Reading through a handful of articles all stating the same thing, I
finally decided to go with this one, seeing how well sourced it is
concerning statements. This article takes the rather pessimistic
viewpoint that a nuclear crisis on the scale of the Cuban missile
crisis is imminent.
- Some 400 tons of fuel in that pool could spew out more than 15,000
times as much radiation as was released at Hiroshima.
- Former Ambassador Mitsuhei Murata says full-scale releases from
Fukushima “would destroy the world environment and our
civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the
pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of
human survival.”
If this is true, then the article, written in late september, says
that the official statement is that about 60 days remain before this
Unit 4 will ignite and start a fuel fire. Such a fuel fire would
apparently damn our atmosphere, which in turn ruins the air, the
oceans and the positive effects of the sun, effectively choking the
planet to death. And just to drill it in, in case you have previously
been categorising this issue in your mind as a Japanese issue:
- Chernobyl’s first 1986 fallout reached California within ten days.
Fukushima’s in 2011 arrived in less than a week. A new fuel fire at
Unit 4 would pour out a continuous stream of lethal
radioactive poisons for centuries.
If radiation from Chernobyl in eastern Europe can reach California in
ten days, then compare that with the current issue where we face an
amount 15,000 times greater. It should be clear to you, that this is
a global issue, and should therefore concern you. This is why it is
damaging that the offical story is indeed that it is just a japanese issue.
To broaden this discussion I will point out that this is a very
dangerous way of categorising issues, and at the same time it is
quite resemblant of how issues are indeed categorised. Issues like
these are clearly of global concern, and should therefore not be a
national problem to solve. When an issue concerns more than just one
nation, the nation becomes a hinderance in finding a solution.
National pride and economics are the causes of this, and they pull in
opposing directions. Some market theories unquestionably labels
issues like this as a positive force in the market in that it
provides investment incentive to a large degree. Funneling public
funding into private institutions working to compete for a solution
to the issue. But the mere time frame alone should clarify how
crippling this is to a creative and functional solution. There is a
very good reason why it has come down to this narrow time frame now,
with a crisis that started in 2011. That is the level of thinking
associated with the solution is thoroughly handicapped by the
framework enforced on the debate.
The fault lies in presupposing that every issue that ever enters our
reality is a democratic one. Sometimes precision is needed, which
assumes an undermining of all bureaucracy in order to minimize
collateral damage.
No comments:
Post a Comment