If We Built a Safer Nuclear Reactor, How Would We Know?

[Jim__]

An interesting articles on the decision making process in our society:

...

When I type "Fukushima radiation" into Google, I get a mish-mash of confusing, unhelpful, outdated or sensationalist articles from a random mix of sources, none looking very trustworthy or comforting. Trying to think of a credible source, I visited the website of the National Academy of Sciences; the front-page greeted me with a technical report on Terrorism Spent Nuclear Storage from 2006, and even less helpfully, a study from 2004 recommending everyone living near nuclear power plants should stock up on potassium iodide pills -- exactly what Americans should not do at the moment given that these pills are actually needed in Japan. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website was barely better. There was very good information on radiation but it was not updated to reflect current issues. Reputable news organizations were somewhat more helpful in terms of analyses of the crisis, but were unhelpful to misleading when it came to understanding the actual risks.

This represents a societal epistemological bankruptcy. Epistemology refers to the process by which we know what we know; and currently most of the ways we know about energy issues, about nuclear power, about fossil fuels and about the climate crisis are in a deeper crisis than the reactors in Fukushima. A confluence of developments has meant that a sane conversation on energy issues appears difficult to impossible for our society to manage. Lack of reasonable discussion leads to avoidance of the topic by politicians and the general public, which then means that powerful interests make these decisions almost by fiat -- and this often translates into "carry on as before."

...

To take a concrete example of the dangers of avoiding real discussions about existing problems, let's look at the root cause of the current crisis in Fukushima: loss of water in the spent fuel rod pools. Needing to keep these rods in constantly cycling water is one of the least safe ways to handle spent fuel. There are newer, safer designs, but that would require rebuilding old plants or building new ones, something the public does not want to countenance. Thus, we continue to operate the least-safe designs we have.

...

Currently, the public sphere on these very important, interrelated debates about climate change and energy options is overrun by corporate interests focused on this quarter's earning reports, politicians thinking only one election cycle at a time, and environmentalist groups whose credibility is undermined by their inability or unwillingness to deviate from orthodox scripts and entrenched positions familiar and comfortable for their funders and supporters. The scientific establishment, already under fire from many directions, remains largely sidelined, even though they are likely the most appropriate resource to help us make sense of the complex mix of problems we face.

more ...

[freshwest]

1. The same forces at work have destroyed other societies, only the places and names change.

Jared Diamond explained how people pushed their environment and old models of society to the limit until they hit the point of no return. Generally in response to their ruling class and religion and the world's corporate business model is doing on a planetary scale. The book was 'Collapse: How Societies Choose to Succeed or Fail'. If they had media of a sort, it was likewise clueless because the rulers of their societies ran things according to their version of reality. Anyone who opposed the big message was destroyed. Somedays it feels that way in these debates.

[WingDinger]

2. Because industry would scream socialism, business haters etc.

[buddysmellgood]

3. The same way we know that coal, oil and nat gas plants are safe.

[The2ndWheel]

4. "let's look at the root cause of the current crisis in Fukushima:"

"loss of water in the spent fuel rod"

That's not the root cause.