would face very serious charges and perhaps spend years in jail. Based on what we know of these individuals, none expected or sought personal advancement or financial gain. They are clearly different than the average joe or jane who almost invariably turns his or her back on wrongdoing or corruption and tucks those memories someplace deep in their consciousness, then goes on with their lives, perhaps with a few twinges of never-expressed guilt. So they ARE different. But are they “narcissistic”, “disturbed”, “weirdos”, “psychos”, as some would like to characterize them? Different yes, but based on their actions and statements one must conclude their differences are rooted in their heightened sense of right and wrong, their internalization of our nation's stated ideals and their willingness to take the consequences for revealing what they know as attacks on those ideals. We can and must applaud them for that.
Let us thank these individuals, and support them in their trials and tribulations with big government (and big business) because they are the beacons, like brilliant Pharos sited along our nation's course, which warn us of dangerous rocks and shoals ahead. Shoals which are an existential threat to our survival as a nation of free men and women. They warn us at these watersheds in our nation’a history, that our morals, our ideals, our very being, are at odds with and threatened by the direction our nation's leaders are often secretly attempting to steer the ship of state. Our government's political and policy decisions, often made for purposes of short term political gain, or as a result of poor judgement, corruption, or simple weakness, can come under needed scrutiny by the public only when revealed to the public. Manning and Snowdon have exposed the wide gap between what our government says and what it actually does. They have revealed the vast, yawning chasm that exists too often between our nation's ideals and its actual policies and behavior. Now these two men lie bleeding, like Frank Serpico on that Brooklyn staircase. The press, the government and the some elements of the citizenry are foolishly angry with their expose of the truth and resist the 1013 call to the ambulance. These resistant elements have not come to terms with the fact that the sacrifices of Manning and Snowdon give us the potential to initiate a public dialog and hopefully change the erroneous ways of our nation's leadership. We must act to help redirect the ship of state away from the rocks and shoals which threaten our existence as a nation of free men and women.
And history seems to suggest that at critical, junctures in our nations’s history as at present, that the number and persistence of whistleblowers are a good sign, a warning, and a measure of just how far we are drifting from our ideals. It is time now to take notice and reassess where we are heading.
Get the picture?
rjk
Our recent history has many examples of courageous whistleblowers who somehow in the course of their careers and duties came upon evidence of government (or industry) wrongdoing and had the courage and determination to reveal it to the public. The names of Daniel Ellsberg (the Pentagon Papers), Mark Felt (Deep Throat)of the Nixon scandals, Frank Serpico who exposed corruption in the NY City Police Department, Karen Silkwood, who lost her life trying to expose lies and wrong-doing in the nuclear industry are all ensconced now in history as beneficent and even model citizens to be emulated. Over time, when society finally comes to realize their contributions many have had films produced and encomiums written of their lives. Two recent examples of these idealistic and courageous souls are those of Edward Snowdon, who exposed a massive domestic (and foreign) spying system secretly and probably illegally employed by the Obama government, and Bradley Manning who courageously revealed the wide-spread corruption and incidence of war crimes by American troops in Iraq.
These courageous sorts, have all experienced or somehow become aware of what our government or industry was doing and concluded that those actions were seriously in conflict with our ethics, morals, public statements, postures and Constitution. They understood they would suffer for their actions. Serpico was led into a shootout by his colleagues where he was shot in the face. His coworkers deserted him leaving him to lie bleeding on a Brooklyn, staircase. Silkwood, in face of death threats continued her work to expose wrongdoing. Manning knew he would be court-martialed and punished. Snowdon clearly knew he would face very serious charges and perhaps spend years in jail. Based on what we know of these individuals, none expected or sought personal advancement or financial gain. They are clearly different than the average joe or jane who almost invariably turns his or her back on wrongdoing or corruption and tucks those memories someplace deep in their consciousness, then goes on with their lives, perhaps with a few twinges of never-expressed guilt. So they ARE different. But are they “narcissistic”, “disturbed”, “weirdos”, “psychos”, as some would like to characterize them? Different yes, but based on their actions and statements one must conclude their differences are rooted in their heightened sense of right and wrong, their internalization of our nation's stated ideals and their willingness to take the consequences for revealing what they know as attacks on those ideals. We can and must applaud them for that.
Let us thank these individuals, and support them in their trials and tribulations with big government (and big business) because they are the beacons, like brilliant Pharos sited along our nation's course, which warn us of dangerous rocks and shoals ahead. Shoals which are an existential threat to our survival as a nation of free men and women. They warn us at these watersheds in our nation’a history, that our morals, our ideals, our very being, are at odds with and threatened by the direction our nation's leaders are often secretly attempting to steer the ship of state. Our government's political and policy decisions, often made for purposes of short term political gain, or as a result of poor judgement, corruption, or simple weakness, can come under needed scrutiny by the public only when revealed to the public. Manning and Snowdon have exposed the wide gap between what our government says and what it actually does. They have revealed the vast, yawning chasm that exists too often between our nation's ideals and its actual policies and behavior. Now these two men lie bleeding, like Frank Serpico on that Brooklyn staircase. The press, the government and the some elements of the citizenry are foolishly angry with their expose of the truth and resist the 1013 call to the ambulance. These resistant elements have not come to terms with the fact that the sacrifices of Manning and Snowdon give us the potential to initiate a public dialog and hopefully change the erroneous ways of our nation's leadership. We must act to help redirect the ship of state away from the rocks and shoals which threaten our existence as a nation of free men and women.
And history seems to suggest that at critical, junctures in our nations’s history as at present, that the number and persistence of whistleblowers are a good sign, a warning, and a measure of just how far we are drifting from our ideals. It is time now to take notice and reassess where we are heading.
Get the picture?
rjk
Saturday, August 10, 2013
FUKUSHIMA CONTAMINATES PACIFIC --- NRA IGNORES PROBLEM OF BIOACCUMULATION
Even 300 tonnes [a day] — that's still going to be diluted to an almost undetectable level before it would get to any US territory," said the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRA)commission's information officer, Scott Burnell.
In an article appearing in the Scientific American website, August 9, 2013 (Reuters' by Mari Saito. Antoni Slodowski ) entitled: "Japan says Fukushima leak worse than thought. Government joins clean up," the authors underscore the recent revelations that large volumes of radioactive water have been leaking form the plant site.
Though the Fukushima disaster, now more than two years away has faded in the public's consciousness, it has evidently not faded as a threat to the Japanese fishing industry and perhaps to the the well being of the nations on the rim of Pacific Basin.
The horrific disaster has morphed into a suppurating wound that threatens fish life in the Pacific and the fishermen who depend on the sea for their food and livelihood. We now know that as much as 300 tons of highly radioactive water is seeping each day from the plant site into the Pacific Ocean. That amount of radioactive water is equal to about 2 1/2 million liters or nearly 700,000 gallons per week...the water volume in an Olympic swimming pool It is estimated that ocean currents will eventually carry these pools of contaminated water to our western shores. Some estimate their arrival may be as soon as 2017. But as Scott Burnell of the NRA claims, dilution will save us from these effects. True the concentrations of radio cesium in the water column will be diluted, but the process of bioaccumulation will not be altered and fish in the food food chain will likely have higher concentrations of radio cesium than they do have now. The problem is that the living food web in the Pacific Ocean is capable of concentrating and magnifying even minuscule levels of radionucleides in the water to dangerous radioactive doses in top tier predator fish. That effect will not be altered by dilution.
Japanese Prime administer Shinzo Abe, a staunch nuclear power supporter, has been hesitant to act permitting TEPCO to focus on restarting their plants rather than facing the disaster at Fukushima site. With these present revelations he has finally been forced to take over control of the clean up. TEPCO, after 2 1/2 years has not been able to get the damaged plant under control or prevent the environmental disaster that is now unfolding. This should have been done two years ago.
TEPCO, the plant operator, has only just recently admitted that water is seeping from the plant into the Pacific Ocean. This is all very troubling. But the real threat is an economic one and not just for Japan but worldwide. Another troubling aspect is the "circling of the wagons" attitude by our own NRA seemingly more concerned about supporting nuclear power here in the US rather than facing up to its apparent short comings and danger to our world ecology.
Since the disaster, commercial fishing has been halted in the region of northeastern Japan. Fishermen in that area have been unable to operate or sell fish except to the government which simply analyzes their catch for radioactivity and consistently finds them too radioactive for consumption. See The Guardian, August 9, "Toxic Fukushima fallout threatens fisher men's livelihoods" Justin McCurry in Hisanohama, The Guardian, Friday 9 August 2013 13.56 EDT
Author McCurry quotes US Nuclear Regulatory Agency official Scott Burnell, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency information (disinformation?)officer and frequent apologist for the nuclear industry and their mishaps. Burnell spoke up promptly to underscore a "new" Nuclear Regulatory Commission talking point. After Three Mile Island, Chernobyl,too numerous little-reported nuclear industry leaks and disasters, and now the massive disaster at Fukushima, it has become difficult or impossible to stick to the mantra of the NRA that NUCLEAR POWER IS SAFE. Now the post-Fukushima line is: "Don't worry it is only 300 tons a day and so far away it will not affect us! ". To understand the twisted logic of these officials one must grasp the fact of the conflict inherent in Mr Burnell's position. He is part of an organization tasked with both regulating an industry and acting as its proponent for growth and expansion. The task is impossible. The NRA can not be unbiased in its evaluation. Its pronouncements generally fall well within the sway of the powerful nuclear power industry. In considering the NRA's position, we are reminded of the circumstances of the Fukushima disaster. That is just how the Japanese faltered and Fukushima was allowed to occur--- a too close relationship between TEPCO and the government regulators who were tasked with its oversight. We see here the same fault a parasitic relationship between the NRA and the nuclear industry.
Burnell's statement:. "Even 300 tonnes [a day] — that's still going to be diluted to an almost undetectable level before it would get to any US territory," is an example of the protectionist instinct of the NRA for ITS industry. Burnell was unaware of, or unwilling to discuss the probable outcome of such a massive dumps of nuclear waste water into the Pacific, that is long-term effects on the fauna due to bioaccumulation.
Can we assume that the Commission's information officer has never heard of biomagnification (bioaccumulation)? Fukushima presents us not with the simple dilution problem Burnell would like you to think it is. Pour a bottle of ink into one end of a swimming pool and give it a wew hours, and the ink pigment has dissipated, never to be detected on the other side of the pool due dilution and mass of the intervening water. But some substances, DDT, mercury and radioactive cesium 137 among them, are known to BIOACCUMULATE (biomagnify) in the marine food web, tainting the fish we would like to harvest. That would be a monstrous disaster....and a awful black eye for the nuclear industry and one that would be well deserved.
In the 1950s DDT was the most widely used pesticide. It was considered to be completly harmless to humans since it could not be absorbed by the human skin. For that reason in earlier times it was widely used to control lice on people, since it killed the lice but had no effect on their human hosts. It was used widely in the environment, in agriculture, and on cattle. On eastern Long Island where I lived as a young boy, it was the premiere agricultural pesticide, sprayed and dumped widely with little regard for safety. I remember seeing farmers pouring the white powder into their potato dusters and sprayers and mixing the slurry with their hands and arms. DDT was aerial sprayed on the salt marshes to keep down mosquitos. Soon it was so widely used that it was a very common constituent at low concentrations in the soil, the Sound and ground water on Long Island and in the nation as a whole. But the government and its scientists did not take into account the ability of the food web to concentrate such chemicals to unexpected levels.
In the late 1950s the US government's plan to eradicate the scourge of fire ants by a wide ranging program of aerial spraying, aroused the scientific community to oppose the increasingly widespread use of petroleum based pesticides. One of those involved was Rachel Carson, a marine scientist, writer, activist, and popular author ("Silent Spring" 1962). Her life's work was to expose the dangers of pesticides to the natural and marine environment and explain how even tiny concentrations of pesticides in water and soil can be magnified by the natural processes of the food web into harmful or lethal concentrations in the organisms at the top of the food chain. This process is known as biomagnification. For example, in the ocean, hardly detectable levels of mercury, a metal derived from the burning of coal, mining and smelting processes, can come in contact with algae and tiny planktonic (floating) organisms which will absorb and retain the mercury. Small fish graze on the contaminated plankton and incorporate it into THEIR bodies. Over their lifetimes the small fish eat many times their weight of plankton, absorbing and magnifying the mercury concentration in their own bodies which absorb and retain the mercury. Larger fish eat many times their weight of these smaller fish and etcetera, etcetera. As a result, the top predators such as bluefish, sharks, sailfish, and the marvelous tuna, one of the top predators and premiere food fish, has mercury concentrated in its flesh. As a result, consumers are warned to eat only small amounts of tuna per month and for pregnant mothers to avoid this nutritious fish altogether. In another example, in the ocean, the general level of mercury concentration in herring, a common schooling fish or part of the "nekton" which are prey for larger fish, is often quoted as at 0.01 parts per million (ppm), while the shark, a top predator which preys on the nekton, has concentrations of 1 ppm ----or one hundred times higher.
The Fukushima disaster has released large quantities of radionucleides into the air and more recently by dumping Olympic sized pool volumes of contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean. Among them is Cesium 137 (Ce 137) or radio cesium an artificial element, a fission product unique as an element produced by man and an all too common by-product of nuclear accidents. Ce 137 is produced by fission in nuclear reactors, has a half live of thirty years, and decays by high energy pathways which make contact with it dangerous. It is highly soluble, and is chemically reactive. It moves and spreads in nature rapidly due to the fact that upon release it creates compounds which are salts which are highly soluble. Upon entering the body, radio cesium concentrates in muscle tissues. Its residence time in the body or "biological half life" is about 70 days. That is, about one-half of the cesium is eliminated over the that period. Though in nature animals continue to feed and would continually reingest cesium-contaminated smaller fish or prey animals over the two month plus period.
Though some studies suggest that the high levels of potassium in sea water, low sediment concentrations in deep water and other factors may modulate the effects of Ce 137 uptake and bioaccumulation in marine fish, there have been few definitive studies to confirm this. On the other hand several studies indicate that it does take place in the marine environment. The recent collection of fish with higher concentrations of cesium than were recorded right after the disaster and which were collected large distances from the plant site and at varying depths now more than two years after the earthquake and tsunami, suggest that bioaccumulation IS occurring. Even if the bioaccumulation process is less than expected or minimized by the characteristics of the deep ocean what effect will it have on the edible fish harvested in the Pacific? Will fish be too radioactive to eat safely? To date it is not known how much bioaccumulation will occur in the Pacific basin as a result of the Fukushima disaster and the massive release of contaminated ground water.
Thus as concerned citizens, parents, and consumers of sea food we should be wary of officials making blanket statements such as: "even three hundred tones of waste water" would be diluted to "almost undetectable levels" before reaching US territories. The NRA officials can not know that to be true. Such statements sound like words of an uncertain and frightened official, looking to push the facts and real dangers under the proverbial carpet...to save their own jobs and reputations.
Get the picture?
rjk
In an article appearing in the Scientific American website, August 9, 2013 (Reuters' by Mari Saito. Antoni Slodowski ) entitled: "Japan says Fukushima leak worse than thought. Government joins clean up," the authors underscore the recent revelations that large volumes of radioactive water have been leaking form the plant site.
Though the Fukushima disaster, now more than two years away has faded in the public's consciousness, it has evidently not faded as a threat to the Japanese fishing industry and perhaps to the the well being of the nations on the rim of Pacific Basin.
The horrific disaster has morphed into a suppurating wound that threatens fish life in the Pacific and the fishermen who depend on the sea for their food and livelihood. We now know that as much as 300 tons of highly radioactive water is seeping each day from the plant site into the Pacific Ocean. That amount of radioactive water is equal to about 2 1/2 million liters or nearly 700,000 gallons per week...the water volume in an Olympic swimming pool It is estimated that ocean currents will eventually carry these pools of contaminated water to our western shores. Some estimate their arrival may be as soon as 2017. But as Scott Burnell of the NRA claims, dilution will save us from these effects. True the concentrations of radio cesium in the water column will be diluted, but the process of bioaccumulation will not be altered and fish in the food food chain will likely have higher concentrations of radio cesium than they do have now. The problem is that the living food web in the Pacific Ocean is capable of concentrating and magnifying even minuscule levels of radionucleides in the water to dangerous radioactive doses in top tier predator fish. That effect will not be altered by dilution.
Japanese Prime administer Shinzo Abe, a staunch nuclear power supporter, has been hesitant to act permitting TEPCO to focus on restarting their plants rather than facing the disaster at Fukushima site. With these present revelations he has finally been forced to take over control of the clean up. TEPCO, after 2 1/2 years has not been able to get the damaged plant under control or prevent the environmental disaster that is now unfolding. This should have been done two years ago.
TEPCO, the plant operator, has only just recently admitted that water is seeping from the plant into the Pacific Ocean. This is all very troubling. But the real threat is an economic one and not just for Japan but worldwide. Another troubling aspect is the "circling of the wagons" attitude by our own NRA seemingly more concerned about supporting nuclear power here in the US rather than facing up to its apparent short comings and danger to our world ecology.
Since the disaster, commercial fishing has been halted in the region of northeastern Japan. Fishermen in that area have been unable to operate or sell fish except to the government which simply analyzes their catch for radioactivity and consistently finds them too radioactive for consumption. See The Guardian, August 9, "Toxic Fukushima fallout threatens fisher men's livelihoods" Justin McCurry in Hisanohama, The Guardian, Friday 9 August 2013 13.56 EDT
Author McCurry quotes US Nuclear Regulatory Agency official Scott Burnell, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency information (disinformation?)officer and frequent apologist for the nuclear industry and their mishaps. Burnell spoke up promptly to underscore a "new" Nuclear Regulatory Commission talking point. After Three Mile Island, Chernobyl,too numerous little-reported nuclear industry leaks and disasters, and now the massive disaster at Fukushima, it has become difficult or impossible to stick to the mantra of the NRA that NUCLEAR POWER IS SAFE. Now the post-Fukushima line is: "Don't worry it is only 300 tons a day and so far away it will not affect us! ". To understand the twisted logic of these officials one must grasp the fact of the conflict inherent in Mr Burnell's position. He is part of an organization tasked with both regulating an industry and acting as its proponent for growth and expansion. The task is impossible. The NRA can not be unbiased in its evaluation. Its pronouncements generally fall well within the sway of the powerful nuclear power industry. In considering the NRA's position, we are reminded of the circumstances of the Fukushima disaster. That is just how the Japanese faltered and Fukushima was allowed to occur--- a too close relationship between TEPCO and the government regulators who were tasked with its oversight. We see here the same fault a parasitic relationship between the NRA and the nuclear industry.
Burnell's statement:. "Even 300 tonnes [a day] — that's still going to be diluted to an almost undetectable level before it would get to any US territory," is an example of the protectionist instinct of the NRA for ITS industry. Burnell was unaware of, or unwilling to discuss the probable outcome of such a massive dumps of nuclear waste water into the Pacific, that is long-term effects on the fauna due to bioaccumulation.
Can we assume that the Commission's information officer has never heard of biomagnification (bioaccumulation)? Fukushima presents us not with the simple dilution problem Burnell would like you to think it is. Pour a bottle of ink into one end of a swimming pool and give it a wew hours, and the ink pigment has dissipated, never to be detected on the other side of the pool due dilution and mass of the intervening water. But some substances, DDT, mercury and radioactive cesium 137 among them, are known to BIOACCUMULATE (biomagnify) in the marine food web, tainting the fish we would like to harvest. That would be a monstrous disaster....and a awful black eye for the nuclear industry and one that would be well deserved.
In the 1950s DDT was the most widely used pesticide. It was considered to be completly harmless to humans since it could not be absorbed by the human skin. For that reason in earlier times it was widely used to control lice on people, since it killed the lice but had no effect on their human hosts. It was used widely in the environment, in agriculture, and on cattle. On eastern Long Island where I lived as a young boy, it was the premiere agricultural pesticide, sprayed and dumped widely with little regard for safety. I remember seeing farmers pouring the white powder into their potato dusters and sprayers and mixing the slurry with their hands and arms. DDT was aerial sprayed on the salt marshes to keep down mosquitos. Soon it was so widely used that it was a very common constituent at low concentrations in the soil, the Sound and ground water on Long Island and in the nation as a whole. But the government and its scientists did not take into account the ability of the food web to concentrate such chemicals to unexpected levels.
In the late 1950s the US government's plan to eradicate the scourge of fire ants by a wide ranging program of aerial spraying, aroused the scientific community to oppose the increasingly widespread use of petroleum based pesticides. One of those involved was Rachel Carson, a marine scientist, writer, activist, and popular author ("Silent Spring" 1962). Her life's work was to expose the dangers of pesticides to the natural and marine environment and explain how even tiny concentrations of pesticides in water and soil can be magnified by the natural processes of the food web into harmful or lethal concentrations in the organisms at the top of the food chain. This process is known as biomagnification. For example, in the ocean, hardly detectable levels of mercury, a metal derived from the burning of coal, mining and smelting processes, can come in contact with algae and tiny planktonic (floating) organisms which will absorb and retain the mercury. Small fish graze on the contaminated plankton and incorporate it into THEIR bodies. Over their lifetimes the small fish eat many times their weight of plankton, absorbing and magnifying the mercury concentration in their own bodies which absorb and retain the mercury. Larger fish eat many times their weight of these smaller fish and etcetera, etcetera. As a result, the top predators such as bluefish, sharks, sailfish, and the marvelous tuna, one of the top predators and premiere food fish, has mercury concentrated in its flesh. As a result, consumers are warned to eat only small amounts of tuna per month and for pregnant mothers to avoid this nutritious fish altogether. In another example, in the ocean, the general level of mercury concentration in herring, a common schooling fish or part of the "nekton" which are prey for larger fish, is often quoted as at 0.01 parts per million (ppm), while the shark, a top predator which preys on the nekton, has concentrations of 1 ppm ----or one hundred times higher.
The Fukushima disaster has released large quantities of radionucleides into the air and more recently by dumping Olympic sized pool volumes of contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean. Among them is Cesium 137 (Ce 137) or radio cesium an artificial element, a fission product unique as an element produced by man and an all too common by-product of nuclear accidents. Ce 137 is produced by fission in nuclear reactors, has a half live of thirty years, and decays by high energy pathways which make contact with it dangerous. It is highly soluble, and is chemically reactive. It moves and spreads in nature rapidly due to the fact that upon release it creates compounds which are salts which are highly soluble. Upon entering the body, radio cesium concentrates in muscle tissues. Its residence time in the body or "biological half life" is about 70 days. That is, about one-half of the cesium is eliminated over the that period. Though in nature animals continue to feed and would continually reingest cesium-contaminated smaller fish or prey animals over the two month plus period.
Though some studies suggest that the high levels of potassium in sea water, low sediment concentrations in deep water and other factors may modulate the effects of Ce 137 uptake and bioaccumulation in marine fish, there have been few definitive studies to confirm this. On the other hand several studies indicate that it does take place in the marine environment. The recent collection of fish with higher concentrations of cesium than were recorded right after the disaster and which were collected large distances from the plant site and at varying depths now more than two years after the earthquake and tsunami, suggest that bioaccumulation IS occurring. Even if the bioaccumulation process is less than expected or minimized by the characteristics of the deep ocean what effect will it have on the edible fish harvested in the Pacific? Will fish be too radioactive to eat safely? To date it is not known how much bioaccumulation will occur in the Pacific basin as a result of the Fukushima disaster and the massive release of contaminated ground water.
Thus as concerned citizens, parents, and consumers of sea food we should be wary of officials making blanket statements such as: "even three hundred tones of waste water" would be diluted to "almost undetectable levels" before reaching US territories. The NRA officials can not know that to be true. Such statements sound like words of an uncertain and frightened official, looking to push the facts and real dangers under the proverbial carpet...to save their own jobs and reputations.
Get the picture?
rjk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)