I have eased off on pronouncements on Fukushima over the past year or so. For those of you not following, several reactors went into full meltdown after the town of Fukushima, Japan was hit by a giant tsunami six years ago (the anniversary is coming up).Every indication is that things are getting worse. Reports from various sources indicate that the ionizing radiation output from inside the Reactor 2 building is climbing–output of 520 Sieverts (high enough to disable robots, well beyond the single-figure sievert exposure needed to kill people). And a few years ago, I passed along one of the few factoids that has come out about Fukushima in recent months–that the fuel inside the reactors is gone. That means it’s either melting down through the earth’s core, or it has been blown out or burned up and added to the particulate floating in the air or the ocean. Either way, it’s a potential death sentence for the planet. We don’t have to wait for Arctic Ice meltdown–the radiation unleashed by Fukushima is enough to terminate life in the decade or less it will take for the Arctic Methane Emergency Group’s warned temperature bump.
Here’s a collection of articles on the subject. I trust sources like The Guardian, a bit less so sources like the Natural News website. But the ‘fake news’ conundrum doesn’t apply here–relative to the threat posed by Fukushima’s degenerating reactors (which contrary to MSM bromides have NEVER been stabilized, and probably CAN’T be stabilized), there’s virtually nothing Trump can do short of accessing the nuclear launch codes that would pose as much of an existential threat to the world. In the meantime, you could do worse than keep up with the Rainbow Warriors group and the 311 Fukushima Watchdog group on Facebook–the moderator keeps the nutjob postings to a minimum, and there’s some actual vetting of articles. It’s here. And Here. You might also go to d’un Renard’s wordpress site. He’s one of the people who has been assiduously following what happens in Japan since the beginning, and he’ll be heading to Japan to discuss the real deal on Fukushima. He also runs 311 Fukushima Watchdogs, and he could use your help. . You might drop some coin in his funding.
Anyway, the most interesting/terrifying articles to read as we head towards next Saturday and the sixth anniversary of the worst industrial disaster in history. This may be the disaster (more than NTHE) that drove the late Michael C. Ruppert to suicidal despair (follow the link to listen to his Fukushima episode of ‘Apocalypse, Man’ on Youtube).
I went to an event at the New York Ethical Culture Society last week. Author and Climate scientist James Hansen (and moderator Jeffrey Sachs) were the speakers. The ostensible purpose (according to the web-page):
At this event, Professor Jeffrey Sachs will be discussing the reality and ethical dimension of climate change—including in terms of what New York City can do to align with the Paris Agreement and decarbonize its energy system—with one of the world’s leading climate scientists, Dr. James Hansen. Dr. Hansen, formerly Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is now based at Columbia University’s Earth Institute. He is best known for his testimony on climate change in the 1980s that helped raise awareness on global warming. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and has received numerous awards including the Sophie and Blue Planet Prizes. Dr. Hansen is recognized for speaking truth to power and for outlining actions needed to protect the future of young people and all species on the planet.
Spoiler alert–Hansen and Sachs are advocating that we switch to nuclear power. Seriously. Friends in the NTHE movement have castigated Hansen in the past because he refuses to acknowledge just how desperate the situation is with regard to climate–and nothing he presented on Thursday night would lead anyone to believe that we’re not on the path to doom. But to present nuclear power as salvation for anything (knowing what we know about Fukushima) is lunacy. And it doesn’t take into account the non-catastrophic problems with going nuclear (including lack of uranium fuel and safe ways to dispose of the waste).
As for Jeffrey Sachs, an academic who’s now advising New York Mayor Bill de Blasio on climate friendly use of energy for the city, he seems to still think that we can have a Hydrogen economy, something that has been effectively debunked since 2006 when even George W Bush had to walk back from it. And Sachs was also cheerleading for nuclear. Even if we could fix all the problems with nuclear and make it safer, the reality is that if we decided to start building nuke plants on mass scale, we’d need to bring hundreds of them online before we’d have any discernible effect on fossil fuel-driven global warming.
I should point out that both men were booed for bringing up nuclear. And it was clear from their body language that neither wanted to engage on the issue–Sachs made a cheap comment equating those who were against nuclear power to being the people who were responsible for 10,000 people dying from the effects of fossil fuels (I would’ve liked to see him talk about the estimated 984,000+ who’ve died from Chernobyl as of 2007). Sachs has the ear of many politicians. the fact that he’ll be advising good corporatist Dems on such issues is depressing.
Reviving nuclear power is at best a hail-Mary pass from an industrial civilization that’s probably sealed its own doom. Ask the refugees of Fukushima.