I
refer to him as "bubble boy" because in the conservative dream world he
continues to seek refuge in, he did a heck of a job during Katrina. How
tone deaf and offensive; I wish the locals booed and egged him all the
way to Louis Armstrong Airport. Of course he didn't visit the Superdome,
Lower 9th, or his other "greatest hits". He didn't take press questions
either. Maybe he still doesn't have a good answer for, "Did you make
any mistakes during your presidency?"
What's
next, he visits Baghdad as the conquering hero? I'm sure ISIS
commanders would be happy to host him. Total a-hole. For the 5th anniv.
of the Deepwater Horizons disaster this year, even BP leaders weren't
dumb enough to visit the shrimping villages, not expecting the victims
to shower them with appreciation for all their "restoration" work.
Showing posts with label disaster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disaster. Show all posts
Friday, August 28, 2015
Thursday, June 4, 2015
The utter failure of the Red Cross and other aid orgs in Haiti
Vice and ProPublica did some recent investigations
of US aid to Haiti after the quake, and unfortunately you can probably
guess what they found. It was literally like the Iraq War in terms of
incompetence, mismanagement, hubris, CYA, and outright lies. I am done
with the US Red Cross.
http://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Generous
Americans gave the US Red Cross $500MM for Haiti relief. They outraised
all other charities, probably due to marketing and brand. They promised
that they would build thousands of permanent homes (with water and
sanitation) for Haitians, and even "new communities". So far, they have
built SIX (yes 1-2-3-4-5-6) new homes, and are getting ready to pull
out. At least Bush eventually got Saddam.http://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
----
Like, who can you trust? Charity Navigator supposedly rates nonprofits. They rate the ARC as 3 out of 4 stars, with a 10% overhead ratio (90% of donations go to "programs"). That is pretty good, if we can trust their accounting.
But unfortunately, people have been trying to exploit others' generosity/sympathy since the advent of money. What level of hell is reserved for those scum? I can almost tolerate the Nigerian oil scammers and Wolf of Wall Street types, as they are preying on people's greed. But how can you lie to profit from goodwill?
http://www.charitynavigator.
Also, F John Paulson for donating $400MM to Harvard Engineering. That's like doing volunteer work for the House of Saud. Literally he could have done much more good if he just gave the money away on a street corner in Boston. But that really wasn't a donation, it was more like a purchase of legacy and boasting to his peers.
http://www.republishan.com/e/
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Haiti after the quake: the wrong way for the world to help
.jpg)
Haiti is the poorest nation in the Americas (their $13B GDP is the same as 1/9 of IBM) and their quake 2 years ago set them back even further. 200K died out of a nation of 10M, many were seriously injured, and 20% of Haitians were internally displaced. Tough for any nation to recover from, even a rich one.
The global community showed a great outpouring of compassion and charity, giving in total $9B of aid (cash, goods, services). But those resources were mostly a boon to foreign NGOs, not Haitians directly. It's like they got a juicy gov't contract all of a sudden. I took some classes this spring about nonprofit finance and unfortunately they are not much more noble than for-profit entities. Their #1 goal is the mission of course, but goal 1.5 is related but somewhat more selfish: justify their existence, comfortably fund their operations, and grow in revenue/prestige if possible. And of course 501(c)(3) non-profits are fully entitled to earn a tax-exempt profit (see Kaiser Permanente) - they just can't legally pass it on to employees and (nonexistent) shareholders. Like many international development projects, these well-meaning folks from the G20 arrive with their Range Rovers and lofty plans. They think they know best and they tell the locals what to do and what to ask for. Then they give themselves a pat on the back, pack up, and go home to tell great stories of their philanthropy - even if the task is not done and the sustainable impact is minor. And of course there was the scandal about Christian groups trying to smuggle out (a.k.a. rescue) "orphans" and other children back to the US.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
Yes that is an overly cynical assessment. If zero aid dollars went to Haiti, clearly they'd be in far worse shape today. Volunteers and paid workers labored tirelessly to clear debris, attend to the injured, distribute supplies, feed people, and give useful advice. Lives were touched and saved. But $9B during a global recession is a lot of green, and it could have been utilized more effectively. Some economists even suggested that it would have been better to give ~$3,000 (about 2.5 years of avg. income) to each affected Haitian and let them decide how best to use it to improve their lives. Because the way it went down, about 90% of the money didn't "stay" in Haiti and was paid out to foreign orgs. Their labor and supplies stayed in Haiti, but we know that help is temporary (and Western labor is pricey) and supplies are consumed and wear out fast. People are still in tents in refugee camps 3 years later.
So instead of this expensive "reactive medicine" to hurriedly bind the wound, collect your fee, and clear out, there was no lasting, sustainable development effort. Surely it's the Haitians' fault too with their dysfunctional government and low levels of skills/education/employment. But if they could care for themselves, they wouldn't need foreign help. We can't blame the victim. And the fact that so much $ went to foreigners suggests that the funds were not efficiently allocated. Like with Iraq and countless other examples, foreigners tend to be driven by other incentives (not necessarily helping Hatians optimally), be ignorant about conditions on the ground, and the locals know better about the people's urgent needs. Haitian leaders needed more say. But we can understand that charities, like any other orgs, want to control their money (and some may feel that it is their budgetary duty to oversee expenditures). In fact, some Haiti relief funds were legally mandated to be spent on certain projects over others, even if they were ignoring more important ones. That is the "central planning" and cobweb of nonprofit finance that makes corporate taxation look trivial.
Maybe the lesson learned from all of it is: if you want to deliver the most impact for your charity, invest in vetted local orgs who will be there for the long haul. They don't have short term objectives and short term thinking, so they will better allocate resources and deliver impact. I guess there is a chance that the money will be squandered by corrupt local thieves, but your buck could go a lot further too.
Monday, March 21, 2011
After Fukushima, how safe are US nuclear reactors?
The transcript of this show is not yet available, but some nuclear experts were discussing the Japan situation and our own nuclear security. We've already seen the consequences of de-regulation or lack of gov't enforcement (due to industry pressure and greed) during the financial crisis, coal mine disasters, and BP spill. Apparently the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is supposed to be the SEC for the nuclear industry. They have fairly sound rules by most counts (and are hardly suffocating considering the risk analysis), but they're not getting enforced. Nuclear companies (that already enjoy huge taxpayer subsidies) piss and moan that if they fully comply and fix all their violations, they won't be able to stay in business. But the underfunded and understaffed (big surprise) NRC said rules are rules. So instead of improving safety, the companies complained to their (mostly GOP) buddies in Congress to get the NRC off their backs. Congress then told the NRC to basically cease and desist, or see their already strained budget cut by 40%. Then the NRC "folded like a tent" and relented on the violations. This is how your gov't works.
Why do we even have watchdog agencies when Congress (under corporate pressure) will simply defund them when they try to do their jobs? Maybe we need a watchdog for Congress that will over-rule them when they get out of line. As usual, there's the revolving door problem of ex-NRC workers getting cushy industry jobs and using their contacts at the agency to promote the interest of their companies (maybe at the cost of public safety).
Apparently this has been going on since 2002: http://www.ohiocitizen.org/
I am ignorant about nuclear power, but the plants are meant to generate electricity, right? If the outside grid goes down, it shouldn't matter. A dairy farmer doesn't care if Safeway runs out of milk. Shouldn't it be self-powered operation? I understand if a big disruption like an 8.9 quake could cause a temporary power failure (and then the tsunami took out the backup diesel generators), but wouldn't batteries keep the cooling water pumps going until they could get the plant online? Why would they need to lay new transmission lines from the outside grid? Was the plant's generating capacity just destroyed? Well, maybe this is a good example why we shouldn't build critical infrastructure in disaster-prone areas. I know Japan is kind of geographically screwed in that regard, so maybe they should have adopted more hydro, wind, or other safer forms of energy. Apparently the nuclear industry in Japan has similar political clout and enjoys generous gov't assistance: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/
Oh yeah, and for the record - iodine tablets and salt won't do crap to protect you from this kind of radioactive fallout. But I guess they don't hurt if you don't mind waiting in line and putting others at risk (whose health conditions may depend on those minerals not being sold out).
-------
We should all be calling Jerry Brown right now and demanding he close both Diablo and San Onofre. You might be safe, but I will guarantee you that all those people within 20 miles of the
Fukushima plant will most likely have acute radiation sickness.
Fukushima plant will most likely have acute radiation sickness.
How much radiation do you think Japan's been exposed to? I would start with, 'they were exposed to more than what they got on that flight because the plane was hotter than usual. I'm not sure if we'll be any more affected by the radiation than we've been affected by all those nuclear tests done in nevada, but i'm pretty sure alot of japan is getting dosed beyond a 'safe' level.
And, keep in mind, the iodine is not for atmospheric exposure, but after the land, water and food supply is contaminated, you can protect your thyroid from heavy iodine by outcompeting it for thyroid receptors. I'm not sure if people get that little detail....
-------
I know there is a lot of scary radiation going around but I am yet to see an article that says this is anywhere near acute radiation sickness. The engineerings INSIDE the plant that had the blown containment area are not expected to get acute radiation sickness levels. Cancer in 10 years, probably. But those guys are inside the reactor.
Radiation is scary, has long term effects, can spread into groundwater, etc, but i haven't actually seen anything but speculation and fear of that, anyone have an article to reference?
------
maybe that's because the acute rad sickness is being buried. i remember reading a couple of days ago that there were workers showing up with acute rad. sickness. here's even a more recent report.
Milton noted reports that some workers have already shown signs of acute radiation sickness. That would be even worse than it sounds because “the sooner it comes on after exposure, the worse it is.” -------
I agree, the workers at the power plant, near reactors are just
getting tons and tons of exposure externally and I am sure some
particles are getting through their masks. One of the NPR reporters
in Japan was reporting her radiation readings last night. I believe
her hands were 500 cpm, clothes 1000, and shoes 10,000. Now the
Japanese officials told her to go home and wash her hands, shoes, and
clothes (which is exactly what EH&S tells us not to do because it will
get into our ground water etc but I guess they have bigger more
immediate worries). Granted scientists all over the world work with
100,000 cpm quantities every now and then and it is still safe. But
the scientists work with these elements minutes and hours at a time,
and not every day. These people who are near the plant, just outside
the 20 mile radius are constantly being exposed to 10,000cpm of
radiation 24/7 and that may climb to 20 or 30k if the radioactive
particles continue to leak. As Lisa noted Japan may face a peak of
cancer and other chronic illness in 5, 10 yrs.
Interestingly, NPR reported that Chinese have temporarily put a stop
on approvals of their current nuclear power plant projects in light of
this incident. Apparently the president of the company that built
many of their 25 nuclear plants has already been sentenced to life in
prison for bribery and other charges. one can only hope that he did
not cut too many corners before he was incarcerated.
getting tons and tons of exposure externally and I am sure some
particles are getting through their masks. One of the NPR reporters
in Japan was reporting her radiation readings last night. I believe
her hands were 500 cpm, clothes 1000, and shoes 10,000. Now the
Japanese officials told her to go home and wash her hands, shoes, and
clothes (which is exactly what EH&S tells us not to do because it will
get into our ground water etc but I guess they have bigger more
immediate worries). Granted scientists all over the world work with
100,000 cpm quantities every now and then and it is still safe. But
the scientists work with these elements minutes and hours at a time,
and not every day. These people who are near the plant, just outside
the 20 mile radius are constantly being exposed to 10,000cpm of
radiation 24/7 and that may climb to 20 or 30k if the radioactive
particles continue to leak. As Lisa noted Japan may face a peak of
cancer and other chronic illness in 5, 10 yrs.
Interestingly, NPR reported that Chinese have temporarily put a stop
on approvals of their current nuclear power plant projects in light of
this incident. Apparently the president of the company that built
many of their 25 nuclear plants has already been sentenced to life in
prison for bribery and other charges. one can only hope that he did
not cut too many corners before he was incarcerated.
-----
I didn't see anything in that link that says anything about acute radiation sickness. I didn't see a Milton story either so maybe i missed that. I do recall reading (sorry no source) that the same company that is currently downplaying the radiation impact has previously been fined/convicted (not sure which) for a cover up previously. So that speaks to the potential for burying the story.
However, at this point i think there is more sensationalism than evidence. My wife (UCLA hospital employee) has been inundated with calls/questions about potassium iodide because of the "deadly radioactive cloud descending on the west coast".
--------
As we've seen in our own country, I think the Japanese gov't probably isn't fully leveling with the public about health risks, either to save face or avoid panic. I just hope the families of those plant workers will be properly compensated for their sacrifice. At least Japan has quality universal health care.
Yeah as M said about the K-I tablets, typical American hysteria over a minute threat (reminds me of duct tape after 9/11). Like L said, iodine only protects against thyroid cancer (and mostly for young people with an active thyroid), so all the other dozens of cancers are fair game. Maybe the makers of Enzyte and Airborne should quickly market "Radiation D-fenZ" placebo pills, and they would sell out in a minute. Then they could flee with their loot to Venezuela before the lawsuits are processed. As Michael Scheuer said (that ex-CIA guy who worked on hunting Bin Laden), "I remember a time when Americans weren't scared of everything." Plus it's completely insensitive; for whatever level of radiation we are getting in CA, it's orders worse for the millions of Japanese closer to the plant, so have a little perspective. Plus no one seems to mind the radiation dose they are getting flying to Cancun for spring break, or getting an un-necessary CT scan to check for whatever illness. Even bananas are slightly radioactive because of their potassium content.
Yeah as M said about the K-I tablets, typical American hysteria over a minute threat (reminds me of duct tape after 9/11). Like L said, iodine only protects against thyroid cancer (and mostly for young people with an active thyroid), so all the other dozens of cancers are fair game. Maybe the makers of Enzyte and Airborne should quickly market "Radiation D-fenZ" placebo pills, and they would sell out in a minute. Then they could flee with their loot to Venezuela before the lawsuits are processed. As Michael Scheuer said (that ex-CIA guy who worked on hunting Bin Laden), "I remember a time when Americans weren't scared of everything." Plus it's completely insensitive; for whatever level of radiation we are getting in CA, it's orders worse for the millions of Japanese closer to the plant, so have a little perspective. Plus no one seems to mind the radiation dose they are getting flying to Cancun for spring break, or getting an un-necessary CT scan to check for whatever illness. Even bananas are slightly radioactive because of their potassium content.
-------
what about the full CT scan you're obliged to get when you fly to cancun?
the last paragraph of that article contains the sentence i'd included in the previous email. maybe you didn't read that far.
and, i'm really tired of the belittling of the dangers of radiation. the govt. does lie to you about the dangers. if you think the shit is so safe and a necessary evil, then why do the people who profit from it not live in the shadow of the towers? as far as i'm concerned, the owners, the profiteers and the major GE stockholders should all be obliged to live in the shadow of the towers.
------
like I was saying about being exposed to 10-30k cpm, low or high does,
if the source of the leak doesn't get secured, it will eventually get
into everything, especially the people near are washing their
contaminated bodies and clothes at home, letting it trickle into their
ecosystem.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_
however, I am not too worried about the same sort of radiation
reaching CA considering the low dose it is reaching our shores.
I think it was my high school physics teacher who taught us that if
you sneeze, it would have circled the world in 4 years. The
radioactive particles will continue to travel, well pass CA and the
western coast. In a week, it would reach back to Japan considering it
only took 5 days to get to CA in the first place. If there is no way
to escape the traveling radioactive particles, and magnitude of
radiation decreasing with distance, I think half way around the world
from Japan is the safest place to be.
if the source of the leak doesn't get secured, it will eventually get
into everything, especially the people near are washing their
contaminated bodies and clothes at home, letting it trickle into their
ecosystem.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_
however, I am not too worried about the same sort of radiation
reaching CA considering the low dose it is reaching our shores.
I think it was my high school physics teacher who taught us that if
you sneeze, it would have circled the world in 4 years. The
radioactive particles will continue to travel, well pass CA and the
western coast. In a week, it would reach back to Japan considering it
only took 5 days to get to CA in the first place. If there is no way
to escape the traveling radioactive particles, and magnitude of
radiation decreasing with distance, I think half way around the world
from Japan is the safest place to be.
-----
Maybe i'm misunderstanding L's point with her emails. I read her original link, "milton noted reports" is in there, but not the reports he notes. Where is the news site that shows reports of acute radiation sickness? I'm not saying it didn't happen/doesn't exist but i haven't read it. For something incredibly dire and widespread that seems odd. Admittedly i'm not scouring the web to find it but if it is as serious as it could be that shouldn't be a problem.
People's fear of radiation is deep seated in misunderstanding. It is complex in ways that a lot of other types of contaminants and poisons are not. There are radioactive things you can hold in your pocket everyday of your life with no ill effects and if swallowed will kill you. There are things that you can put 6 feet of lead between you and it and you'll have no protection whatsoever. I think the media is playing on this more than giving us real information which was my original point in my first email.
Lisa's later email seems to constantly highlight that the radiation plume reaching the west coast is incredibly dilute and not expected to cause any health problems, giant sarcasm article maybe? If i have to be drinking the kool-aid as a necessary prerequisite to know what is really happening then you are going to have to try harder. Distrust of the gov't may make me hesitant to believe these types of articles but it doesn't make the opposite the truth.
I won't be surprised when in 6 weeks/months/years the truth of the matter comes out and we find it was worse than what was originally stated or that some corporate/gov't entity lied to us. However I don't think we'll find credence in the news commercial i saw that stated "deadly radiation cloud approaching CA, will your family be safe? At 11..."
------
Yeah I guess radiation is both over-hyped and under-hyped depending on the context. People fear what they can't see or don't understand (I'm not accusing anyone here of this, just the population in general). The concentration of radioactivity drops precipitously with distance from the source, so the amount that gets to us in CA is relatively small. But the bottom line is everything in the world can freaking kill us at a sufficient dose (including water). As the physicists on the NPR Science Friday show explained, any sort of radiation is dangerous, even solar radiation. But the extent of danger is tiny in most cases. Energy from radiation may disrupt our DNA and lead to mutations, but most mutated cells are disposed of by the body and don't lead to disease.
Of course toxicology studies are very hard to perform with radiation (especially the kinds associated with fission) because controlled testing is so difficult/unethical, so there's a lot we don't know, or that the gov't won't tell us. So in the presence of such uncertainty, the only way to truly feel safe is to refrain from using any fission for human purposes. But people made risk-reward calculations, and for the decision makers it's worth it to go nuclear (companies get the rewards, people near plants and gov't agencies get the risks).
We make risk-reward calculations every day, and have a higher chance of harm from driving to work (accidents, emissions particulates). As long as we're evaluating each risk fairly and objectively, then I think we will make good decisions in the interests of society overall. But if special interests control the decision making and information, and leave us and other concerned parties out of it, then we will come to sub-optimal outcomes. But yeah, that should tell people something when the pro-energy politicians and big executives of energy companies won't live or work near their plants, refineries, wells, or mines.
Of course toxicology studies are very hard to perform with radiation (especially the kinds associated with fission) because controlled testing is so difficult/unethical, so there's a lot we don't know, or that the gov't won't tell us. So in the presence of such uncertainty, the only way to truly feel safe is to refrain from using any fission for human purposes. But people made risk-reward calculations, and for the decision makers it's worth it to go nuclear (companies get the rewards, people near plants and gov't agencies get the risks).
We make risk-reward calculations every day, and have a higher chance of harm from driving to work (accidents, emissions particulates). As long as we're evaluating each risk fairly and objectively, then I think we will make good decisions in the interests of society overall. But if special interests control the decision making and information, and leave us and other concerned parties out of it, then we will come to sub-optimal outcomes. But yeah, that should tell people something when the pro-energy politicians and big executives of energy companies won't live or work near their plants, refineries, wells, or mines.
------
I agree completely. And at the end of the day it is clear that those that make the risk reward decisions only get rewards. I watched a short film that was attempting to take that exact thing (socialized risk i think they called it) and make it personal risk. No perfect alternative exists but until those that get the reward in equal quantities as the risk, the decision making will always be skewed. And the system we have right now very easily diffuses the risk amongst the world and concentrates the reward amongst the few.
I don't think the energy CEO won't live near power plants, i think he has enough money to prevent power plants from being built where he lives. Try to put a reactor next to Vale and watch the NIMBY explode.
I don't think the energy CEO won't live near power plants, i think he has enough money to prevent power plants from being built where he lives. Try to put a reactor next to Vale and watch the NIMBY explode.
----------
Heh yeah, wouldn't that be a PR nightmare for the industry if you have nuclear execs and their families protesting plans for a new plant construction near Martha's Vineyard? Why is it only the poor and minorities get screwed by eminent domain?
In the aftermath of Tyco/Enron/Worldcom fraud, I believe one part of Sarbanes-Oxley is a provision that a firm's CEO & CFO must personally sign off on financial statements, and be held legally responsible for any criminal wrongdoing. So in theory, their asses are on the line and they have a personal incentive to make sure their company keeps honest book. I guess that's why the director of the Oscar-winning doc "Inside Job" about the recent financial crisis was so appalled that no Wall Street exec has been prosecuted for fraud so far (excluding Madoff). I guess it's just hard to prove willful malfeasance or deception regarding all those exotic investment vehicles.
For the energy industry (or any industry that can potentially hurt many people and the environment), I wish they would have the same thing, in order to match risk to reward as you said. Yes you have approval to build project A here, but if anything goes wrong we will lock up upper management and seize their assets. Then I'd think we'd see fewer, better, and safer projects. In order to compensate for the negative externalities of dirty energy, profits should get taxed for a disaster fund that will cover the losses in case of a BP spill type event (and the general health effects for nearby poor people living under their daily pollution). It's the cost of doing business. Surely firms would pass some of that to customers, so maybe that would make us think twice about our use of dirty energy. Even better, some of the tax would go to the budgets of regulatory agencies in order to improve oversight and decrease the burden on taxpayers. And if the firm is good and operates safely, they'll have some of that money reimbursed over time, like good driver insurance discounts. A corporation is a "legal person", so it should be punished for bad behavior just like we would. But unfortunately firms are more like Lindsay Lohan, getting a slap on the wrist for DUIs and parole violations, because they pay top dollar for political favors and legal counsel.
For the Japan nuclear crisis, I'm not saying the firm that runs the plant (Tokyo Electric) is guilty of legal wrongdoing, but I believe that the accidents we have seen are preventable, even after a historic quake-tsunami. The guest on the KQED Forum program I mentioned in my first email said that Tokyo Electric was known to suppress or doctor bad safety inspection data, has spent a lot on pro-nuclear mass marketing, and of course enjoys generous gov't subsidies.
In the aftermath of Tyco/Enron/Worldcom fraud, I believe one part of Sarbanes-Oxley is a provision that a firm's CEO & CFO must personally sign off on financial statements, and be held legally responsible for any criminal wrongdoing. So in theory, their asses are on the line and they have a personal incentive to make sure their company keeps honest book. I guess that's why the director of the Oscar-winning doc "Inside Job" about the recent financial crisis was so appalled that no Wall Street exec has been prosecuted for fraud so far (excluding Madoff). I guess it's just hard to prove willful malfeasance or deception regarding all those exotic investment vehicles.
For the energy industry (or any industry that can potentially hurt many people and the environment), I wish they would have the same thing, in order to match risk to reward as you said. Yes you have approval to build project A here, but if anything goes wrong we will lock up upper management and seize their assets. Then I'd think we'd see fewer, better, and safer projects. In order to compensate for the negative externalities of dirty energy, profits should get taxed for a disaster fund that will cover the losses in case of a BP spill type event (and the general health effects for nearby poor people living under their daily pollution). It's the cost of doing business. Surely firms would pass some of that to customers, so maybe that would make us think twice about our use of dirty energy. Even better, some of the tax would go to the budgets of regulatory agencies in order to improve oversight and decrease the burden on taxpayers. And if the firm is good and operates safely, they'll have some of that money reimbursed over time, like good driver insurance discounts. A corporation is a "legal person", so it should be punished for bad behavior just like we would. But unfortunately firms are more like Lindsay Lohan, getting a slap on the wrist for DUIs and parole violations, because they pay top dollar for political favors and legal counsel.
For the Japan nuclear crisis, I'm not saying the firm that runs the plant (Tokyo Electric) is guilty of legal wrongdoing, but I believe that the accidents we have seen are preventable, even after a historic quake-tsunami. The guest on the KQED Forum program I mentioned in my first email said that Tokyo Electric was known to suppress or doctor bad safety inspection data, has spent a lot on pro-nuclear mass marketing, and of course enjoys generous gov't subsidies.
--------
Has anyone heard from the chinese execs who were responsible for the melamine the the baby food debacle?
no, because they were taken out and shot for profiting at the expense of the public. i do not support killing or the death penalty, but in the case of massive profit at the public's expense, especially the massive health crisis that will occur in Japan due to this fallout (and whether you hear about it or not, it is a massive health crisis), I might make an exception. Okay, maybe not with this situation, but if we look at lessons learned from this situation, we can use this as precedent as to why nuclear power should be never considered a viable resource of energy, again. And, going forward, anyone who does the 'risk benefit' analysis and decides to go with the benefit of taking that risk, must personally pay for the consequences.
I don't believe the threat of jail will prevent these sociopaths from putting profit before even their own children's lives. but, if we remove them from the gene pool, we might be able to evolve beyond this anti-social notion.
--------
Eugenics for the win! Jokes aside L has a point that the people who relentlessly pursue profit like this are either actually or close to being sociopaths. What other type of person is willing to throw thousands of people in harms way for an EXTRA million per year.
I don't know how i feel about never nuclear but Japan will always be a high risk proposition for nuclear plants being on a major fault line and the associated tsunami risk (seems obvious now...). But Japan i think i read was 30% nuclear, what alternatives do they, or anyone, have? If you don't have geothermal and you don't have large tracts of land to provide wind/solar, what are the options? I think Japan does pretty well as a nation with reducing energy consumption. Public transit is the norm in major cities, small homes, not a wasteful culture, ~ half the per capita consumption of the US. So assuming they can't experience a 30% reduction in energy use, how does a country like japan manage to meet its energy needs sans nuclear?
------
well, who's going to power their radiation treatment equipment when they have that big bolus of cancer victims?
I'm sorry, Mark, but this is a subject too close to home. I have been protesting(my first protest was in Harrisburg, PA) for what seems my entire life, against nuclear power. I lived 12 miles away from TMI in 1979. I'm not sure of the outcome at this point. I do know they lie about the safety and what had happened. And, I do know my best and oldest friend is dying from breast cancer.
I also do know what it looks like to see someone die from cancer induced from ionizing radiation exposure. Although 40 years after the exposure, my father suffered for 6 long years, slowly being chipped away by 5 serial, primary tumors. He sat over Almagordo test site. He didn't witness a blast. All those soldiers are dead. He was there 6 years after the test. He was stationed there for one year. No rad badges and every assurance he was in no danger. Of the 5 guys he was stationed with, 4 have had these serial, primary tumors. I worked in environmental cancer research at UCSF. I know this is the common pattern for ionizing radiation exposure.
My guess is I most likely have that same fate coming my way. I don't want my son (nor anyone's son) to carry on that legacy. It is not a risk a compassionate society should take.
--------
And i'm not trying to be insensitive but what is the alternative? Taking nuclear off the table is not a solution without some sort of viable replacement. And if you made the country vote (obviously i'm guessing here) to either have nuclear power or turn off all their power 30% of the time I think they would choose nuclear. I'm not anywhere near an energy expert but from what i understand for Japan solar/wind/tide sources won't cover it or at least won't cover it without great expense (time, money, infrastructure, etc). I'll bet that even given the tsunami and the reactors that will be closed nuclear will stay a strong minority of Japanese energy sources.
--------
Although I was in disagreement about nuclear radiation exposure from Three Mile Island I was not aware that (even now) radiation levels at Trinity are 10x the normal level of background exposure; I would guess that levels were even higher a number of years ago and probably do not make root cause identification for radiation-related illness (e.g. thyroid cancer) any easier.
--------
Yeah I agree with you two, and thanks everyone for their input on this tough issue. I guess it's just so darn hard to prosecute white collar crime because the offenders are very clever, they have an army of top lawyers and politicians, and it's hard to prove anything without a secret camera or leaked documents (like "The Informant!"). So even if we had the death penalty for those types of crimes (that are much more socially damaging than a gang-banger selling a few rocks), it will be hard to convict, and they will appeal and counter-sue for years and all that. Sometimes with China you have to admire the efficiency of their barbaric justice system.
A past failure analysis of a Louisiana nuclear plant indicated that the cause of a future meltdown was 87% likely to be due to external power loss and cooling system failure (like Fukushima). So knowing that (and they should have), if Japan and other nuclear nations do a better job of creating many redundant power backups, and somehow test them for all sorts of extreme shocks to the system, then maybe nuclear would be safer. But really no family should have to go through the suffering of L's father and other victims of careless nuclear just so we can keep our lights and TVs on.
You know how Russia offered to process Iran's nuclear fuel offshore? Maybe nearby Korea/Russia/China could offer land for Japan to build nuke plants on the mainland (hopefully in earthquake-free, unpopulated areas). Japan would give some of the power to the host nation, and then run long underwater transmission lines to Japan for electricity?
Or Japan could just rely more on fossil fuels, but sign long-term futures contracts for reasonable prices, then invest more in carbon capture? I mean, this is the country that makes the best toilets (Toto), the best passenger cars, the best mass transit, and the best robots in the world. They are also one of the most green-minded rich nations, where the power of corporations and the profit motive is not as strong as the US/UK. Japan has some renewable energy (6% of total in 2005), mostly solar and hydro. But their investments in renewables have been paltry compared to the US and China. So if they get more with the program, I think they can find nuclear alternatives. Plus, the easiest way to generate more energy is to use less of it. Japan is already much more energy efficient than the US, but with the right programs they could easily cut usage by another 10%, and that will allow them to decommission some of their most at-risk nuclear plants. Maybe through gov't and industry PR, the Japanese public have come to overly trust nuclear, but I guess public opinion is changing.
http://www.meti.go.jp/english/
http://www.geni.org/
http://www.smartplanet.com/
A past failure analysis of a Louisiana nuclear plant indicated that the cause of a future meltdown was 87% likely to be due to external power loss and cooling system failure (like Fukushima). So knowing that (and they should have), if Japan and other nuclear nations do a better job of creating many redundant power backups, and somehow test them for all sorts of extreme shocks to the system, then maybe nuclear would be safer. But really no family should have to go through the suffering of L's father and other victims of careless nuclear just so we can keep our lights and TVs on.
You know how Russia offered to process Iran's nuclear fuel offshore? Maybe nearby Korea/Russia/China could offer land for Japan to build nuke plants on the mainland (hopefully in earthquake-free, unpopulated areas). Japan would give some of the power to the host nation, and then run long underwater transmission lines to Japan for electricity?
Or Japan could just rely more on fossil fuels, but sign long-term futures contracts for reasonable prices, then invest more in carbon capture? I mean, this is the country that makes the best toilets (Toto), the best passenger cars, the best mass transit, and the best robots in the world. They are also one of the most green-minded rich nations, where the power of corporations and the profit motive is not as strong as the US/UK. Japan has some renewable energy (6% of total in 2005), mostly solar and hydro. But their investments in renewables have been paltry compared to the US and China. So if they get more with the program, I think they can find nuclear alternatives. Plus, the easiest way to generate more energy is to use less of it. Japan is already much more energy efficient than the US, but with the right programs they could easily cut usage by another 10%, and that will allow them to decommission some of their most at-risk nuclear plants. Maybe through gov't and industry PR, the Japanese public have come to overly trust nuclear, but I guess public opinion is changing.
http://www.meti.go.jp/english/
http://www.geni.org/
http://www.smartplanet.com/
--------
It's funny you mention fighting with China. Japan's expansionist ambitions in the 20th Century were of course dependent on fossil fuels to power their industry and military. They already had a puppet gov't in Manchuria providing coal for their factories, but when Japan invaded French Indochina in 1940, the US cut oil exports as punishment. The US was Japan's primary oil supplier at the time (and Japan has next-to-zero domestic oil), so of course that was unacceptable to them. So then they bombed Pearl and invaded Singapore and the Dutch East Indies to get at their oil.
When faced with future energy shocks and threats to their economic vitality, I don't know what Japan will do in response. I doubt they will turn aggressive, but maybe they will just keep going with nuclear, hope for no mega-quakes, and say to hell with any protests. Or maybe they will take a more dignified, humble approach, and accept that their economy will have to contract in response to these energy and social welfare constraints. Unlike American exceptionalism, where we can't bear the thought of relinquishing our unsustainable lone superpower status, even if the writing is already on the wall.
When faced with future energy shocks and threats to their economic vitality, I don't know what Japan will do in response. I doubt they will turn aggressive, but maybe they will just keep going with nuclear, hope for no mega-quakes, and say to hell with any protests. Or maybe they will take a more dignified, humble approach, and accept that their economy will have to contract in response to these energy and social welfare constraints. Unlike American exceptionalism, where we can't bear the thought of relinquishing our unsustainable lone superpower status, even if the writing is already on the wall.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Less robust donor response to the Pakistan flood disaster
http://www.npr.org/templates/
Some news sources were observing that the global response to the Pakistan flood is weaker than with the Haiti quake or Indian Ocean tsunami of recent past, even though the current Pakistan disaster is larger and affecting more people in a more strategically important nation. Over 10M have become displaced, and thousands have died (1,500 documented deaths, but the actual number is probably over 10X higher). Within 2 weeks, international donors pledged over $1B for tiny Haiti, but so far Pakistan has only received a $460M pledge from the UN (that hasn't amassed the funds yet), with $50-150M or so coming from the US. Of course the US gives a lot of aid to Pakistan in many forms, and the Obama/Bush admins have tried to boost social and humanitarian aid in order to improve relations and combat extremism (currently to the tune of $7.5B over 5 years). Maybe Washington sees this "opportunity" as a way to score goodwill points with Pakistanis and Muslims after years of bad relations (as was the case with tsunami relief). Plus the more gratitude ordinary Pakistanis have for the US, and the more our aid helps boost their quality of life, the more stable Pakistan and Afghanistan will be, and the safer we will be from Islamic terrorism and loose nukes. So really it's a win-win for all nations, but if the perception among Pakistanis is that the West doesn't care, or is withholding aid as "punishment" for their lack of cooperation in the war on terror (even though Pakistan has suffered greatly from our war), they may come to support us even less.
Some possible explanations for the less robust response to the tragedy:
1) Donor fatigue: more miserable dark-skinned people needing Western assistance is always a bummer.
2) Timing: Haiti and the tsunami both occurred during winter holidays, so maybe there was more good will in our hearts? Pakistan is in August, when Westerners are on holiday, not paying attention to hard news, or getting ready for back-to-school.
3) Location: apparently the flooding (the size of Lebanon) was so bad that it wiped out access to the worst-hit areas, and more may be coming. Only helicopters can get in, which makes it hard for government officials and journalists to document the tragedy and broadcast powerful images to our screens.
4) Politics: Pakistan is associated with terrorism and corruption, especially after the Wikileaks documents release. Maybe this causes us to feel less compassion, even though the victims of the flooding have never harmed and do not want to harm America and our efforts in Afghanistan. They may not love us, but they are not all Taliban sympathizers. However, if the international community and Pakistani government fail to provide even minimal aid to the desperate victims, Islamic groups will step in and fill the void (whether out of charity or for political gains), like in Palestine. Or maybe foreign donors feel like their aid would be wasted on graft or seized by militants, as was the case in Somalia.
5) Global warming denial: like Katrina, African droughts, and Southwest wildfires in the last decade, the Pakistan flood's unprecedented size may lead one to implicate climate change in the disaster. If so, it's damning for Westerners, because the least polluting poor people in equatorial nations tend to suffer the most from global warming, while the human component is mostly due to G20 economies and lifestyles. So the least responsible suffer most. If we don't give generously, to address a problem that may be of our creation, then that is pretty heartless. So maybe it's better to ignore it and be in denial than accept the guilt.
5) Islamophobia: no media sources are willing to acknowledge it, and it's somewhat related to point 4. But look at the Ground Zero mosque debate. Many European nations and the US have a negative impression of Pakistani Muslims, especially after the recent Times Square terror attempt. Yes it's true that we helped Muslim Indonesia a lot after the tsunami, but US-Muslim relations may have been a little warmer then, and Indonesians are the "good Muslims" in our book. Maybe we blame our struggles in Afghanistan on Pakistan (deserved or not), so we feel less about their current plight. This is ridiculous of course, because as I've said Pakistan has sacrificed and suffered for the war on terror much more than most Americans. It's not the people's fault that the ISI is working with the Afghan Taliban.
Monday, May 17, 2010
What caused the Deepwater Horizons to sink?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_
L also informed me of a great "60 Minutes" interview with a Transocean (world's biggest offshore drilling company) Deepwater Horizons worker who was there during the explosion. That rig did the drilling, and another would handle the oil collection. Apparently the DH did already successfully drill the world's deepest well that I mentioned last week (4k feet water + 35k feet rock), and the current well was a "mere" 5k water + 13k rock. Much of the accident is due to BP's reckless, rushed, greedy timeline. In their haste to tap the huge Tiber reserve (since drilling cost BP $1M/day), they drilled too fast and destroyed their first well. That set them back 2 weeks (delaying the job from 21 to 42 days), showing that haste makes waste.
Regarding the blowout preventer (BOP), they ran a test 4 weeks before the accident. There is a giant rubber seal called the annular that closes around the drill pipe and essentially shuts off the well like the washer in your faucet. But during the test, a worker accidentally moved the drill pipe. So it rubbed on the annular while it was fully engaged (like driving with your parking brake engaged), which probably damaged it. Workers on the surface found chunks of rubber coming out of the well later. A damaged annular may skew pressure tests/measurements (and those tests are the main data for drillers to determine whether it's safe or not to let oil in the well), but the manager said it was "no big deal". Also there are 2 electrical control pods that connect the BOP to the surface (1 primary, 1 backup). They lost communication with 1 of them. A later investigation showed that the BOP was also leaking lubricant and had weak battery charge. But rig tests showed full functionality, so they went ahead as planned.
BP and Transocean managers were fighting over how fast to finish the job too. Drillers use a heavy metal-doped fluid nicknamed "mud" to fill the well and keep the pressurized oil from shooting up. But it needs to be removed before the oil can start to be pumped. Halliburton was paid to install a set of concrete plugs along the well to reduce the pressure without mud. One of the plugs wasn't finished yet, but BP ordered Transocean to remove the mud and get rolling. If the mud and third plug were in the well, it's quite possible that the blowout wouldn't have happened. Each of these mistakes may not have been critical, but the sum of the errors led to the catastrophe. Though the terrible part is that it was all human error and human decisions, not really technical failures. But no matter how infallible our tech gets in the future, how can you divorce human frailties from the offshore drilling equation? Laws can't be written to safeguard against every possible circumstance and bad judgment.
Despite all these concerns, they "stayed the course". Just as a crew was flown in to celebrate the rig's record of 7 years without accident, the explosion occurred. Flammable gases from the well probably leaked through the damaged annular and reached the rig, where it was sucked up by the rig's diesel electricity generators and blew them up. 11 people were incinerated and the rig sank soon after.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)