the darkerside to rants

икониFollowing the online “discussions” with regard to the events happening at Fukushima it seems that society is split into two groups, roughly in the middle.

On the one side you have the people who perceive nuclear energy as inherently evil and in essence “we’re all going to die”. On the other hand you have “experts” (I put this in quotation because it is at times hard to assertion the credential of someone online) who perceive the risks as overblown, if I want to step down to their rhetoric I would call them the “reactor hugger group”. The general consensus on this side has changed from: “They are much better engineered than Chernobyl and the Japanese have it all under control.” to “Well, look at how well they were engineered, they survived the earthquake and the tsunami!” or if they wanted to be really fastidious: “If a dam breaks thousands will die too!”

I think both sides have it wrong, but out of different reasons.

Let’s first deal with the con argument here.

Most of the anti-nuclear crowds argument stem from two things:

1. Chernobyl
2. Mushroom Clouds

The Chernobyl comparison is somewhat apt, although only to a certain degree. Yes, a reactor did blow up and spew it’s fuel over a large area and contaminated vast stretches around the world with radiation, but it is also true that the design of the reactor was different. This doesn’t mean that a Chernobyl like event couldn’t happen in any other power plant, but the odds are lower. How much lower? That’s the big question here.

The mushroom cloud on the other hand is completely silly. Granted, it is the symbol for the nuclear age and it is a vivid image at that. But the reality is that there never will be a mushroom cloud over a nuclear reactor unless someone detonates a nuclear bomb at a reactor. The “worst case scenario” is the Chernobyl type disaster where the fissile material gets ejected from the core and spread over a wide area. This would be known as a dirty bomb. You know, the one the US is so afraid of someone could set off in the US.

So what about the proponents?

I think here we have to split them into two groups:

1. Politicians, Internet Commentators, Industry spokes people.
2. Engineers and Scientists.

The first group tends to be either misinformed as much as most of the opponents or has a vested financial interest in keeping the Status quo and downplaying any risk.

The second group though, the engineers, had me scratching my head for a bit as I couldn’t quite figure out why they were so adamant about downplaying the potential risks. It only occurred to me on Sunday that the reasons is rather simple: If you design a technology at one point or the other you have to be convinced that you have done a good job, as close to perfect as possible. Engineering always has worked on these principals, we design something with as many safety ideas in place as we can think off, and then when something goes wrong we go back to the drawing board, identify the point of failure and find a solution from this happening again.

In essence: Engineers need to believe they are Gods of their own creation and they can and will only admit they aren’t when proven otherwise.

This is an inherit human condition: We all live our lives that way, if we wouldn’t we couldn’t get out of bed in the morning out of fear that something bad could happen to us. We get into our cars or walk down the street ignoring the dangers we are in because we realize the odds are stacked in our favour, until they aren’t.

Out of this behaviour comes the rationalization right now in the pro nuclear camp why everything is not bad, but actually rather good: The reactors survived the initial earthquake and tsunami and only later failed.

This is an interesting way to look at the current problem. The reason why we now seem to have at least two melting cores is that the power that is needed to keep the cooling going until we can fully arrest the nuclear reaction has failed. This is a condition that could happen in other places as well, with or without and earthquake and a tsunami.

The engineers and scientists who write their fingers bloody right now with this line of argument on why all the other reactors are safe (no earthquake / no tsunami) fail to understand this though, or rather, they believe in the multiple backups that they have installed at all the other plants. Unfortunately Fukushima did have 300% redundancy as well. In the eternal words of Murphy: What can go wrong, will go wrong.

Yes, nuclear reactors have triple backup for these kinds of events, but cascading failures have happened before, there will always be a risk, we can lower it, but it will always exist and to deny this is doing us all a disservice.

Risk vs. Benefit

Which brings me to the real question that we have to answer when it comes to nuclear power: Are we, as a society and as a species, willing to take the risks with nuclear power? Are the benefits we gain from using it outweighing the risks?

Nuclear technology is still “brand new” in human technology terms. We have steam power for around 200 years, we have the petrol engine for a bit over a hundred and nuclear power is only slightly older than 50 years.

In these 50 years we had Windscale in Britain, Three Mile Island in the US and Chernobyl in the Soviet Union and now, it seems, Fukujima in Japan.

Add to this dozens if not hundreds of smaller accidents and incidents all over the world and you understand that the technology is far from fool proof. We’ve decided to run a marathon before we could really walk.

What’s worse on that count is that whereas with the rupture of a dam we can see the damage right away, in a nuclear disaster we may not know for generations the true cost of the accident.

On the benefit side: Japan could not have become what it is today without the use of nuclear power. China’s growth would be much lower as well. Other places like the US, Europe and Russia also benefited economically greatly from the use of nuclear energy. There is only so much fossil fuel, rivers and landmass that we can use to create electricity after all.

To Nuke or not to Nuke?

What is needed now, globally, is a debate over the use of nuclear for energy generation. This requires homework, by both sides.

The No side needs to educate itself over the real risks that are posed by nuclear power plants. The impression of the mushroom cloud over a power plant is neither realistic nor helpful.

At the same time the group also needs to come up with a list of things they, as a whole, are willing to give up if we remove the nuclear power input, at least until we can (if ever) replace it with an alternative energy source. Just turning them off and continuing as before is not an option.

On the pro nuclear side there needs to be an end to pretending that we have the technology fully under control. Eventually there will be a disaster. No human technology is infallible and honesty from the side of the pro-atom lobby would be more than refreshing.

We also, as a species, need to address what we want to do with all the spent fuel and old reactors. This is something we will have to deal with regardless if we continue using nuclear for energy generation or not. So where are we going to put all that highly radioactive garbage?

This is not a black & white scenario regardless of how either side wants to paint it. Both sides have valid points and both sides also have valid arguments in their support. The question really is: Are we willing to possibly risk future generations for our current prosperity?

I am sure the internet, as always, will be full with “this was 2010” or some such, not to mention the “traditional media”.

So why not?

On the global scale, things that I am aware of but that don’t necessarily directly affect me I would have to say the biggest news was Wikileaks. Not so much because of what they released (or are releasing) as in the way the media and politicians have reacted.

To put it mildly: It was and is a pretty shameful spectacle.

Like or don’t like Julian Assange, but at least the man seems to have principles and stick to them. He also gave Wikileaks a face and that seems to have galled some of the earlier Wikileaks supporters.

The good thing that may come out of it next year is another leak site, if they will be as principled as Wikileaks seems to be under Assange remains to be seen.

But I still wonder how much of an impact this will really on our day to day lives. It seems the internet is split between people who support Wikileaks and it’s mission and those who (mainly) see it as an attack on the United States. Again, I am sure, 2011 will give us more answers to that as media and internet loudmouths will jockey for a new position trying to either take Wikileaks down or support it.
Read more »

Yesterday was “Pride Parade Day” and I got out and shot a few photos.

In general I have to say I found myself rather disappointed this year. It wasn’t a very campy event (not that the previous years were really raunchy) and it seems most of the floats were corporate ones, used to advertise themselves, still a bit mind boggling to watch this whole thing.

The funniest thing must have been the Conservative Party’s “float” though. It was one convertible with the party logo on the side, a guy at the wheel and someone else walking on the side, that’s it. The NDP showed up in force and even the Liberals managed to get a group together, but man, that Conservative attempt to appeal to this group of voters was dead before it started. I found it so sad I didn’t even bother taking a photo.

My general feeling with the event yesterday was that they are hurting badly for money, they had signs everywhere asking for donations for the parade as well as telling people it costs half a million dollars to put it on. Side effect of the economy?

There was a “neat” little story about the VPD intimidating a photographer for the Province to give up his camera. Didn’t take long for Jim Chu to try and… well, “explain” the situation.

My thoughts on this are …. well, rather direct:

I have to say I am a bit disappointed that the photographer caved. If the cop would have gone through with his threat and arrested him it wouldn’t have stuck and it would have made a much more powerful point about the abuse of policing powers.

But hey, let’s face it, if Jim Chu really would want to change the perception of the force I’d have a few ideas:

1. Take the cops out of their cars, when was the last time anyone here had a casual interaction with a cop? Most of the time they only approach you when you have done something wrong or you need them. Hardly ever do you see a normal relationship between the force and the people they are serving.

2. Get rid of these paramilitary type uniforms. The average “beat cop” looks like he’s part of a riot squat, only missing the helmet and club.

3. Stop trying to whitewash police transgression, get rid of the “cops investigating cops” theme that is going on. The VPD reports to the city. Cityhall should set up their own investigation group, even if they their findings won’t be binding (not sure about the law on this one).

4. Lastly: Educate yourself about your rights. The charter trumps whatever a cop may think they can do, and then STAND your ground and don’t just cave in and then whine.

It’s rather simple, I am actually partly waiting for the VPD to do a something like this on me. I am severely pissed at how the police in this Province has been behaving and Jim Chu and his fellow “top cops” don’t do anything to make me feel better. Either the people stand their ground now, or all is going to be lost.

Okay, this is a few days old now and in some way was overtaken by Harper’s acts since then. Still a good rant through and pretty much on the money.

Oh, and here is a little bit that may make you think, you remember, these “backroom deals” that the coalition did are “undemocratic” and a “powergrab” ignoring the “wishes of the voters”. But once upon a time…..

No no, don’t think for a second he was serious back four years ago, only the now matters.

Saw that one on the CBC comments:

Wanted: a conservative platform for the 2008 Federal Election. We weren’t able to get it together for the debates. Early voting started yesterday, and we still have no platform. Does anyone have a platform to spare? If so, please contact 1-866-808-8407 or http://www.conservative.ca.

… at least some in Toronto seem to:

A criminal investigation is underway following more reports of potentially life-threatening vandalism apparently connected to the federal election campaign in Toronto.

At least 32 incidents have been reported since Saturday, the most serious of which involved car brake lines being cut and homes vandalized with political graffiti. Most of the damage seems to have been done to the cars and homes of Liberal supporters in the Toronto riding of St. Paul’s.

By Sunday, Liberal supporters in the riding of Parkdale-High Park were reporting similar incidents.

Police said there was only one connection among all of the cases: all of the victims had signs supporting Liberal candidates on their lawns.

Toronto police say there have been more than 30 reported cases of vandalism — at least 17 involving cars having their brake lines cut.

The obvious dig: “That’s what you call compassionate Conservatives, eh?”

Would you like to know more?