“Some senior engineers at Tokyo Electric Power Co. knew for years that five of its nuclear reactors in Fukushima prefecture had a potentially dangerous design flaw, but the company didn’t fully upgrade them, dooming them to failure when the earthquake hit, a Wall Street Journal examination of the disaster shows.
“The company used two different designs for safeguarding its 10 reactors in Fukushima. When the devastating quake struck on March 11, the five reactors with the newer design withstood the resulting 45-foot tsunami without their vital cooling systems failing. Those reactors shut down safely.
“But the cooling systems failed at four reactors with the older design. Backup diesel generators and electrical-switching equipment were swamped by seawater. As a result, fuel melted down at three reactors and there were explosions at several reactor buildings, culminating in the largest release of radiation since Chernobyl.”
The rest of the article is here.
Filed under: Uncategorized
DUH! I said this immediately after the disaster hit. Now how long will it take before the world leaders, starting with Obama, bury Fukishima but good? I started a group on Facebook, “no Money for Obama until Fukishima is buried but good”
This is specicide, writ big. And Obama has a history of not wanting to panic the people., not at all good in this case.
Douglas,
So you want to bury the good with the bad?
John
I want the world to pay attention to the reality of radiation poisoning that is on-going and much more dangerous than the media and the politicians let on.
They are having a big news story about putting lying, happy spin in 8 emails on Fukishima uncovered by the media in the UK. It’s a big story and a huge embarrassment to Cameron and those involved in government. And TEPCO’s shareholders wished death on TEPCO’s administration 2 days ago. It isn’t pretty…Kate
Truth is that this company took a BIG risk and now it is costing them dearly.
That is how the world of risk should work.
John
Yes, the Japanese nuclear industry took a huge risk and it is costing not only themselves, but Japan and the rest of world dearly.
Of course we all know that businesses are oriented toward making short sighted money. It is only through regulation that the government protects others from them with the longer broader view. Ultimately Fukishima meltdown was a failure of government. Right, John?
Greg,
I don’t know Japanese law well enough to say for sure, but if what Ben points out below is true, then yes the government acting as their backstop would certainly have contributed to their reckless actions.
John
Without government insurance the nuclear industry couldn’t exist. Socialized energy where the companies take the profit and leave the taxpayers to clean up the mess. It works that way in the mining industry as well. Wait the banks did the same thing. I’m beginning to see a pattern here, externalize costs/losses onto the corporate owned government while privatizing the profits along with huge subsides that are used to buy off our representatives. Pretty good deal going on, if you’re big business.
Ben,
I think it could exist, but I agree that having the government protect their back-side is wrong.
Again, if they are responsible for the risks that they take, then they would be more careful. You would for example, NOT put a nuclear plant in a tsunami zone without making sure it could survive a major one.
John
John,
Or a flood zone.
Worth repeating…
“Capitalism will never fail, because it will always have Socialism to bail it out.” ~ Ralph Nader
And worth remembering that Mr. Nader had little understanding of either.
John
That’s certainly not true. What’s certainly true is Ralph Nader > John Stoos, if we must play the ad hominem game…the game the whole family can play.
For the record, just to be fair, Ralph Nader > Ryan Mount. But I’m certainly more handsome and can speak passionately without getting spittle on my lips.
Great quote Ryan, a hero of mine. Ralph Nader has saved more American lives than we can ever comprehend.
Mr. Nader did little more than what a few good lawsuits under strict liability would have accomplished.
Remember, Mr. Tucker wanted to provide lots of safety features LONG before the big three automakers or their friends in Washington wanted to and it was they, ALL of them, who stopped him in his tracks.
There is a big difference between holding capitalist accountable, which is very necessary, and wanting to destroy capitalism because you sincerely believe that a socialist system would work better.
John
John, if the capitalist have bought the politicians in Washington, then blame the capitalists, not the government, as you seem to be doing here.
John,
Nader had the courage and the conviction to take on the power brokers of their day. If we would of had reinforced cockpit doors as were pushed by Nader and consumer advocates in the 70′s and 80′s when all the hijackings were going on 9/11 wouldn’t of happened.
I will repeat my earlier sentiment, Ralph Nader has saved more American and possible global lives than we can comprehend. He is the ultimate patriot.
This is my position on reducing the size of government.
“A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity.”
Ralph Nader
That was just for you John
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/nad0bio-1
Doug,
Can I use that statement? I think it is simple and perfect.
Ben,
I am sure that if I had had the privilege of exchanging thoughts with Mr. Nader on this sort of blog the discussions would have run very close to the ones you and I have. We both would share some important goals, but would have radically different views on how they are achieved.
John
Doug,
I am not saying that corporations or unions that abuse the power of government are without fault, I am merely pointing out that the solution to the problem is too return to limited government so these things cannot happen.
John
John,
As I put on rebanes blog it is the 35,000 lobbyists that are creating the huge government not government creating the lobbyists. These lobbyists get regulations in place, new government departments, and they do this to get tax dollars to fund the private sector.
Public financing of campaigns will slow this process down and allow our legislators to act on our (the people) behalf instead of spending huge amounts of their time grovelling for approval from big money special interests, this includes unions and trial lawyers.
Ben,
There is certainly a bit of the old “which came first the chicken or the egg” in this discussion, but as I always point out to the kids, you won’t have any eggs until you have a pair of chickens.
IF you restrict the government then the money and lobbyists who chase the money that government can spend will have nothing to do. If you go the public finance route, you just make government even bigger and those who have learned to use and benefit from its power will learn to run the right candidates and support them with independent expenditures.
IF the government cannot pick favorites in the market place or give special privileges to one group or another then what is the incentive to spend money on lobbyists?
John
I can agree that corporations MUST be held responsible. But beyond that, we are allowing corporations to assume risks that we all suffer from. When the consequences of those risks are so high, there must be addition preventative measures that We the people enforce.
Those preventative measures are the role of the government representing We the people. When the government fails to enact or enforce those preventative measures, more often than not , it is the influence of those same corporations that led to the failure.
Smaller, weaker government will not improve the situation. It will cut corporations loose to assume greater risks and walk away much of the consequences. There is history of this
We need strong government with loose ties to corporate power to regulate and prevent these disasters and when prevention fails to hold corporations responsible.
Tim,
I can certainly agree that you need “strong” government in the right places: It should begin with the enforcement of contracts and property rights and prosecution of fraud. It should never be for playing favorites.
You bring up a good point about responsibility and I think this falls into the preventing fraud category: A company that wants to operate a nuclear facility that could potentially damage other property and lives far and wide, should be required to show that they have safeguards in place to prevent accidents and the capital available to make restitution if damage does occur.
John
Ben,
PLEASE reread my post: It was government action that drove those small refineries out of business and not the fact that they had big competition. I will again appeal to the basic question I present to the kids: Can you have a monopoly without the force of government?
As to your video, we have had electric cars for many years: They are called golf carts and they have worked very well.
John
I think there is something wrong with the concept of “holding corporations responsible.” WE are the one ones responsible. We are kidding ourselves to think there is any way for capitalist corporations to be responsible.It isn’t in there DNA.
The public must be inside and part of the DNA of these corporations. My father had this job when he was in aerospace. He was the FAA designee at Douglas Aircraft. He kept those bastards honest and the bureaucracy hated him, but as far as I know the DC8 has never had a structural failure. Look what Obama did to GM, a failing corporation threatening to drag down the economy. There is something to be said for government having a seat at the table (without the politics I should add). WE the people, you know.
Greg,
It’s our government who set the rules our corporations have to abide by and since our government has been bought off by these same huge corporations, the rules have been rigged to profit the few at the top in every industry. Big Corps are doing what they are supposed to be doing, increasing profits is the bottom line.
Ben, Do you think rules and holding corporations responsible is viable? I don’t. “Rules are made to be broken.” Corporations are like psychopaths and it doesn’t matter what the law is to them. What they need is a conscience and doesn’t it make sense? They are legal profit making entities with no heart. Why can’t society insert a heart? If an idea at first doesn’t appear absurd, it has no hope. A. Einstein.
Greg,
I think there will always be rule breakers but I think the vast majority of the time if there are incentives that lead our business’s towards a more positive role in our society, they will take it. The negative and positive reinforcement tools our government has is taxation. Create incentives for American made goods with human rights, environmental safeties, and an example of how good business is done.
We are caught in this endless growth game that cannot be sustained so what needs to happen is a collective change in the way we measure success in our society. As Robert Kennedy said http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77IdKFqXbUY
Ben,
What you say here sounds very noble: “The negative and positive reinforcement tools our government has is taxation. Create incentives for American made goods with human rights, environmental safeties, and an example of how good business is done.”
AND it is true: This is real power that any government can have!
However, exercising such power is also what creates those hordes of lobbyists and vast campaign war-chests that you rightly detest.
John
John,
How so? We had these very types of policies from 1940 to the 1980′s and there were less than 500 registered lobbyists in DC. As we changed the incentives towards greed/ keeping money instead of reinvesting the lobbyists have spiked to 35,000 and the middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate. What do the wealthy do with their extra money? They buy politicians, speculate on Wall St effecting global prices, and hoard the money in secret offshore bank accounts instead of recirculating back into our economy. Remember this is extra money they have not all their money.
If someone makes $100 million and spends 2% of it in their daily lives, how does giving them more money help create a healthy nation? We are literally talking about a couple thousand people in America, a fraction of 1% of the population.
Ben,
Because IF you have government making such decisions it will grow: This has been happening for at least a hundred years so it will not be easy to reverse.
It is the government’s job to provided a level playing field with justice and protection of property rights. It is the market’s job to pick winners and losers. It is important to keep those two priorities in their proper place.
Let me give you my favorite example once again since you have environment on your list of priorities: Who supported and lobbied for the “clean gasoline” formulas that gave us MTBE or Ethanol? You guessed it BIG oil, led by ARCO. How could that be one might ask? Well, it turns out that retrofitting refineries to make such formulas was VERY expensive and only the largest of the companies could afford to do so, but it was a great investment because it drove something like seventeen of the smaller refineries out of business.
Too bad because we could use some of those old “gas wars” today!
The moral of the story is that even the best of intentions can be corrupted if you have governments doing things that are better left to others.
John
John,
That is a good example. That is why we need to break up Exxon into 20 different companies. When accumulated capital gets to a point of controlling our government it or taking down our economy as a whole it is too dangerous too exist.
The other moral of your story is what happened to the original fuel for combustible engines, or what happened to the electric car, once again accumulated capital and power had its competitors wiped out because more profits can be made from fossil fuels.
So why does government play favorites, fail to prosecute fraud or enforce contracts? Why does it create regulations for corporate rather than public interests and fail to enforce good regulations on the books?
I believe it is because of powerful corporate influences within our government. Now with no limits on corporate spending in campaigns and the Supreme Court striking down public finance laws, this can only get worse!
John, while I know that you are no fan of unions, the loss of union and increase of corporate campaign funding only further decays the balance of power between labor and corporate interests, shifting the democratic party further into corporate hands.
The shift of so much of the wealth in this country to a small percentage of the population is a sign of these changes, but is also a feedback loop that continues the trend of a weakening middle class.
Tim,
I would argue that BOTH union and business involvement has had a corrupting influence [think Wall Street bail-out on the one hand and public employee pensions on the other]. Passing laws to “cut off” their money or public financing does not help because unless you repeal the 1st Amendment folks can still speak independently.
What is the solution? A return to the founding principles that set up a very limited federal government and lots of checks and balances. I would even go back to having the US Senators representing the state legislatures for a further check on federal power.
This would mean sending much of what is done in Washington back to the states, and in the wiser states, even further down to the local level where there would be more accountability and control. Yes you would have some really good programs and some really bad programs but that was the original vision of the union of states.
John
It is not whether unions or business are good or bad, but rather that they offset each other, balance of power. Our interests typical lay between the two. It is not perfect , but it help maintain wages and provide a more representative government.
We the people are more powerful united. Without federal level regulations on corporate power those regulations will be weaker. Corporation will play the states against one another. Your solution returns to the abuses of the 1880-1890s.
Tim,
Can you be a bit more specific on the abuses that you have in mind?
As with most ages, there were some very good points and some very poor ones.
john
Yes, it had its good points, mostly for the rich. Life for the working class was a very different story. There are plenty of examples, but I do not believe you are interested in examples.
Your playing a rhetorical politcal spin game to push your agenda. Is it your agenda ? Or Mcclintock’s who is a tool for many of those corporation interests.
Your solution is their solution, to centralize corporate power. To ensure the rich get richer. Are you still on his payroll?
Tim,
I think if you read through my posts carefully you will see that I am very much opposed to having only powerful corporations. In fact, the point I try to make over and over again is that they can only exist as we know them today with the help of government. This is why I asked for examples: I think the railroads were similar in the 1800′s.
Here is a question that I ask young people which reveals how much all of this has been thought through: Is it possible to have a monopoly without the assistance of government force?
John
Name a wise state.
Name an unwise state.
What makes a state wise?
What makes a state unwise?
What would a state have to do to regain their wiseness if they became unwise?
If 10 doctors were to analyze a state, would they all agree on that states degree of wiseness?
Chris,
My definition would be those who follow or fail to follow Biblical wisdom. Obviously someone who wanted a homosexual marriage would pick what I would consider an unwise state, but it would not be so in their eyes.
John
John,
Why do you insist on bring the bible into every discussion?
I will quote an excerpt from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush in 1800. He was talking about the biggest threat to our new nation. I separated into the second paragraph the most important passage.
“I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X.Y.Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which,
while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro’ the U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion,
& this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they are men of truth.”
So please leave the bible out of these discussions.
Ben,
That would be like trying to discuss science without any reference to gravity or the 2nd Law: Even if something is not explicitly brought up they are in the background because that is the way the world works. Thus, how can we discuss the issues of life without any reference to the revelation given from the author of that very life?
This does not mean that any of us can claim complete understanding as Jefferson rightly pointed out and I can assure you that were he alive today I would not write or support any lying pamphlets written against him, but would most vigorously challenge his omission of all miracles from the Gospels. I think he would agree that was fair game and in fact he carried out many lengthy such discussions with some of his Christian friends.
John
So, if a state allows gay marriage, they don’t get local control. If they don’t allow gay marriage the BOS & city councils make all the calls. Anything else?
So it’s OK for states to discriminate against a group of people but a potential presidential candidate that grossly and purposely misrepresents history to further a political agenda is suitable for elective office.
Oh & BTW,
who’s making the call on a states wiseness?
Chris,
I don’t think I am communicating what I mean very well here: I do not believe that the federal government should be making decisions about transportation or energy that is not interstate, they should not be involved in welfare, education or healthcare AND they should not be involved in the various social issues.
So you might have some states that leave poor people on the streets to die and others who have effective welfare to work programs and greatly reduce their poor population. You might have some state with cheap electricity produced by coal and natural gas and other states that just have expensive renewable energy. And you might have some state that allow homosexual marriages and some that do not.
You may not agree with those ideas, but I hope it is at least a bit clearer.
John
Great!
But who calls the ball/strike on what is wise?
Chris,
I just read Proverbs chapter one this morning and that would be a great place to start learning how to umpire.
John
This is for those who trust BIG government: Now we know that even bike lanes are just revenue generators, not something to save the planet:
John
Suggest you see a real bike trail, up along twenty, about twenty feet off the roadway. http://www.f;lickr.com/photos/keachie/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/keachie/
One thing Rebane’s blog has over Jeff’s, a preview mode.
That is really a great video. The biggest hazard of the bike lanes are the car doors that open into them. Car doors open randomly into bike lanes by unthinking drivers. He might not have survived if he demonstrated that. Hitting a car door at 15 mph is the equivalent velocity achieved by falling from 7 feet. Very ouch. In Davis they are trying to move the bike travel lane away from car door swing.
I certainly don’t “trust” republicans who represent 1% of the population of the United States. They have and are actively in their pocket….oily crooks, thieves and liars who would like to see the middle-class reduced to third world class and status. They are financial terrorists and bullies quite frankly. Which goes a long way in explaining Obamas “dickitude” when compelled to defend 98% of us to their OWN elected republican leaders–that there have been 19 polls stating Americans want to raise taxes on the top 1%–and that it is unseemly of the republicans to position the president of the United States of America to have to be Head Hostage Negotiator in Chief for 98% of the citizenry. And then, have these same greed and hatemongers come to him on the downlow with their hats in their hands begging for more fed money…like Rick Perry did Yesterday. After Texas was burning down while he visited Vail and Sacramento to shoot hypocrital, gaseous,bullsh%& all over the states with better climates and no flames…Kate
Kate,
I think you need to be careful: You are letting your hypocrisy show again!
Where is President Obama this weekend while the debt crisis looms? When was the last time the Democrats in Washington passed a budget? At least the Democrats here in California rolled up their sleeves and got the job done! [with a bit of help from the Controller holding up those paychecks]
John
“I just read Proverbs chapter one this morning and that would be a great place to start learning how to umpire.”
I believe that’s called “vague and non-responsive”.
Hopefully, you understand by using a subjective term such as “wise” that you have painted yourself into a corner. I will repeat my questions that you have not answered.
Name a wise state.
Name an unwise state.
What makes a state wise?
What makes a state unwise?
What would a state have to do to regain their wiseness if they became unwise?
If 10 doctors were to analyze a state, would they all agree on that states degree of wiseness?
You can’t answer these, can you. Or you could and be raked over the coals here. Give a state who is wise. Give a state who isn’t. Who decides? You gave an example of burning coal as a cheap energy source. Is it wise because it’s cheap? Is it unwise because it’s a pollutant? Step up and make a call.
Chris,
Turning to one of the Wisdom Books from the Scriptures that have molded and shaped most of the civilization that you enjoy today is neither vague nor non-responsive.
If you think that wisdom is subjective, then how would you say anything could be unwise? You could say that your wisdom is different from mine but you have no right to say mine is unwise. Perhaps that is the very point you are trying to make.
If on the other hand we have a communication from the Creator of all that have to live in, then judging whether our actions are wise or unwise is now possible. That is why I pointed to Proverbs one as a starting point.
If you want a more recent answer to your last example about doctors I would again recommend the piece by Dr. Leo Alexander where he pretty much says that if we go your subjective route, it is to the road to medical atrocities.
John
As a self described “Christian-Atheist” (Attempting to be a Christian in spite of the Churches) I fully agree with you, John. The bible is an excellent common ground for the world if we read it thoughtfully.
Greg,
If you want to be challenged to read the Bible “thoughtfully” you might enjoy the book by Peter Leithart that I am currently reading called Deep Exegesis. He also wrote Against Christianity which sounds like it may be where you are at in your thinking.
John