Nuke-U-Lir. It's pronounced "nuke-u-lir"*
There was an article making the rounds on the net this morning.
It was written by Michael Hanlon, who is the Science Editor for the Daily Mail. Saying someone is the SE of the DM is sort of like saying they are the SE of People Magazine or something. I mean... it's read, sure. Known for it's in depth and accurate reporting? Um. No.
So, I was a bit skeptical of the article. I did a cursory search for like minded articles around the net, and everything just kept pointing to Hanlon's article and saying, "hey! ya! THIS!" It was a bit lame, but I flowed and just posted the article on my FB. I figured I could look up stats and/or more articles later.
So. What he basically said (if you didn't follow the link) is that the nuclear side of this is bad, sure. Also, though, the nuclear angle seems to be pushing out the more serious and immediate coverage of the natural disaster tragedy. You know the one. The 9.0 earthquake that shook Japan. The massive tsunamis that followed. Thousands dead, many more missing or injured.
Growing up on the Pacific Rim, earthquakes are one of those things that live in your heart, mind, and gut like a sucker punch being waited on. You know it's coming, your muscles are tensed. All you can do is hope that it doesn't hurt as bad as you imagine it will. Hope that it's not the quake that we've been waiting for. That one's probably a whole other post from me. The earthquakes I lived through, and the earthquakes I feared. One of the homes I lived in was actually directly on top of a tributary to the San Andreas, and I have strong memories of earthquakes as a kid that informed a lot of who I am as a person.
That's not this, though. At least, not mostly. I know that natural disasters are often swept carefully to the periphereal vision in the public mind if there is any man-made detail of the disaster we can focus on. Sort of like the abuse survivor trying to figure out what triggered the abuse so it doesn't happen next time. You know you can't control or avoid the natural disaster, so you have to focus on the parts you can control or avoid. Nuclear disaster has been a bugaboo since the first atomic mushroom cloud mushroomed.
We haven't worked out cold fusion to a satisfactory degree yet. It's our current holy grail for fuel. There's good reason for focusing on the fusion being cold. Go ahead and do some reading on it. It's interesting stuff. We're not as far away as we once thought we were.
In any case. Since we haven't worked out cold fusion, we're mostly left with what we have worked out, namely critical fission. Interesting stuff, too. Go read. You'll be richer for having done so.
I remember the first time I learned about fusion and fission in 3rd grade or so. Like many adults before me, the first thing I flashed to were the words "chain reaction." This led me to learning about entropy and Newton and that led me to all sorts of things. Newton pretty much killed any fears I had for China Syndrome type worries or chain reactions that flashed out the universe.
Shit don't work like that, basically. More importantly, there are and have been natural nuclear fission and fusion reactions throughout the universe. Everything sort of depends on it.
Nevertheless, that childlike fear seems to have lived on in the subconscious and conscious minds of the public at large. I'm not quite sure why. Maybe fear of the unknown?
Fear of the unknown is a bad reason to fear on this one, though. Mostly because it's not unknown. The science isn't even all that difficult to understand.
In any case, as a nation, we've pretty much put nuclear power on the back burner and continued with what we do know. We keep burning coal, oil and natural gas. We're pushing to change our cars from petroleum based engines to electric engines that are charged by being plugged into electric grids that are powered by coal, oil and natural gas. There have been some small movements towards solar and wind power. It's not really all that efficient even yet, though. We know that coal and oil are finite, but we're ignoring that knowledge as best as possible.
We're funding wars and starting wars for control and access to stores of these fossil fuels. Pollution from the aftermath of burning these fossil fuels has caused massive ecological changes, extinctions of species, and health threats throughout the world to humans, plants and animals. It's a footprint of damage that is extensive.
Nuclear power means a smaller footprint. More importantly, actually pursuing cold fusion with anything like the fervor that it deserves would likely net results within the next decade or two.
Even aside from all of that, though, fission reactors have become safer and safer. When accidents happen (as they do in all sectors of the power industry), they are not nearly as scary as they sound.
We picture the mushroom cloud, or a plume. We imagine wasteland for miles. We project cancers, radiation sickness and human desolation.
The reality is both more and less. Like all things.
Our greatest nuclear disaster is Chernobyl. The effects of Chernobyl are far reaching and subtle. Not so subtle? The fifty direct deaths. More subtle? The estimates on how many other deaths are attributable. Anywhere from 4000 to near a million. Some domestic animals. Wildlife. Plantlife. We don't know how much is fully attributable. We know that the statistical number of birth defects and cancers went up. Aside from that we just don't know.
Nothing else has been anywhere near the devastation of Chernobyl. It would be hard for anything to.
At the same time, Japan's current tragedy is pushing our nuclear hysterical fear to a fever pitch when we should be more worried about two things: 1) how to help those who are suffering there now
and 2) how we can continue to develop safer nuclear power.
It's not the time to back off. This isn't a warning that says stop. You can never stop natural disasters. We are not going to weather those disasters, especially, if we use all of our remaining fossil fuels.
*a common quote from Homer Simpson of the Simpsons. And no it isn't.
More reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Disasters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Events_Scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/japan-prompts-us-nuclear-safety_n_837416.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=031811&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily+Brief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12785274
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/18/957606/-MotherShip-#4:-Japan-Nuclear-Disaster
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/13/world/asia/satellite-photos-japan-before-and-after-tsunami.html
http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/rerf_final.pdf
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1367289/Japan-truly-disaster-biblical-scale-right-worry-nuclear-angle.html
It was written by Michael Hanlon, who is the Science Editor for the Daily Mail. Saying someone is the SE of the DM is sort of like saying they are the SE of People Magazine or something. I mean... it's read, sure. Known for it's in depth and accurate reporting? Um. No.
So, I was a bit skeptical of the article. I did a cursory search for like minded articles around the net, and everything just kept pointing to Hanlon's article and saying, "hey! ya! THIS!" It was a bit lame, but I flowed and just posted the article on my FB. I figured I could look up stats and/or more articles later.
So. What he basically said (if you didn't follow the link) is that the nuclear side of this is bad, sure. Also, though, the nuclear angle seems to be pushing out the more serious and immediate coverage of the natural disaster tragedy. You know the one. The 9.0 earthquake that shook Japan. The massive tsunamis that followed. Thousands dead, many more missing or injured.
Growing up on the Pacific Rim, earthquakes are one of those things that live in your heart, mind, and gut like a sucker punch being waited on. You know it's coming, your muscles are tensed. All you can do is hope that it doesn't hurt as bad as you imagine it will. Hope that it's not the quake that we've been waiting for. That one's probably a whole other post from me. The earthquakes I lived through, and the earthquakes I feared. One of the homes I lived in was actually directly on top of a tributary to the San Andreas, and I have strong memories of earthquakes as a kid that informed a lot of who I am as a person.
That's not this, though. At least, not mostly. I know that natural disasters are often swept carefully to the periphereal vision in the public mind if there is any man-made detail of the disaster we can focus on. Sort of like the abuse survivor trying to figure out what triggered the abuse so it doesn't happen next time. You know you can't control or avoid the natural disaster, so you have to focus on the parts you can control or avoid. Nuclear disaster has been a bugaboo since the first atomic mushroom cloud mushroomed.
We haven't worked out cold fusion to a satisfactory degree yet. It's our current holy grail for fuel. There's good reason for focusing on the fusion being cold. Go ahead and do some reading on it. It's interesting stuff. We're not as far away as we once thought we were.
In any case. Since we haven't worked out cold fusion, we're mostly left with what we have worked out, namely critical fission. Interesting stuff, too. Go read. You'll be richer for having done so.
I remember the first time I learned about fusion and fission in 3rd grade or so. Like many adults before me, the first thing I flashed to were the words "chain reaction." This led me to learning about entropy and Newton and that led me to all sorts of things. Newton pretty much killed any fears I had for China Syndrome type worries or chain reactions that flashed out the universe.
Shit don't work like that, basically. More importantly, there are and have been natural nuclear fission and fusion reactions throughout the universe. Everything sort of depends on it.
Nevertheless, that childlike fear seems to have lived on in the subconscious and conscious minds of the public at large. I'm not quite sure why. Maybe fear of the unknown?
Fear of the unknown is a bad reason to fear on this one, though. Mostly because it's not unknown. The science isn't even all that difficult to understand.
In any case, as a nation, we've pretty much put nuclear power on the back burner and continued with what we do know. We keep burning coal, oil and natural gas. We're pushing to change our cars from petroleum based engines to electric engines that are charged by being plugged into electric grids that are powered by coal, oil and natural gas. There have been some small movements towards solar and wind power. It's not really all that efficient even yet, though. We know that coal and oil are finite, but we're ignoring that knowledge as best as possible.
We're funding wars and starting wars for control and access to stores of these fossil fuels. Pollution from the aftermath of burning these fossil fuels has caused massive ecological changes, extinctions of species, and health threats throughout the world to humans, plants and animals. It's a footprint of damage that is extensive.
Nuclear power means a smaller footprint. More importantly, actually pursuing cold fusion with anything like the fervor that it deserves would likely net results within the next decade or two.
Even aside from all of that, though, fission reactors have become safer and safer. When accidents happen (as they do in all sectors of the power industry), they are not nearly as scary as they sound.
We picture the mushroom cloud, or a plume. We imagine wasteland for miles. We project cancers, radiation sickness and human desolation.
The reality is both more and less. Like all things.
Our greatest nuclear disaster is Chernobyl. The effects of Chernobyl are far reaching and subtle. Not so subtle? The fifty direct deaths. More subtle? The estimates on how many other deaths are attributable. Anywhere from 4000 to near a million. Some domestic animals. Wildlife. Plantlife. We don't know how much is fully attributable. We know that the statistical number of birth defects and cancers went up. Aside from that we just don't know.
Nothing else has been anywhere near the devastation of Chernobyl. It would be hard for anything to.
At the same time, Japan's current tragedy is pushing our nuclear hysterical fear to a fever pitch when we should be more worried about two things: 1) how to help those who are suffering there now
and 2) how we can continue to develop safer nuclear power.
It's not the time to back off. This isn't a warning that says stop. You can never stop natural disasters. We are not going to weather those disasters, especially, if we use all of our remaining fossil fuels.
*a common quote from Homer Simpson of the Simpsons. And no it isn't.
More reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Disasters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Events_Scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/japan-prompts-us-nuclear-safety_n_837416.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=031811&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily+Brief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12785274
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/18/957606/-MotherShip-#4:-Japan-Nuclear-Disaster
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/13/world/asia/satellite-photos-japan-before-and-after-tsunami.html
http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/rerf_final.pdf
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1367289/Japan-truly-disaster-biblical-scale-right-worry-nuclear-angle.html