10,000 US Deaths per Year from Coal Power Plants...?

According to this op-ed in the NY Times (March 23rd, 2011) that's what your local coal-fired power plant is doing to our country.  From the article: "From one perspective, nuclear power has been remarkably safe. The 1986 Chernobyl accident will ultimately kill about 10,000 people, mostly from cancer. Coal plants are much deadlier: the fine-particulate air pollution they produce kills about 10,000 people each year in the United States alone. "

This is so bogus and disingenuous that its hard to imagine anyone saying it much less printing it.

I guess the point of this comment is to make us all believe through magical thinking that nuclear power is safe and clean.  Death certificates list things like lung cancer and emphysema - not power plants - leaving magical thinking folks like the author of the article to make concrete and scientific causal connections between the two (not).

The poisonous radiation emitted from Fukushima or Chernobyl doesn't make a nice, nasty image like the one above to rally the troops.  You can't see radiation.  Its invisible, orderless and colorless.  But much more deadly.

(Perhaps I should have place a nice pastoral image from Fukushima there instead - a beautiful Japanese country side - totally uninhabitable for one hundred years due to man-made radiation.  But that wouldn't get your emotions up like the nasty smoke-belching coal stacks above.)

Recently Fukushima has been upgraded from a level 5 nuclear disaster to a level 7 - on par with Chernobyl.

Certainly there are some differences between the two accidents - primarily related to how the nuclear core of each plant failed.  In the case of Chernobyl the core of the reactor was made of graphite (carbon).  When the reactor overheated the graphite caught fire and burned for several days.  This burning created a cloud of nuclear smoke that wafted around the world.

In the case of Fukushima the cores are "largely intact" - whatever than means.  Since the reactors are largely made of metal (steel) they have not melted completely nor will they burn.  However it would appear that the pipes and infrastructure around the cores has largely failed leading to the leaking of highly radioactive water into the environment.  (This to my mind is a truly "fine" distinction.)

As I predicted here with my posts Japan and TEPCO are now conceding that the radioactive run-off is polluting fishing grounds important to Japan.

And meanwhile this clod at the NY Times seems to think that coal fired are just as dangerous.

But let's think about what he is really saying:

First let's imagine that particulate pollution from coal fired plants could actual be directly traced to specific deaths.  Of course it cannot be but through use of magical thinking the author merely has to claim that it is so.

There are hundreds if not a thousand or more coal plants in North America.  For sake of numbers lets just say 1,000.  That means each plant is killing 10 people according to the NY Times.

Now let's compare this to Chernobyl - which was predicted to kill 4,000 people or Fukushima which might kill 10,000.

The difference is that this high death rate is for one plant - not all the plants in North America.

Given that there are 100 nuclear plants in the country the proper number of potential deaths for comparison is 100 x 10,000 or 1,000,000 (one million).

The second point is that if people weren't burning coal for electricity they would instead be burning it for heat, or burning natural gas in their houses for heat, or burning wood or dung like they do in the rest of the world.  Would fewer people die in this kind of world?  No, more would die.  It would be like turning the clock back 100 years when life expectancy and quality of life were much lower than today.

None of this alternate burning would have the current EPA-required scrubbers to remove particulates from the combustion products.  Hence there would be a lot more supposed deaths.

If the local coal fired plant blows up, or a terrorist crashes a jet into it, or its struck by an earth quake, not much is going to happen more than a few hundred yards from the plant.

Using Fukushima as an example, the same type of event would likely render the plant and the surrounding 20 miles a "death zone".  Coal does not give your children cancer (well, if you apply magical thinking it might) unlike radiation which has a causal effect.

Very different indeed.

No, the real truth is that the world needs power - and its going to be made available one way or another.

We can all pretend that nuclear power is a better option because it does not generate green house gases or particulate pollution but I do not see how that is a fair comparison.

Centralizing the burning of coal or natural gas also centralizes the pollution generated as well as any cleanup required.

Countries like China are building both coal and nuclear plants - and we cannot stop them.

Tony Soprano Runs My Government

Of the USA's 2011 budget (approximately $3.83 Trillion with a 'T') dollars about $1.6 Trillion (again with a 'T') is going to be 'borrowed'.

So we here in the USA will borrow about 42% of our annual budget this year.

Does anyone reading this really live by borrowing 42% of their monthly expenses?

Maybe a stupid 18 year old who gets a bunch of credit card offers in the mail and, before learning that there is actually a requirement to pay the money back, goes out and runs up the maximums.  Or maybe some guy on drugs who, rather than rob people, just runs up someone's (theirs or your) credit cards.   

Mobsters (like in the Soprano's) do when they get a hold of other peoples businesses or credit lines and bleed them dry.

No one responsible would act this way.

Increasing your debt by 10% a year - with not even enough real income to cover the interest payments.


Our government is taking about 10% of that in taxes, fees, etc of one sort or another and matching that 10% with the $1.6 Trillion in "borrowing".

The wondrous "budget deal" will save a whopping .9% of the $3.83 Trillion.

If my weekly take home pay was $380 this is like saving $3.80.

The only situation I have ever heard of where someone or something borrows money like this is just before your headed into bankruptcy.  If you are going down the tubes any bankruptcy lawyer worth his salt will tell you not to cut expenses (as you might think if you were responsible) but to go out and borrow as much as you can - so when you hit bankruptcy court your debt is as large as possible relative to your house and car.  That way the judge won't feel bad letting you keep those things and discharging the rest of your debt.  The only one who loses are your creditors.

And now we've borrowed a total of $15 Trillion - the entire USA GDP.  Not to mention the unfunded liabilities in social security, medicare, etc. are about equal to the GDP of the entire planet for one year.

The next fight will be to let us borrow more when we hit the debt ceiling...

What's even sadder is that some report the budget agreement as "good news". 

Its not.

That $3.80 savings on your $380 is nothing - one visit to Starbucks a week for a pumpkin rutabaga fusion latte or a couple of happy meals.  You can easily lose %1 of just about anything and not even notice - like your blood.  Many people lose that much of their brains in accidents and still function normally.

These day's that $3.80 is chump change.

Anyone responsible with a brain knows that in bad times you cut expenses until they are less than you take in.

No one who actually pays taxes would live this way either.

In fact, one I know lives this way...  at least not for long.

Profiting from the Misfortune of Others

 I recently received a series of emails (unrequested spam) - the main point of which appears as the picture associated with this post.

As you can see this is advertising something called Potasidol.  According to the picture we see radiation levels of 3000 rads striking Hawaii and 750 rads striking the west coast of the USA and Mexico.

According to this 3,000 rads is a radiation level at which serious injury can occur, at least in children.

This advertisement, however, is not based on factual happenings in Japan and is instead designed to simply scare you into believing that high levels of radiation is blowing toward the USA right now (I received this email yesterday) so you will buy their iodine pills.

What's worse is the web page clicking on the email brings up this: http://www.antiradiationmedicine.com/.

The idea behind iodine pills in general is that, at least for children, the thyroid can readily absorb radioactive iodine-131 from the environment.  Since your body needs iodine and iodine, being in short supply in most parts of the world, will be taken up from any available dietary source.  Iodine is used by the thyroid and normally the iodine consumed is not radioactive.  However, in a situation where radioactive iodine-131 is present the thyroid will simply absorb that right along with the non-radioactive form (iodine and its radioactive isotopes are not distinguished by our bodies).  Once inside the radioactive iodine emits beta radiation which damages the thyroid.

I have many problems with this type of "trolling for ignorant customers"...

Particularly when the intent is to profit from a specific lack of knowledge about something perceived as frightening and scary to a large portion of the population.

First off, radioactive iodine-131, which has been found in Japan and the US in minute quantities, is only one small part of the radiation danger in nuclear fallout (whether produced by a reactor accident or atomic explosion).  As I have written here there are many other dangerous radioactive elements like cesium and plutonium which can be produced as well.

The levels in the US are so small that taking an airplane trip across the country exposes your body to a larger amount of radiation.

Secondly, radioactive iodine-131 has a half-life of 8 days - which means that it quickly decays - so merely waiting a long period of time - say a few weeks - means that any potential danger diminishes by half each 8 days.  (So if is barely over some limit today in 8 days it will be under that limit.)

Secondly, I could not find any information on the listed site about what's actually in the pills beyond this:

   - Potassium Alginate
   - 100% naturally occuring KI (potassium iodide)
   - Trace amounts of vitamins and minerals, including the full vitamin-B Complex
   - Enzymes to help nutrient absortion

Potassium Alginate is found in seaweed - so my guess is that these pills are basically ground up seaweed.

True iodine pills, designed to prevent radiation damage to the thyroid, have very high levels of KI (Potassium Iodide) and are dangerous to take if not taken in direct response to a radiation incident.  They have very high (130 mg or 65 mg) levels of KI (something like 5,000 times the recommended daily iodine requirement).

Nowhere on the linked ad site could I find anything about how much iodine (or potassium iodide) was actually in these pills.

(For those interested the US CDC says this about iodine, thyroid damage and radiation.)

Now generally I believe that most people in the world get too little iodine and that a good iodine supplement, like a 2.2% Lugol's Solution, will do a good job of correcting the deficiency.  So, if you have children, you need to make sure that they are not iodine deficient in the first place.  If you are not iodine deficient you are less likely to absorb radioactive iodine in the case of a true nuclear emergency.

Third, the site is designed to create the illusion that its some sort of news/health site - I guess to make you feel better about spending $40.00 USD a bottle for seaweed pills.

The bottom line here is that this appears to me to be designed to prey on the ignorance of people about radiation.  My guess is the pills themselves do nothing significant in any case and therefore are basically just a tool to separate a fool from his money.

The Japanese consume the highest levels iodine per capita in the world because of their sea-based diets - which makes them the least likely to absorb radioactive iodine in the first place.

Unless the US government puts out a health warning specifically related to iodine pills I would not take these or any others designed for the purpose of protecting your thyroid.

On the other hand, iodine deficiency is a prevalent condition in most of the US so it could not hurt to take a reasonable iodine supplement like the Lugol's I mentioned above.

Weaponized Intellectual Property

Weaponized Intellectual Property, or WIP, is the latest legal tool to separate you from your money.

In November of last year I wrote "Copyright Trolls" about Righthaven - a company engaged in the mass suing of bloggers who posted copy written snippets from the Las Vegas Journal Review.

The newest scheme (also covered here in Wired) in this new genres of WIP is the low budget "B" movie - in this case "Nude Nuns with Big Guns".  The movie, originally owned by Camelot Distribution Group, is currently owned by Incentive Capital in Utah.

Camelot (and subsequently Incentive) have discovered that this type of movie is often watched by BitTorrent users who share pirated versions of the film over the internet (probably pimply-faced adolescent boys and older ne'er-do-wells living in their parents basements).  Like the RIAA they figure that you are likely to get a small, say $2,000 to $3,000 USD cash settlement from anyone who you can sue for copyright infringement.

So, calculating that maybe six thousand people might have managed to have "Nude Nuns with Big Guns" on their computer as part of a BitTorrent, these companies have whipped up lawsuits seeking the IP address of anyone sharing said movie. This means a haul of around eighteen million dollars for the owners of the film - very likely worth many more times than the film's gross made during its entire distribution to movie theaters and DVDs.

Weaponized Intellectual Property for movies is the brain child of U.S. Copyright Group - a company explicitly formed to profit from lawsuits against downloaders.  Their "settlement" fee, that is the fee whereby they drop their case against you, is typically targeted at around $2,500.00 USD.  This amount was not chosen by accident.  Its the amount of money its likely to cost you to engage a attorney to defend you in the case.

So there you are - lawsuit in one hand which, as in the RIAA cases, could end up costing you $150,000 USD per infringement, i.e., per movie on your hard drive, or pay $2,500 USD.  You call up the local Bar Association who recommends a lawyer.  You call the lawyer and find out that its going to cost you $2,500.00 USD just to get started, i.e., have the first meeting - not to mention the fact that you might still lose the case and owe both the lawyer and U.S. Copyright Group big time.

What do you do?

Pay the settlement of $2,500.00 of course.

But settlement money at this scale, like bloody water drawing sharks, draws more lawyers.

And this racket has not been lost on other lawyers, in particular one Graham Syfert.  According to this article Graham realized that he could create a kit of standard legal forms (Motion to Dismiss, etc.) for $19.95 USD that would put off the copyright hounds - at least for a while and maybe for good.  And for $19.95 USD who wouldn't give it a go...?

While I suppose that he can and does make good money from this Syfert was subsequently sued by the lawyers of US Copyright Group (Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver) because, apparently, the forms work, and cases are being dismissed.  (Apparently no one at Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver likes interlopers in a feeding frenzy...)

When you think about this you realize that its completely and utterly insane.

Soon movie houses will realize that the movies they create as bait for this type of sue-fest will not require anything beyond flashing a few naked boobies (total cost of maybe five thousand - not even a respectable budget for a porn film).  Adolescents and ne'er-do-well's will happily BitTorrent the film and Mommy and Daddy will field the settlement process actions.

One imagines that US Copyright Group carefully studies the ZIP codes of the intended suit recipients to ensure that the per-household income figures are will above six figures - making that $2,500.00 USD payment a no-brainer.  In fact, in a decent, well to do neighborhood, $10K a year is likely a good haul per household - after all, little Jr. is probably quiet and happy in the basement and you could easily spend that same $10K on a hobby or sport (like ice hockey).

Some History of Nuclear Power Accidents

Nuclear reactors have a long and interesting past in the US. 

The first reactor to produce electricity was the Experimental Breeder Reactor 1 (EBT-1) near Arco, Idaho.  Built in 1951 its primary purpose was to demonstrate the nuclear fission could be used to convert uranium to plutonium - hence "breeding" on element from another. 

In December of 1951 the reactor was used to power four 200W light bulbs - the first example of nuclear power generation in the world.

This reactor site is now a historic landmark in the USA.

The EBR-1 was also the site of the development of atomic jet engines.  In the 1950's the Air Force experimented with jet engines that would be powered by nuclear reactors.  This was the era of strategic bombers and the ever impending potential nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union.  The US Air Force kept strategic bombers aloft at all times so that in case of an attack the planes could fly directly to targets in the Soviet Union.

Keeping the airplanes aloft was complex operation because of the logistics of keeping the planes fueled.  Atomic jet engines were viewed as a solution to this problem.  Three different test engines were built, creatively named "Atomic Engine 1" through "Atomic Engine 3".

These engines never flew in actual aircraft.  The Air Force NB-36H was the first aircraft to fly with an air-cooled atomic reactor installed in its bomb bay.  This aircraft was built to test the effects of radiation on the airplane, its parts and components, and on its crew - who sat behind a thick lead and rubber shield.

It was envisioned that the plane would be highly radioactive and would require a special shielded locomotive (on display at the site) to pull the nuclear aircraft from the hanger to the runway and back.  The crew would enter and exit the plane in the hanger through specially shielded ramp ways.

Another historic reactor in Idaho, the SL-1, was the site of the first US reactor deaths.  This reactor, designed as a testing prototype for building small reactors to power remote Army installations, was undergoing maintenance in December, 1960 when a large control rode was withdrawn a little too far.

Within four milliseconds the water contents of the reactor vaporized to steam.  The steam lifted the 26,000 pound reactor vessel nine feet into the air and blew the control rods, valves and other containment shell items into the roof of the containment building.  Three men were killed - not by radiation - but by the impact of the steam pressure and the flying debris.

While not often discussed atomic power has a long history of significant accidents (listed by reactor type):

Light Water

• SL-1
• Millstone 1
• Browns Ferry 1 and 2
• Three Mile Island 2
• Ginna
• Mihama 2
• Chernobyl

Liquid Metal

• EBR-1
• Enrico Fermi

Gas Cooled

• Windscale
• St. Laurent
• Hunterston B
• Hinckley Point B

Heavy Water

• NRX
• Lucens

The accidents listed here include a number of "melted fuel rod" situations not unlike Fukushima - but mostly, save for Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, without such dire consequences.

The concept of building nuclear jet planes might seem foolish or preposterous today - but at the time this was serious, classified government business.  Little was known about the long term effects of nuclear disasters at the time - for example not much is written about what might happen should a nuclear jet crash into a city.

But then again, during this time, things like "air cooled" nuclear reactors were built that simply blew outside air through the nuclear core to cool the reaction.  No one was too concerned about what might happened to those living "downwind".

No doubt those promoting atomic energy today would rather the clueless public remain ignorant of the history of nuclear energy and mans attempts to harness it for power.

Radiation and Seafood - Inconvenient Truth About "Clean Energy"

It strikes me as very odd that no media outlets seem concerned over the consequences of radiation in our environment - almost as if the poisoning of our environment by radioactivity is okay so long as no CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere.

The WSJ today reports that 80 kilometers off the cost of Japan fish are being caught with abnormally high amounts of radiation.  Something I predicted here in "Radiation in Your Seafood" back on March 18th - almost three weeks ago.  TEPCO will be dumping low-level radioactive water into the sea in order to attempt to clean up the highly radioactive water leaking out through the 20 cm crack in the basement of the reactor building.

Now this poisoning of our environment by radioactive materials is far, far more dangerous than CO2.

Why?

Because the results are permanent - at least relative to the lifespan of all the humans and many generations of their descendants.  Iodine 131 has a half life of several days - but all of the other products have much longer half lives - with plutonium in the environment lasting for 24,000 years.

As I pointed out in the "Global Dimwits" post a few days ago (and with the previous post on contrails linked to in my personal blog) things like jets and their measurable effect on the environment are virtually immediate: stop flying jets for a few days and the measurable temperature of the planet changes.

Not so with radiation - like Pandora's Box, once the nuclear vessels are opened up you cannot put the radiation back.

Now if we look back at the BP oil spill in the gulf and we compare our governments response to the effectively permanent pollution of the sea by nuclear energy we see a striking difference.  For example, in the case of BP a six month moratorium on off-shore drilling.  Yet when a reactor built over a fault is damaged by an earthquake we keep right on with our own nuclear program and over-the-fault-built plants (see my previous post "US Nukes and US Geological Faults").

Our government is somehow laboring under the false impression that CO2 and oil pollution of the sea is more dangerous than a leaking reactor.  However,

1) Oil is an organic compound with long and short chain hydrocarbons.  Compounds which can be broken down by bacteria.

2) Oil seepage from the sea floor occurs naturally (see this).

3) CO2 occurs naturally from a variety of sources.

as compared to

1) Plutonium, cesium-137 and iodine-131 exist only in reactors.

2) No life forms can ingest these elements and break them down.

3) Nuclear energy creates a wholly unnatural impact on the environment which is permanent.

The favoring of nuclear energy over other forms of power is completely and utterly insane.

This is also a classic example of "memory hole" from the novel 1984 by George Orwell. Today's news outlets like the Obama Administrations "Clean Energy" policy so things like Fukushima are quickly relegated to footnotes in favor of pro-administration positions.

What fools we are - our children and children's children kept safe from Chinese lead paint on toys like bicycles that they would never put in their mouths while Japanese reactors weep poisons into the sea.

Really - what is more important?

Unfortunately our current educational system turns out idiots who are unable to distinguish objective danger like radiation from subjective danger like CO2.  They are taught only to accept the common "Ministry of Truth" (again see Orwell's 1984) proclamations and "editing of history" as "knowledge" and "fact" and not to examine the situation for themselves.  The media is quietly erasing Fukushima from the news because the inconvenient truth of it spoils the governments view that nuclear energy is safe...

The Needs of the Many Outweight the Needs of Few...

In one of the older Star Trek movies radiation is flooding a portion of the engine room.  To start the engines and save the ship someone has to go into the room, facing certain death from radiation, to start the engines.  Spock tells Kirk "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and enters the room to restart the engines - Spock dies.

There are many contexts today where this is apropos.  For example, the "50" at Fukushima who stayed behind to battle the reactor problems will, like Spock, no doubt face certain death.  But true to Japanese society these men believe that their personal sacrifice is required to advance the needs of Japanese society and so give to their society the ultimate sacrifice.

On the other hand, the classic counter example to this is the following: "During a war a family is in hiding while the opposing forces search their house.  The family has a crying baby.  If the baby cries out the family will surely be discovered and killed.  If they smother the baby their chances of remaining undiscovered are much greater."  What does the family do?

This discussion is also apropos in society today when we consider what society does for the benefit of all.  This occurs at many levels - medical care, taking care of the elderly, and so on.  But it also comes into play at a very fundamental level:  When creating paradigms for screening and triage - what should be done?

Everyone has seen the doctor take a flashlight and shine it into someone's eyes.  Why is this done?  To detect the reaction of the patients pupils to the light - which tells the doctor about the state of your bodies function.

This test is an example of triage - if you react one way to the test the course of subsequent medical events will likely go a different way than if you react a different way.

But all this is fairly straight forward.

On the other hand, what about people who do not react in a normal fashion to the classic forms of triage?  For example, due to some harmless neurological issue your eyes react differently than everyone else - but because you are unconscious you cannot tell the doctor.  Your test goes the wrong way, you receive the wrong treatment and you die.

Who's at fault?

Is this an example of the "needs of the many"?  After all, the neurological test works for most people, but it kills others.

As armchair quarterbacks we can sit back and watch the struggles in Japan as nuclear radiation spreads over the countryside.  Should everyone be evacuated?  This is not possible because many others are still missing or struggling with the aftermath of the earthquake and tidal wave.  Will they be safe doing as the government says "staying home and inside"?  Probably not in the long run as radioactivity will no doubt seep into their houses and contaminate them over the long term.

And what about the safety of those doing the evacuation?  Is it fair to ask them to give up their lives in order to save us?

At the same time defining what's done to only "save the many" - whether its a medical test or an evacuation policy - leaves out the fringes of the bell curve. 

And this is where the really interesting question arise. 

Take medical testing as an example.  Virtually every medical test known to man is not fool proof, i.e., there are always subjects with react differently than the expected norm.  Again, this is a bell curve.  The vast majority respond under the hump of the bell, but there are still "fringers" who do not yet are perfectly normal in every other way.

This means that "standardized" medical treatment will harm some instead of helping.

Is this fair?

Similarly, an evacuation order in Japan for those closest to the plant may do more harm than good - and what amount of harm and to what percentage of the people is the real issue.

Animals have developed a strategy of safety given objective danger: herding.

Are your chances better if you run with the herd and a lion attacks?  On the one hand the lion can only kill one of your brethren (or only you) - so if many are separated from the pack your chances are still good.  On the other hand, herding as in the case of buffalo, makes it easy for hunters with guns to slaughter the entire herd (or flu viruses that kill that are not in the standard "flu shot").  The lion might be able to separate one from the pack, but his chances of success are limited for a variety of reasons.

The individual animal is always free to make its own choice - there is always "safety in numbers" and their is only one lion.

Unfortunately there is no real answer to this, hence the phrase: "damned if you do, damned if you don't".  In the case of Fukushima this is certainly the case and we must not and should not criticize what the Japanese people choose to do - they are not like us and have their own standards for personal and societal sacrifice.

Similarly, we must not work to create artificial "herds" of like-minded individuals in our society, giant "herds of similarly thinking sheople".  Why not you might ask?

Very simply because the wisdom that creates the "herd" - whether it be a group receiving medical treatment, evacuation orders, or virtually anything else - does not behave in a predictable way and no matter how wise you are you cannot predict what the "herd"will do.  "Flu shots" are good example (I wrote about this in "Flu Shots and Magical Thinking").

If there is an earthquake in Manhattan and the power goes out people will walk home in mass groups - perhaps over bridges weakened to the point of failure by the quake.  What does the mayor do?  Normally walking home is safe - but perhaps just not today.

The only safety for humanity I think is that there is a bell curve and that everyone falls in a different place on it:

While there may be "safety in numbers" under the hump of the bell if there isn't a "Spock" (one of the few at the fringes) to restart the engines in the face of insurmountable personal danger the many will surely perish anyway.

When the lion attacks its likely someone will die - either from the lion, or from being trampled by the herd.

There are no guarantees in either case.