This is a report I prepared for another conference 2030 EST (-0500 UCT)
As far as the state of the core at Fukushima Daiichi
1, at this time NHK
are reporting that the NISA
, Japan's nuclear regulatory authority, have said that a partial meltdown has occurred. However, the most recent NISA press release available in English
[PDF], the IAEA
, and industry sources
make no mention of a meltdown, or as @arclight on twitter
suggests they might
The confusion over the state of the core is perhaps due to the fact that all parties are in agreement that the events at Fukushima Daiichi
1 are an INES Level 4 'Accident with Local Consequences'
. The criteria for this classification are
- People and Environment
- Minor release of radioactive material unlikely to result in implementation of planned countermeasures other than local food controls.
- At least one death from radiation.
- Radiological Barriers and Control
- Fuel melt or damage to fuel resulting in more than 0.1% release of core inventory.
- Release of significant quantities of radioactive material within an installation with a high probability of significant public exposure.
It is unclear at this time whether this event has been classified as INES Level 4 under the
People And Environment
Radiological Barriers and Control
criteria, or both. According to the World Nuclear News
Monitoring of Fukushima Daiichi 1 had previously shown an increase in radiation levels detected near to the unit emerging via routes such as the exhaust stack and the discharge canal. These included caesium-137 and iodine-131, Nisa said, noting that levels began to decrease after some time.
Nevertheless the amount of radiation detected at the site boundary reached 500 microSieverts per hour - exceeding a regulatory limit and triggering another set of emergency precautions. It also meant the incident has been rated at Level 4 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) - an 'accident with local consequences'.
This would seem to indicate that no core melt has occurred, despite reports to the contrary by the NHK and the Nuclear Energy Institute
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the 2010 "Next Iron Chef" competition. I feel that in an effort to make the program more like "American Idol" you have besmirched the honor of Kitchen Stadium and the title of Iron Chef.
I believe that the main mistake made in the Next Iron Chef competition has been the exclusion of the concept of humility from the roster of ideas the chefs were supposed to embody with their dishes. Chef Forgione has the humility to be an Iron Chef, but Chef Canora does not. Either Chef Tsai or Chef Tio would have been a better choice.
The quality of the judging in this year's competition is the worst in the history of the program. Ms. Arpaia should never again appear on any Food Network program, as her lack of culinary seriousness is apparent even to a layman like myself. Mr. Majumdar is similarly unqualified in my opinion, and his inclusion seems more like a stunt than anything else.
I will write Takeshi Kaga, Dr. Yukio Hattori, and Fuji TV to communicate to them the dishonor you have brought upon the name of Kitchen Stadium. I have been a loyal Food Network viewer since you first started airing the original Iron Chef. After watching last weeks episode, I removed both the Next Iron Chef and Iron Chef America from the roster of shows I record. I will never again watch either program.
Your network as a whole has been slipping lately in production staff and management. You have turned your backs on the people who made Food Network what it is today, e.g. Chefs Lagasse and Batali. You're only lying to yourselves if you think that your viewers don't detect your deceptions and fabrications in the pursuit of more money. Everyone knows you've rigged competitions in the past. Everyone saw through the obvious botch job of the White House Iron Chef special. You should endeavor in the future to be honest and heartfelt rather than slick and packaged. We can tell the difference.
Until I have cause to write to you in outrage again, I remain,
Preston A. Rickwood,
Lilburn, Georgia, USA
There are people who dismiss Keith Olbermann's 'Special Comments' as the maudlin, overwrought moralizing of an arrogant, hypocritical man. One presumes such persons would find his Oct. 7th
, 2009 show-length comment concerning insurance reform the height of his arrogance. If you oppose single-payer or hate Keith Olbermann I challenge
you to spend the three-quarters of an hour it will take to watch this video.
The elements of the insurance reform debate are simple. Much simpler than opponents would have one believe. We need a plan and we need to pay for it.
The plan ought to be simple enough: ( Medicare-For-All.Collapse )
"The Story Behind the Story
" by Mark Bowden
from The Atlantic
, October, 2009:
I would describe their approach as post-journalistic. It sees democracy, by definition, as perpetual political battle. The blogger’s role is to help his side. Distortions and inaccuracies, lapses of judgment, the absence of context, all of these things matter only a little, because they are committed by both sides, and tend to come out a wash. Nobody is actually right about anything, no matter how certain they pretend to be. The truth is something that emerges from the cauldron of debate. No, not the truth: victory, because winning is way more important than being right. Power is the highest achievement. There is nothing new about this. But we never used to mistake it for journalism. Today it is rapidly replacing journalism, leading us toward a world where all information is spun, and where all “news” is unapologetically propaganda.cf. The World's Lamest Journal
, "Journalism, Opinions, and Facts"
, posted July 31st
, 2006via MetaFilter
One side doesn't want a penny of their tax money to go to paying for "free" health care for losers who made bad life choices, the chronically lazy, or illegal immigrants. The other doesn't want a penny of their tax money to wind up in the coffers of predatory and inhumanly cynical insurance companies or the pockets of their immoral executives. No proposal currently under consideration can or will satisfy either side. Not to mention one side has a tremendous political upside from torpedoing any reasonable bill that reaches the floor for the next three years.
Therefore, I believe no health insurance reform bill will be passed. Once again politics will triumph over both reason and compassion. All while the needy still die unsuccored and the fortunate wonder what all the fuss is about.