INTERESTING TIMES

Nuclear power sounds like a good idea, until something like this happens. The cleanup process at the Fukushima reactors is slow going and high stakes. Humans must in essence give their lives to save the lives of others, and while this sounds glorious in some military venues I don't think many of us would volunteer. The fuel rods need to be removed, the normal systems for their removal have been destroyed, and a mistake could cause a meltdown that would additionally contaminate the immediate area severely and the planetary atmosphere as well, though at what level it is impossible to know. There is talk, and some movement by those who have the means, away from higher risk areas. The southern hemisphere is likely to be far safer than the northern with regard to radiation for the foreseeable future. What interests me is how few people here in the US seem to care one whit about it. Radiation is invisible, and we already have cancer, so how much worse could it get? And will we continue to sell nuclear reactors around the world for the purpose of powering televisions and washing machines? Is there any movement toward less dangerous low tech solutions? I'm not seeing it.

Last night while at a Sierra Club meeting involving the effort to hasten decommission of the Columbia Generating Station (nuke at Hanford), I started having all manner of thoughts about my book on homeopathy. I brainstormed my intro and some chapter ideas on the same page where I'd taken a few notes about newly understood seismic activity in the Tri-Cities area, the power needed to make fuel rods, the types of nuclear waste storage currently in use, and such. Part of what brought homeopathy to mind was the groupthink in evidence among the meeting attendees. The anti-nuke information being conveyed was at times not even faintly believable, but the group assumed that all present were on board with the effort to eliminate nuclear power from our bevy of power sources.

This morning in my inbox I find an interesting article by Art Markman on the question of what kind of creativity we display while our conscious minds are occupied with something else. It appears that for simple decisions, it's better to think about consciously it, however for complex issues it may be good to be distracted from the direct question. Dijksterhuis and Nordgren presented Unconscious Thought Theory (UTT) in this paper. Another paper by Haiyang Yang et al shows that the duration of unconscious thought has an inverted-U shaped relationship with creativity, suggesting that unconscious thought may outperform conscious for moderate-length deliberations.

So for quick decisions tis best to focus on the matter at hand. For very long and complex deliberations, there might be time for both conscious and unconscious contemplation. And to harness the power of unconscious synthesis thinking, one needs a moderate amount of time in which to do it.

I've heard of UTT before but not by name. I generally have my best ideas while walking, which suggests to me that cross-crawl integration of walking may bring the two brain halves to apply their knowledge to whatever problem is at hand. I've seen the process modeled extensively by television character Dr House. House plays ball, drives bumper cars, or does pranks on his coworkers to distract himself from the burning questions, and allow his unconscious mind to sort out the myriad details of a medical case and arrive at a diagnosis and treatment. People may think that he is goofing off, but in fact it is physical play that brings his most astounding ideas to the fore. He starts with the conscious brainstorming with the help of his team, then goes off to do whatever activity life presents, then returns to the conscious cogitation. The science is beginning to support the use of this technique for creative decisionmaking.

Made by dolphins, whales, people, volcanoes, nukes. Very interesting visuals, mostly camera footage, some explanatory graphics.

I don't believe the powers when they tell me to panic. And I definitely don't believe them when they tell me NOT to panic. I think back to 9/11, when all those people in burning skyscrapers, just hit by airplanes, were told to remain calm and stay at their desks. The ones who decided for themselves that the situation was fubar and ran down the stairs were the ones who survived.

For this Japanese quake and tsunami the media machine has been spewing something constantly. Panic. Don't panic. Nothing to worry about. All under control. Oooops, out of control. Whoopsie.

It's up to us to decide what to do for ourselves.

Japan reportedly to rate nuclear crisis at highest level
By Chico Harlan, Monday, April 11, 9:30 PM

TOKYO — Japanese authorities planned Tuesday to raise their rating of the severity of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear crisis to the highest level on an international scale, equal to that of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, according to the Kyodo news agency.

A level 7 accident, according to the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, is typified by a “major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/japan-to-raise-rating-of-nuclear-crisis-to-highest-level/2011/04/11/AFxrFEND_story.html?wpisrc=nl_natlalert

I got enough responses to my bit about preparing to resist radiation that it occurs to me to wonder, is the media really working so hard to inflame panic? Or are they trying to keep us from panicking so that we will all just go to the mall and buy movie tickets instead of concerning ourselves with radiation? I have no idea what the media is up to, because aside from this outward mental spew I participate in it very little. I do not watch TV. I do catch a few minutes of NPR from time to time, and last I heard was some expert saying that the situation at the plant there has surpassed the level of the Three Mile Island meltdown. That was enough for me to know that radiation has already been emitted. I'm not panicked....but I'm interested. These ARE interesting times. I'm fascinated, in fact, with the homogenaity of the responses I've gotten. So everybody thinks it is a hoax? What is informing you of this certainty? And what makes you so sure you are right? I'll have to wait for my other bit a media---a weekly called The Week---before I will have any more media hype to pass on.

Nice set of NYT opinion pieces here that offer perspective on how Japan's recent earthquake and tsunami experience bear on our situation here in the US. Their nuclear power plants were designed to be OK for up to 8 hours of a power failure, and because of the quake and wave one-two punch, the power outage outlasted the projection. Here in the US our plants are good for 4 hours without power. But how stable is our power grid? Are we really in better shape than Japan for dealing with what may come? Hard to know...and hope we don't have to find out. But if history is any indicator of the future, the one thing we can say is that unpredictable things do happen.

When I drove into Oregon a few days ago I noticed a thick white haze over Pendleton. A day or so later I heard on the NPR news that the widespread haze had blown here from extensive fires burning in Russia. Apparently it's ungodly hot there and the peat bogs are burning. Today I learn that people are getting worried that the burns in Russia are sending radioactive particulates into the air that has been stored in the biomass there since the Chernobyl accident 24 years ago. My goodness.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38648372/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times

Frankly, though, we Americans cannot point too many fingers at other nations who've made contaminating mistakes as long as we are actively engaging in toxic warfare for oil: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html

He makes a good argument for the use of nuclear power to limit the burning of fossil fuels. And he paints the US opposition to this effort as a selfish gambit to keep the world hooked on oil. There's a translation of his speech here.

The latest Sierra Club project to cross my email is a petition to stop anyone from mining the uranium claims that are inside of 5 miles of Grand Canyon. They say it will cause radiation contamination to the river and everyone downstream. They don't mention how polluted the river already is, or the fact that the radioactive materials leak out of the ground with every rainfall. I wonder if there is some new corporate effort to extract the uranium, or if the claims are in private hands. I'm not saying I agree with the Sierra Club--not enough info yet--but here's what they have to say:
( more )