
Official: 'We see the possibility of a meltdown' - stretchwithme
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.quake.nuclear.failure/?hpt=T1
======
chasingsparks
I think catastrophes demonstrate interesting properties of human
communications. All of these reports on imminent meltdown are plausible to
people ignorant of the plant's design and even those who are experts on
nuclear energy . The levels of distrust and recognition that there is probably
noisy communications increase simultaneously.

From a sensationalist viewpoint, the plausibility and terrifying nature of the
consequences are seductive, so these stories are widely read; from the expert
standpoint, seeing a system with so many redundancies in such a wounded state
calls into question just how many things might be going wrong.

At this point, unless your dealing directly with the reactors, your really in
the dark and if your one of these people, you're focused on preventing further
degredation, not managing the message. Even for organisations that do manage
the message based on a team of experts (e.g. nuclear regulatory agencies)
things move at such a frantic pace, things are wrong by the time you say them.

Regardless, it really does show that people like watching car crashes.

------
pyre
It's unfortunate, but not surprising that the headline is 'meltdown a
possibility,' ignoring things like:

    
    
      > "What we have seen is only the slight indication from a monitoring post of
      > cesium and iodine," he said.
    
      > "We have some confidence, to some extent, to make the situation to be
      > stable status," he said. "We actually have very good confidence that we
      > will resolve this."

~~~
scott_s
People who may be held responsible for Very Bad Things tend to downplay the
probability that the bad thing will occur and express confidence that they
have it under control. That an official admits a meltdown is possible _is_ the
most noteworthy thing. When I run what he said through my public-official-
Bayesian-filter, what comes out is "There is a non-trivial chance a meltdown
will occur."

~~~
foobarbazban
This particular official (or his office, honestly) doesn't have much to gain
from downplaying the possibility of a meltdown.

He is part of the regulatory agency, not the plant management. They are
already going to have to revamp all of their regulations with regard to
coolant water pumps (whoever screwed up there, be it someone writing
regulations or an inspector, is already in trouble).

~~~
Klinky
Your second paragraph contradicts itself.

------
Getahobby
This may be a gross understatement but this is going to end very badly and
probably have negative repercussions long term for nuclear energy in this
country.

~~~
jpeterson
Not sure why you're being downvoted. This is a valid concern, and it could
make a very serious impact on our energy strategy for a long time.

~~~
icarus_drowning
Because it isn't certain that it is going to end badly. And because it is
axiomatic that if it does there will be major repercussions on the power
industry.

If it ends well, it might have positive repercussions-- "even in the worst
case, these are still safe" will probably be the line.

------
dreamux
English is almost certainly not this official's native language.
Miscommunication of technical matters/terms is common in these situations.

------
Tycho
Is this the 'ultimate test' for nuclear power? And if so, and if the Japanese
escape unscathed from radiation, will the global anti-nuclear contingent give
credit where credit's due?

~~~
OpieCunningham
And the inverse, if the Japanese don't escape unscathed from radiation, will
the global pro-nuclear contingent become anti-nuclear?

I suspect the answer to both questions is no. Firstly because unscathed is
vague: 0% radiological impact? 3% impact? How much damage is allowed in the
definition of unscathed? Secondly because the true impact will be debated,
challenged and studied for decades. And thirdly because the pro contingent
will insist that with knowledge gained from _this_ failure, we _now_ have
enough knowledge to safely implement nuclear power.

~~~
Tycho
Well I was thinking in terms of 'completely unscathed' as in the failsafes
etc. ultimately did their job and the radiactivity was contained (or kept
within normal operating limits).

If there is 'some' fallout, then of course the debate will rage on
indefinitely. Which is why I did not suggest the converse position that you
put forward.

~~~
OpieCunningham
I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that if there is no fallout, the
anti-nuclear contingent should accept they are basically wrong, but if there
is fallout, the pro-nuclear contingent should continue to fight (i.e. the
debate will rage on)?

Why should one outcome produce a change in behavior from one crowd, but the
opposite outcome should not produce a change in behavior from the opposite
crowd?

~~~
Tycho
If there is 'some' fallout, then it will be on a spectrum which will be
interpreted very subjectively by different groups. However if there is 'no'
fallout, then there is no spectrum, and no room for subjectivity. Those
against nuclear power would have to admit this whole episode is _not_
ammunition for their argument. Until 'the results are in' there will continue
to be a lot of nuclear apocalypse sensationalism, I'd just like to see it
retracted afterwards when/if it turns out to be unfounded. Put another way, we
already know that it's possible to have nuclear accidents, what we don't know
is whether it's possible for nuclear facilities to withstand major disasters
with no such accident occurring. If that's the outcome, then to ignore it
would be sort of like a type 1 error.

~~~
OpieCunningham
I'll put aside the fact that before you had even posted your original comment,
the situation was already at the stage of debatable fallout.

Until the results are in there will also continue to be a lot of nuclear-is-
perfectly-safe sensationalism (in the past hour I saw a couple of them on
CNN). Do you expect and/or hope for retractions on those wildly optimistic
statements by "experts" if there is "some" fallout, as you'd like to see in
the reverse scenario? If so, I suspect you won't get them, though it does not
really appear you'd be looking for them anyway.

Additionally, it's not clear to me why one case where there are no adverse
affects (again, ignoring the fact that there are already adverse affects) is
of monumental importance (a type 1 error), but the numerous cases of historic
failures are not valid considerations in the same degree. Put another way, why
should the hypothetical of a positive outcome of this situation have any more
weight than the negative outcomes of numerous previous situations?

~~~
chc
Anecdotes of how things happened long ago _are_ less relevant than this
incident. With the methodology you're proposing, we'd have to conclude that
modern medicine doesn't work because medicine had such a horrible track record
in the Middle Ages.

Also, "safe" is relative. Walking down the sidewalk in a good neighborhood is
generally considered safe, but it is dangerous relative to sitting in a
fortified bunker. If the impact is several orders of magnitude less than we'd
expect from, say, coal, then we can say this was very safe indeed.

~~~
OpieCunningham
How convenient! If the situation hadn't turned out bad, we could have rejoiced
the safety of nuclear power. Since things did turn out bad, we'll just brush
it aside as ancient technology, nothing to see here, move on.

Except there are numerous "ancient" plants in full operation today. Except
Japan is one of the most organized, efficient and technically advanced
societies on the planet.

Most importantly, you fail to address my actual question: why should nuclear
doom sayers have to recant their concerns in the event they are mistaken but
nuclear cheerleaders do not in the event they are? You and the OP wouldn't
answer that question because you have no logical answer.

~~~
Tycho
We aren't dodging your question, we just think you should be able to grasp the
point without further explanations. Firstly, it's not a true binary choice,
it's not containment vs non-containment - it's containment vs. vastly varying
degrees of non-containment. Secondly, non-containment scenarios will likely
settle nothing (unless we have multiple 'mega-Chernobyls' or something, in
which case then the proponents of nuclear power should admit they were misled)
- the damage caused will be disputed, the value of the damage caused will be
disputed, the appropriateness of the safety plans will be disputed, the
correctness of the emergency operations will be disputed, the analogy to other
plants not at risk from tsunamis/quakes will be disputed, the effectiveness of
newer designs will be disputed, it will just go on forever because there will
be no significant result.

But if the situation blows over without a large number of people being
affected by harmful radiation, if the failsafes work despite multiple
catastrophes (which almost certainly wouldn't threaten most plants), then the
doom sayers really should admit nuclear safety is feasible, if they want to
maintain any integrity.

~~~
OpieCunningham
_the doom sayers really should admit nuclear safety is feasible_

No, they really should not.

Firstly, you've moved the goal posts - now safety should be accepted up until
a "large number of people become affected by harmful radiation". Originally,
your goal posts were set to "Japanese people escape unscathed from radiation".
And I suspect the definition of "large" will shift accordingly so that you can
maintain your view that nuclear plants are safe enough. You had to shift your
goal posts because the glowingly optimistic view from your OP hasn't survived
reality.

Secondly, if that glowingly optimistic view from your OP had actually come to
pass (and now we're operating in a fantasy world), why would anyone consider
it more than anecdotal or luck or a combination of factors that are not easily
quantifiable and therefore hardly reproducible?

And lastly, once again you failed to address the point I have been making.
Your position applies equally to both sides. You can't cherry pick and
maintain any integrity. It's not that I believe failure in this situation is
ultimate proof of the failure of nuclear energy - but it is your OP that
success in this situation is ultimate proof of the success of nuclear energy.
Your premise is wrong, independent of whether your conclusion is wrong (which
I believe it is, but not ultimately because of this situation).

~~~
Tycho
I said 'if the Japanese escape unscathed.' If you're wondering where the
'goalposts' are, it's approximate to disasters that could happen at any other
power plant: ie. workers injured/killed, maybe a few civilians hurt. That
seems objective enough to me when you're comparing the safety of different
power sources.

Obviously there can be no 'ultimate, ultimate proof' unless we get a direct
line to God, but if you're going to be the person standing on top of the hill
saying

'I don't _care_ if you can show nuclear plants can withstand unheard of
earthquakes and tsunamis, I don't _care_ if there's 50 years of further
research and improvement on those standards, I _still_ wont believe nuclear
power is safe. In fact there's pretty much _nothing_ that would sway my
assessment of nuclear safety...'

then I don't see why anyone should take you seriously.

edit: oh, and let's just wait for the clear light of day before we decide what
exactly 'the situation' really is/was. I've seen many conflicting and
retracted reports so far

------
ccarpenterg
Nuclear meltdown: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown>

------
mrleinad
We need the Japanese Miracle, right now..

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Ghost_in_the_Shell#Jap...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Ghost_in_the_Shell#Japan)

