“The accident has not been brought under control” ... “a man-made disaster”

[kristopher]

Criticism, doubts greet new Diet panel on nuclear issues
April 09, 2013

THE ASAHI SHIMBUN

The Lower House established a committee to monitor nuclear power administration, but the overtly pro-nuclear panel was immediately criticized as long overdue and doubts were raised about whether it would provide effective oversight.

The Special Committee for Investigation of Nuclear Power Issues was created under the Abe administration following a recommendation from the Diet’s investigation commission on the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

“The accident has not been brought under control,” Kiyoshi Kurokawa, who chaired the now disbanded Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, told the inaugural session of the committee on April 8.

<snip>

In its 641-page final report released in July, the Diet investigation commission defined the nuclear accident as “a man-made disaster,” and called the responsibilities of the government and plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. into question...

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201304090066

[truedelphi]

1. One more rec and this gets a bit more notice. Somebody? n/t

[OnyxCollie]

2. K&R. nt

[skamaria]

3. K&R N/T

[PoliticAverse]

4. Was there someone that actually thought it was 'under control' ? n/t

[FBaggins]

7. I guess it depends on how you define the term

When, for instance, is a forest fire under control?

[kristopher]

8. It isn't a semantic game unless your goal is spinning on behalf of the nuclear industry

"“The accident has not been brought under control,” Kiyoshi Kurokawa, who chaired the now disbanded Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, told the inaugural session of the committee on April 8."

That's a current statement by an undisputed authority on the situation.

[FBaggins]

9. So what's his definition?

Seems like you're the one spinning... again.

[CreekDog]

11. usually within 2 years of it starting

[FBaggins]

13. Exactly

But that's because there isn't anyone looking at ash blowing around and declaring that the fire is out of control.

[CreekDog]

15. ash blows around for two years?

shop shilling and hacking.

really.

for this gig to work you have to maintain at least a shred of credibility and comparing forest fires to Fukushima is quickly removing what little you had left.

[FBaggins]

16. Way to dodge the point

I'm sure nobody noticed.

The question is "what constitutes control?"

The example I gave was forest fires - that are considered "under control" while they're still burning. They don't wait for the forest to recover and green up again.

[CreekDog]

17. right, you're comparing emissions from a damaged nuclear plant to ash

from an extinguished forest fire.

yeah that's bold. up there with the kind of corporate talking points that the NRA, tobacco companies and oil companies would do --in other words, such boldly false comparisons that there must be a lot of money behind the talking points.

but if you want to take your credibility here yet lower, keep it up, it will just make you easier to dismiss later, as if it could get any easier.

[xtraxritical]

5. Between San Onofre and Fukishima I wonder how many rads I'm getting

here in North S.D.

[FBaggins]

6. To how many decimal places?

and over what period of time?

You're going to need a few zeroes.

[xtraxritical]

10. Is this your way of saying "it's inconsequential"?

[FBaggins]

12. It's both

It's "my way" of answering you question... AND of saying "it's inconsequential"... because that's the answer.

[xtraxritical]

14. Well you're the expert, thanks.

[CreekDog]

18. not really

just sayin.