Japanese Government Will Censor Fukushima "Illegal Information"

dgilzz writes "The Japanese government says that the damage caused by earthquakes and by the nuclear accident are being magnified by irresponsible rumors, and the government must take action for the sake of the public good. The project team has begun to send letters of request to such organizations as telephone companies, internet providers, cable television stations, and others, demanding that they take adequate measures based on the guidelines in response to illegal information. The measures include erasing any information from internet sites that the authorities deem harmful to public order and morality."

Comments

they should get together with Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

and Sony.

Seems like...

[folderol]

They just found their copy of 'Censorship 101'

Re:Seems like...

[camperslo]

Their not involving people as much as they could goes beyond the foreign media and bloggers not being let into press conferences.

"Japan nuclear commission fails to send experts to Fukushima

TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan has failed to send designated experts to Fukushima Prefecture to look into the crisis at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant even though a national disaster-preparedness plan requires it to do so, many of the experts said Saturday.

A commission spokesperson said problems following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami such as blackouts had discouraged it from sending any experts to Fukushima Prefecture, but many of the specialists and government officials questioned the claim.

The commission designates 40 nuclear accident experts including university professors and senior officials of relevant institutions as well as five others as members of its panel on emergency technical advice.

The disaster plan requires the commission to dispatch members of the panel to a location near an accident site.
(follow link for the whole story)

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110417p2g00m0dm009000c.html

They're looking into "the flow of retiring ministry officials to senior positions at the country's electric companies"

It seems like Japan isn't the only country that needs to prevent regulators from later taking jobs with the companies they were supposed to be tough with. They shouldn't be allowed to be paid lobbyists either.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/news/20110419p2a00m0na012000c.html

To a great extent democracies depend on the media to put corporations and government in the spotlight for the public good. Reporters shouldn't be going to work for those they are reporting on.

But KSBY the NBC affiliate in San Luis Obispo county in California, home of the Diablo Canyon 2-unit power plant, has over the years had several of the newscasters hired by the utility P.G.& E. as PR people (including the one currently seen). KSBY is the only full power English speaking station in the county. Their reporting is very brief and lacks technical depth. They don't seem to do things like research NRC reports, mostly going . Although run by the same utility company, when the NTSB was starting hearings about the San Bruno gas pipeline explosion, all it got was a 20 second mention (Charlie Sheen got over 3 minutes the same day).
No details of the streamed hearings or mention anything from the related documents documents (on the NTSB site) was broadcast. They say the plants says it can handle a tsunami, but didn't mention that three of the plants radiation monitors were taken out by "heavy rain". There is talk about more earthquake studies, but no mention of a local tsunami in 1812. Nice people at the station, but should they be allowed to work for things like the power plant? Are they doing all that's needed in "Americas' Happiest City"? (in fairness, smaller market t.v. has a lot of other competition for a slice of a fairly small pie. No doubt resources are limited. They let a well liked newscaster go to cut costs.)

"On December 21, 1812, one of the largest earthquakes in California history completely destroyed the first Mission along with most of Santa Barbara. With an estimated magnitude of 7.2, and a hypothesized epicenter near Santa Cruz Island, the quake also produced a tsunami which carried water all the way to modern-day Anapamu Street, and carried a ship a half-mile up Refugio Canyon."
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/History_of_Santa_Barbara,_California
LA Times article on tsunami (pdf)
http://www.usc.edu/

Good luck with that!

[Anonymous Coward]

The measures include erasing any information from internet sites that the authorities deem harmful to public order and morality.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah! Ha! Ha!

And HA!

Buy, do they have a supplies coming to them!

Re:Good luck with that!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note that Japan's internet infrastructure is very localized, they don't have very much bandwidth to the rest of the world, compared to their national connections. There isn't much need for that either, no reason for the general internet using public to use non-local services. Of course that means that even though technically, their censoring won't be 100% effective, it's still close enough.

Re:Good luck with that!

[cheeks5965]

Buy, do they have a supplies coming to them!

nothing like a lame ethnic joke to cap off a post. Way to bring home your point!

Re:Good luck with that!

[Opportunist]

I was just thinking "huh? Did they hire Barbara as information security consultant?"

You free speech defenders

[trifish]

Next time someone makes fun by shouting authentically "Fire! Fire! Run!" in a theater or some other 'suitable' place, and your relatives die there having been crushed by the panicking crowd trying to get out, maybe then you'll remember that there are certain situations where Freedom of Speech is limited, and rightfully so, precisely to prevent panic and to save lives.

BTW, the above behavior is illegal in the EU (spreading false alarms) -- don't know about the US. This seems to be the case in Japan too.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Anonymous Coward]

The fear for me is not that they will be censoring people who say stupid things like nuclear clouds will kill us all, or that there will be a massive melt down that will destroy Tokyo. It is more so in that they might start deeming criticism of the handling of the situation as inspiring fear and want that censored. I don't think that Japan will do this, but only time will tell.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Anonymous Coward]

You really have no idea what free speech is, do you? Nice troll.

Re:You free speech defenders

[ColdWetDog]

Next time someone makes fun by shouting authentically "Fire! Fire! Run!" in a theater or some other 'suitable' place, and your relatives die there having been crushed by the panicking crowd trying to get out, maybe then you'll remember that there are certain situations where Freedom of Speech is limited, and rightfully so, precisely to prevent panic and to save lives.

BTW, the above behavior is illegal in the EU (spreading false alarms) -- don't know about the US. This seems to be the case in Japan too.

True enough, but even the most idiotic, hyperbolic rant on the Internet doesn't equate to yelling "fire" in a theater. Otherwise most of the garbage that passes for "news" in the US would end up yielding criminal charges. The Japanese government (or whatever subset is responsible for this) just doesn't get the Internet. They should go back to being to not being responsible for Gundam.

Re:You free speech defenders

[MightyMartian]

The problem here, to my mind, is that you have a government that has been heavily criticized both inside Japan and by outside experts and international agencies for withholding information and disseminating inaccurate information, who will now proclaim itself the arbiter of the reliability of information being transmitted by others. This likely means that such censorship will not be used to make sure only accurate information is disseminated, but rather to make sure that only information favorable to the government is being disseminated. In other words, the results will be the exact opposite of the stated aims.

I can see the point of laws against spreading false rumors, and I assume in most cases a judge will be making that determination. In this case it distinctly sounds like the government itself will be deciding, and this was a government under fire prior to the natural disaster. It has everything to gain by making sure accurate information about its ineptitude cannot be spread.

Beyond that, it cannot hope to accomplish what its stated goal is. Japan is one of the most wired nations on the planet, and its citizens know perfectly well how to surf and find foreign sites that will disseminate this fearful information. It's a knee jerk reaction by a faltering government.

Re:You free speech defenders

[hedwards]

You're an idiot. Yelling fire in a theater when you know that not to be the case is a completely different situation than what the Japanese authorities are trying to clamp down on. In this case the authorities have been caught spreading their own incorrect information and this move is just a way of them curtailing legitimate discussion.

I take it that you haven't noticed that the information that's been provided has been wildly inaccurate and getting worse over time.

Re:You free speech defenders

[siddesu]

Comparing the right of the public to information with crying "Fire" in a theater plainly shows you have no idea what you're talking about. That is especially true for Japan -- a country whose government has a history of covering up industrial disasters (look up Minamata, for example), and whose nuclear industry is practically unanswerable to anyone.

Just last week TEPCO was outed to have ordered subcontractors at the Fukushima-1 site not to record exposures over the legal minimum. Helping these people to cover up information further instead of sending them to jail is a disgrace.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Vektuz]

Except that in the USA that kind of limitation has a very specific life-and-limb type of specification. "Harming the public order" etc is VERY nebulous and can be interpreted by those in power as anything which harms THEIR order.

Re:You free speech defenders

[rubycodez]

wildly inaccurate? Seems to me TEPCO and the japanese government have been the biggest offenders as later reality proves their lies: "don't need an exclusion zone, just stay indoors and you'll be fine"

"no fuel has melted

"the rods in the spent fuel pool aren't uncovered"

"containment hasn't been breached"

Re:You free speech defenders

[siddesu]

Doh. Legal MAXIMUM, of course.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Senes]

This isn't about people who create a false panic; it's about people who expose deadly wrongdoings. They're not going to stop that 4chan image saying dangerous fallout is raining on California. They ARE going to stop rational discourse over negligence and mismanagement. The government is looking bad in this situation; they want to 'solve' this 'problem' the only way they know how - with force.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Hazel Bergeron]

It's getting tiresome to hear this example. The right to falsely "shout fire in a crowded theat[er]" principle is upheld in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the only legitimate restriction to free speech considered that which might incite a riot before the police could arrive.

Have you even thought about the implications of making myself responsible for the outcome of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre? It means that any alert I make results in my becoming responsible both for the actions and the environment of people who respond to my alert. Consider my saying, "The government is sending troops to an illegitimate war!"

Now imagine someone reads into that, "The government must be stopped!" (You must get out of the theatre.)

And then, "The government must be stopped by force!" (You must get out of the theatre by force.)

And then, "The representatives of government must be stopped by force!" (You must get out of the theatre by force against other people.)

And then, "The representatives of government must be killed!" (You must get out of the theatre by hurting people.)

For saying something bad is happening in government, even if I am wrong, I'm suddenly responsible for potentially influencing someone to kill some member of the government.

Free speech must include the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Re:You free speech defenders

[stumblingblock]

But is there no moral or ethical consequences of NOT shouting fire in a theatre, when you know there is one? Which is more insidious?

Re:You free speech defenders

[gweihir]

Next time someone makes fun by shouting authentically "Fire! Fire! Run!" in a theater or some other 'suitable' place, and your relatives die there having been crushed by the panicking crowd trying to get out, maybe then you'll remember that there are certain situations where Freedom of Speech is limited, and rightfully so, precisely to prevent panic and to save lives.

BTW, the above behavior is illegal in the EU (spreading false alarms) -- don't know about the US. This seems to be the case in Japan too.

The problem here is that there actually _is_ a fire in the theater and the fire warning system has been turned off by unscrupulous profiteers (Tepco) and the sprinkler system (working and sufficiently redundant emergency cooling) has never been implemented to save money. Under those circumstances it becomes criminal (or at least severely malicious) to not yell "fire". The few crushed people are still better than a large number of burnt to death people.

In reality, Japanese officials already have caused a few 10'000 cancer deaths beyond what was unavoidable. The increased allowable dosage for Children (who are hugely vulnerable to radiation) is just the last batch of randomized death sentences they are implementing.

Re:You free speech defenders

[MoonBuggy]

Y'know all those people in China who disappear for pissing off the state? That tends to be justified under censorship legislation using nebulous terms such as "harmful to public order and morality". The government are there to keep order, after all, and if you're speaking against the government, then you must be disrupting public order. Or so the horrifically oppressive reasoning goes.

Re:You free speech defenders

[GIL_Dude]

Agreed 100%. I'd add that there is one of those slippery slopes between honest difference of opinion and people spreading intentionally false or misguided (uninformed) information. Obviously even experts in the field differ between themselves on some of the details. It would be chilling to see only the "government version" of the 'truth' be available. Honestly, I don't know how someone entrusted as the 'censor' is supposed to tell the difference unless they themselves are also an expert on all things nuclear.

Re:You free speech defenders

[whereiswaldo]

Personally, I wouldn't be waiting for the government to tell me to move far, far away from a nuclear disaster site. Use whatever level of precaution you see fit.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Anonymous Coward]

"Free speech" in US too excludes the right to shout "fire" in a crowded cinema hall. Perhaps you can educate us on what free speech means.

Re:You free speech defenders

[DamonHD]

It is still exceedingly unlikely that even *one* extra cancer death will be attributable to Fukushima.

To the best of my understanding there are habitable towns throughout the world whose background radiation levels are higher than anything yet encountered outside the Fukushima plant boundaries.

Rgds

Damon

Re:You free speech defenders

[CrimsonAvenger]

In reality, Japanese officials already have caused a few 10'000 cancer deaths beyond what was unavoidable

Citation?

Re:You free speech defenders

[SharpFang]

There's also information that while true, is formulated in a falsely alarmist way.

Like, true fact coming from authoritative measurements: the Iodine-131 levels in Poland have risen some 1000-2000 times above their usual level.
Conveniently omitted fact: that's still about 500-1000 times less than levels causing any measurable increase of risk of thyroid cancer.

Re:You free speech defenders

[MoonBuggy]

In reality, Japanese officials already have caused a few 10'000 cancer deaths beyond what was unavoidable.

Reasonable estimates don't put the total extra cancer death toll due to Chernobyl at more than 1000, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that your figure of 10,000 is either totally fabricated or based on faulty assumptions.

I'm not saying Tepco have necessarily behaved reasonably, and I'd hate to see them unnecessarily muddying the reputation of nuclear power further, but that doesn't justify totally spurious accusations against them.

By the way, if you do happen to have a reputably sourced paper (free of any glaring omissions or logical errors) with that 10,000 deaths figure stated as a realistic scenario, I will quite willingly eat my hat.

Re:You free speech defenders

[MacGyver2210]

When sites claim Face-melting radiation levels and contamination of food to attack competitors in Fukushima, or to intentionally undermine Japan and its economy, it's equally as bad as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. It may not have as immediate of effect, but in the long run the impact would be even higher.

The fact is, unless you're within 6 or so blocks(not counting the ocean) of the Fukushima plant, there is no dangerous level of radiation. Not in the plants, not in the animals, not at all.

Shouting "Radiation!" is no less bad than shouting "Fire!".

Re:You free speech defenders

[ENIGMAwastaken]

This is just false. The only time this example is mentioned in that ruling is in Douglas' concurring opinion where he writes:

"The line between what is permissible and not subject to control and what may be made impermissible and subject to regulation is the line between ideas and overt acts.

The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre.

This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 536-537 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). They are indeed inseparable, and a prosecution can be launched for the overt [p457] acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. Certainly there is no constitutional line between advocacy of abstract ideas, as in Yates, and advocacy of political action, as in Scales. The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of the conviction, and government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience. [n3]"

What he says is that speech and action are inseparable in the case of of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre, meaning that such an action is prosecutable.

So in short, you're totally wrong.

Re:You free speech defenders

[BlueParrot]

Sure, but background radiation, and especially radon exposure, is generally accepted as causing numerous cancer deaths. Increasing the radiation received thus causes more cancer cases than would otherwise occur. That something exists in nature does not make it all nice and dandy. The only reason we're not doing more to limit background radiation is that it is completely impractical trying to do so. When it comes to nuclear plants it is quite practical to prevent events like Fukushima, but Japan's industry and regulatory framework is absolutely rotten. Japan also appears to have a bit of a cultural thing against admitting mistakes, as failure is seen as shameful, so cover-ups are preferred to actually fixing things, even when it would be in a company's self interest to do the latter.

I very much do believe nuclear power can be done safely, but like so many other industries it relies on actually having effective and transparent government regulation. The same applies to pharmaceuticals, food production, transportation and so on. The free market is useful for setting prices and basic resource allocation, but it will not magically create safety and environmental regulations and ensure that they are followed. You need a transparent government with a spine to do that.

Re:You free speech defenders

[LordLimecat]

The difference is that you could have no reasonable expectation that saying "the government is doing bad things" would directly, in itself, be responsible for pushing someone to commit a murder. Any 10 year old could understand that yelling fire or pulling a fire alarm in a crowded theatre has a moderate risk of causing a dangerous stampede.

By your logic, you could never be prosecuted for leaving valuables in plain sight near a window and rigging up a lethal trap on any would be robbers. I mean, you didnt TELL someone to try to break in, so you cant be responsible for their death right? Except that there are very few states where you could even hope to get away with that; any reasonable person would understand that such a scenario is likely to lead to someone's death.

Finally, and most emphatically, the case Brandenburg v Ohio did NOT uphold "shouting fire in a crowded theatre". In fact, the court SPECIFICALLY stated that that is one of the exceptions to free speech (last paragraph) -- to quote (from the actual case):

The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre. This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. [...] They are indeed inseparable, and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused.

And further, in an earlier supreme court ruling, we have this gem--

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

So your logic is wrong, and the courts seem to disagree. Using speech that is likely and can reasonably be understood to cause riots or dangerous situations is NOT protected in our law books, and I really doubt you would like living in a country where that was not the case.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Hazel Bergeron]

(1) Prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused - Douglas is providing an exception to immunity for actual consequences of the speech, while Japan is trying to make the speech itself illegal;

(2) Concurring opinions are not majority opinions, so are not binding precedent.

Try again.

Re:You free speech defenders

[snowgirl]

Next time someone makes fun by shouting authentically "Fire! Fire! Run!" in a theater or some other 'suitable' place, and your relatives die there having been crushed by the panicking crowd trying to get out, maybe then you'll remember that there are certain situations where Freedom of Speech is limited, and rightfully so, precisely to prevent panic and to save lives.

Except that Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) overturned Schenck v. United States (1917), and holds that falsely shouting "Fire" in a theater cannot be restricted alone for presenting a "clear and present danger", and setting the now current and much higher bar that the speech has to provoke "imminent lawless action".

So, basically, in the US, you can falsely shout fire in a theater without committing an illegal act... (I do not however recommend it, as civil liability for wrongful death can be harsh... unless you're OJ Simpson...)

Re:You free speech defenders

[snowgirl]

.... correction, "without committing an illegal act" should read "without committing a CRIMINAL act."

Re:You free speech defenders

[Renraku]

I guess those few guys that died from radiation poisoning for 'getting a quick look' don't count as cancer deaths, since they technically died from radiation poisoning.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Mindcontrolled]

Give it up. You are dealing with liars, scum and their apologists. Nuclear power is the holy grail, so nothing CAN GO WRONG, EVER! Even if they have to falsify every record. The fanclub is even more disgusting that TEPCO, tbh.

Re:You free speech defenders

[LordLimecat]

Some of the stuff being reported on the news is true. Most of it is bogus scaremongering.

I dont think that the US could get away with this kind of censorship, because there is very little risk of someone being injured directly from this irresponsible reporting. It may do long term harm in various ways, but our media does have that freedom.

However, just because the Japanese govt may be wrong in the actions it takes, its concern is very valid-- all of this frothing-mouthed reporting does very little good, and increases the ignorance of the populace in general.

Re:You free speech defenders

[gweihir]

Sure, statistical death projections do not give you direct cause-death relationships. But that is just putting your head in the sand. Or a way to lie with statistics. Incidentally this fact is used by the nuclear industry to deny compensation to the people it kills, since each one could have been killed by other radiation or other cancer causing effects. If you look at larger numbers though, the relation is striking and undeniable.

Re:You free speech defenders

[JD770]

And if I grab a street corner in a nearby village and start announcing that the radiation has been contained and the plant is hiring laborers for clean-up efforts at $attractive/hour and applications will only be accepted in person at the plant by noon next Wednesday?

Though not all will take the bait, some might rush to the plant and contaminate themselves. Do I shoulder any responsibility for what may occur beyond their stupidity & gullibility? Could I (should I) get away with claiming freedom of speech?

Re:You free speech defenders

[snowgirl]

True enough, but even the most idiotic, hyperbolic rant on the Internet doesn't equate to yelling "fire" in a theater. Otherwise most of the garbage that passes for "news" in the US would end up yielding criminal charges. The Japanese government (or whatever subset is responsible for this) just doesn't get the Internet. They should go back to being to not being responsible for Gundam.

Speech that presents a "clear and present danger" (like falsely yelling "fire" in a theater) hasn't been criminally illegal in the US since Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1989...

Re:You free speech defenders

[Lazareth]

Freedom of speech is, roughly speaking, the freedom to express your opinions without fear of retribution or censor. This does not inherently include "freedom to deceive" or "freedom to threaten". You can use your freedom of speech to advocate more freedom to threaten people or scare them, but good luck convincing society at large to implement it. You cannot use your freedom of speech to threaten people, that will land you in jail or with a fine.

Nations implement freedom of speech to varying degrees. For example, some would consider freedom of speech to include freedom to blasphemer and provocate. Indeed, if you think some guy is a huge dickwat, isn't that an opinion you're allowed to voice often and openly? Others view this as an attack and therefore outlaw it. Most often in cases where you offend somebody, the line is drawn depending on how well founded your opinion is. Well founded criticism is therefore not viewed as an attack, even if the end result is calling somebody an embezzling incompetent.

Hope it makes sense.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Mindcontrolled]

You talking bout the cesium levels that exceed dose-rates that even the soviets, known for their care for the fellow citizen, decided to be high enough to evacuate, 30km from the plant? Hey, go on, take a vacation there and rid us of your stupidity please. The mods getting this to +3 may follow accordingly.

Re:You free speech defenders

[gweihir]

1000 for Chernobyl is totally bogus, even the WHO is currently at 9000. In addition, of the liquidators (not contained in the 9k number), 66'000 are now dead and 160'000 are permanently disabled.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Mindcontrolled]

Background radiation does not equal contamination by volatile nucleids that are readily ingested.

Re:You free speech defenders

[westlake]

To the best of my understanding there are habitable towns throughout the world whose background radiation levels are higher than anything yet encountered outside the Fukushima plant boundaries.

What you haven't told us is the death rate from cancer in these "habitable" towns.

Re:You free speech defenders

[MightyYar]

Honestly, I don't know how someone entrusted as the 'censor' is supposed to tell the difference unless they themselves are also an expert on all things nuclear.

As long as there is an independent judiciary, and as long as the person gets a fair trial, this is pretty much the fairest way to balance free speech and the public interest.

Re:You free speech defenders

[siddesu]

Reasonable estimates don't put the total extra cancer death toll due to Chernobyl at more than 1000, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that your figure of 10,000 is either totally fabricated or based on faulty assumptions.

Conservative estimates put the total death toll due to Chernobyl at a lot more than 1000. See, for example, this paper , which estimates the death toll in Europe, excluding some of the damaged zones, at more than 10 times your number, and mentions a number of difficulties in establishing the actual toll, the biggest being nobody counting long-term. The comment in the paper on the lack of research on the long-term exposure to low doses is also quite informative.

Re:You free speech defenders

[MightyYar]

Which Soviets? The "lets keep this whole thing quiet so the West doesn't find out" Soviets that threw workers at the fire without telling them about the radiation, or the "well, now the West knows about the disaster so lets be super-safe to show how much we care" Soviets?

Re:You free speech defenders

[Sensiblemonkey]

I guess those few guys that died from radiation poisoning for 'getting a quick look' don't count as cancer deaths, since they technically died from radiation poisoning.

Died? Citation from a reputable news source please.

Re:You free speech defenders

[DamonHD]

Such as Glasgow (Scotland) or Truro (Cornwall)? I don't know, it'll be in an NHS publication somewhere. It doesn't seem to be a dominant risk though according to here:

http://ukradon.org/article.php?key=risksradon

"Radon causes over 1,100 cases of lung cancer each year in the UK" so that will be including those hotspots (where incidentally a new nuke could not be built because it would fail the radiation limits without doing anything at all).

Rgds

Damon

Re:You free speech defenders

[Hazel Bergeron]

The difference is that you could have no reasonable expectation that saying "the government is doing bad things" would directly, in itself, be responsible for pushing someone to commit a murder.

In itself? Saying anything doesn't "directly, in itself" cause anything. As for whether loudly announcing the evils of the government may cause someone to be influenced into targetting government official - of course that's a reasonable expectation. What's all the government security for if not to stop those who have been convinced that the government is evil from taking down its representatives directly?

Any 10 year old could understand that yelling fire or pulling a fire alarm in a crowded theatre has a moderate risk of causing a dangerous stampede.

I don't perceive that at all. Maybe it was a credible risk before fire regulations limited crowding in a theatre. If merely yelling "fire!" is likely to cause a dangerous stampede then there's already something very wrong either with the theatre layout or with its patrons or staff.

As for ther rest of your post, no.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Mindcontrolled]

Ding. New level of denialism. You are seriously saying the soviets evacuated the exclusion zone around Chernobyl to show off their care to the west? Seriously? I am flabbergasted.

Re:You free speech defenders

[NeutronCowboy]

The difference is that when I read something on the Internet about face-melting radiation levels in Fukushima, I can take another 5 minutes to verify that bit of information. If I'm in Fukushima, chances are that I'm not reading the Internet, but busy cleaning up the reactor mess.

There are three related reasons why it is illegal to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater: it is false information, it is information that indicates an immediate threat to your life, and the reasonable individual response to the threat causes death when emulated by many people.

The only related item in this list is that the Fukushima radiation information is false. The only reason for the government to make false information illegal is because it is tired of getting blamed for the mess.

I really, really wish people would understand the importance of free speech and its limitations. Free speech is the foundation of nearly everything that is good about western civilization, and misunderstanding its reach and impact is the first step back to the Dark Ages.

Re:You free speech defenders

[DamonHD]

Who?

I'm aware that two people died at Fukushima as a direct result of the tsunami, not any from radiation exposure of any kind.

Can you point me to the information about the direct acute radiation deaths please?

Rgds

Damon

Re:You free speech defenders

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Well, there is a WIDE diversity of legitimate scientific opinion on the death toll from Chernobyl. The lower numbers are actually more on the order of around 6,000 excess thyroid cancers, but of course not all of those were fatal (OTOH the effects of having your thyroid removed surgically are rather nasty, especially as in this case where you're talking about almost entirely children). Upper bounds go on up into huge numbers, but there are certainly reasonable lines of evidence that put the figure 2 orders of magnitude above what you've cited.

OTOH, while it is easy to criticize the Japanese, they actually have acted with vastly greater promptness and regard for public well-being than the Soviets did in 1986. The Soviets denied almost everything, issued evacuation orders only long after they were critically needed, refused to test or order the discontinued distribution of contaminated food (mostly milk), etc. None of these kinds of behavior can be laid at the doorstep of the Japanese authorities. Many of the inaccurate or not-so-timely releases of data have been either a result of great difficulty in producing good data, unclear lines of responsibility, etc.

I can understand the Japanese Government's desire to see only accurate information disseminated and there are some dangers in putting out bad information. Still, this whole feeble attempt to retcon the Internet etc is just that, feeble. Even if everyone involved had perfectly good motives it can only serve to reduce public confidence in the authorities at this point and give a seeming of credibility to some pretty ridiculous nonsense. But that's government for you. As other posters have noted, governmental authorities aren't usually terribly good at thinking out of the box (and in this case they may simply not have any good options either).

Re:You free speech defenders

[karuna]

Actually it is 4000 and it is the lowest estimate. And it is only from cancer and does not include deaths from other factors. In fact, deaths from mental health deterioration with following alcohol and drug abuse due to Chernobyl accident are much higher, probably much more than 10000.

Some try to justify this by saying that impact on mental health is due to unjustified fear and paranoia from radiation. But statistics should still include these deaths in the total count nevertheless because otherwise these deaths wouldn't have happened. I hear reports that similarly relocated people in Japan is going through a lot of stress and pressure. Refugee children are ostracized at school and some elderly people have already committed suicides. I wonder if the suicide statistics will ever be analyzed in Japan after this disaster but they are surely to increase.

Re:You free speech defenders

[ENIGMAwastaken]

(1) Douglas says speech is "brigaded" with action in the case of yelling fire in a crowded theater. To use a term from philosophy, it's a speech act. But the point he's making is that such speech can be prosecuted because the actions it causes are "inseperable" from the speech itself. Your original post said that yelling fire in a crowded theater was a legitimate use of free speech. Douglas says the exact opposite. It really can't get much clearer than that. And I'm not defending what Japan is doing. I'm the staunchest supporter of free speech you'll find, but your reading of this is just not accurate. Believe it or not what the law actually says is important.

(2) Technically, only the decision itself is law. Even the majority opinion is just dictum. But that's irrelevant since YOU said: "The right to falsely "shout fire in a crowded theat[er]" principle is upheld in Brandenburg v. Ohio" and the only place this example is mentioned in the entire case is in Douglas' concurring opinion. So even if Douglas had said what you think he says (of course he doesn't say this) it wouldn't matter because, as you point out, concurring opinions aren't law. So by your own "reasoning" shouting fire in a crowded theater is not upheld in the case since concurring opinions don't carry legal force. And that's again ignoring the fact that his decision doesn't say what you say it does.

So let's review: You're wrong in your interpretation of Douglas' concurring opinion in Brandenburg v. Ohio (the only place in that case where this example is broached) and, even if you were right, you'd still be wrong since concurring opinions aren't law.

Re:You free speech defenders

[DamonHD]

I am not putting my head in the sand or telling lies. I have no skin in this game. I'm not massively pro- or anti- nukes.

The nuclear industry does indeed kill people as all energy industries do, but rather fewer per TWh than coal and probably most other large-scale energy production. People fall off roofs installing solar PV for example.

Indeed, deaths in the civilian nuclear industry, at least in the UK when I last saw numbers, are generally *lower* from all causes (including for example car accidents) than in the general population, probably because nuclear workers are smarter and more careful than average.

Rgds

Damon

Re:You free speech defenders

[DamonHD]

Agreed, I wouldn't like to breathe in Pu-239, but then I wouldn't much like to breathe in radon from living in a granite house, or indeed the asbestos fibres that by high school seemed to line its forced-air radiators with, or the particulates from my neighbours BBQ earlier this afternoon. And PM2.5s kill a lot more people than radionucleotides from all sources in the UK I suspect.

Rgds

Damon

Re:You free speech defenders

[LordLimecat]

In reality, Japanese officials already have caused a few 10'000 cancer deaths beyond what was unavoidable. The increased allowable dosage for Children (who are hugely vulnerable to radiation) is just the last batch of randomized death sentences they are implementing.

Lets start here, because this is the biggest flaw in your post. There are several websites where you can view the actual radiation reported in various areas. Except within a few kilometers of Fukushima Daiichi, the radiation levels fall to biologically insignificant levels.

At this point, the nature of the disaster is that it is hugely expensive, is leaking radioactive, hard-to-clean-up water, and is rather difficult to bring to a "probably wont catch fire or explode anymore" state. But there are no deadly radioactive clouds floating around, there is no substantial increase in the radiation in milk in the US, there is no plutonium floating around in the atmosphere, and as of now the most severely irradiated individuals (some of the workers) have received a dose that is roughly equivalent to what they would normally receive in a year, anyways-- of concern, but unlikely to cause them to keel over and die.

Further, just because we have an actual, real, substantial crisis on our hands, doesnt mean we need to lose all perspective and start comparing it to Chernobyl or (heaven forbid) Hiroshima. Its a problem, yes, and there is a lot of blame to apportion; but losing our heads and falling for all the hyperbole running around is unlikely to make matters any better.

Im not entirely sure what the dosage received by those in the immediate vicinity of the plants was; but as the area of "concern" around the plants was evacuated pretty rapidly (within about 36 hours), I have trouble believing such emphatic statements as "Japanese officials have already caused a few 10,000 cancer deaths beyond what was avoidable"; especially when the MIT Nuclear Science blog seems to indicate that in total, if you were at the plants perimeter, you basically recieved 2-3 whole body CT scans-- this less than 3km away from the plant, when the evacuation zone is 30km. That blog seems to be one of the BEST sources of information, as it plainly presents the facts without any breathless panic or fearmongering; they state that there is some danger, where it comes from, how to protect yourself, and how to get more information-- but it doesnt state "Tens of thousands of you are likely to die of cancer" or "beware floating radioactive clouds".

This is precisely why this information IS harmful, and if it shouldnt be censored because of the tyrannical tendencies of anyone given such a power, that does not mean that anyone should go spreading FUD and misinformation about a crisis while people are trying to deal with it.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Steeltoe]

You'll be absolutely fine just staying put on your chair. Running amok just seems like another Darwin-award this year. After all, this is /. and we know better than you!

Re:You free speech defenders

[Luckyo]

If you deny this, you're beyond naive. Soviets cared for specific parts of their public image in the West to the point of mania, as it provided them with a large amount of idealistic people as potential agents.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Mindcontrolled]

True. All relevant problems in their own right. They don't change what is happening in Japan at the moment, though. And that is that the exclusion zone will last for decades, in contrast to what some apologist want us to belief.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Luckyo]

When anyone opposing you in any way is branded "liars, scum and apologists", you're essentially admitting that you will accept no one but those who share your opinion.

Which is quite possibly the worst kind of violation of spirit of western democracy itself, to deny even a possibility of consensus or agreement by demonising the opposition.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Steeltoe]

Yeah, and this is /. and this time, most of the scum is US.

Now what do we do 'bout it? ;-)

Btw, I've seen my aura, so I'll get discredited along with everyone else not fitting in the crows mentality here.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Steeltoe]

Duh, this is /. Facts and free speech only applies when we agree with it.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Mindcontrolled]

When you have been proven to lie, you are a liar. Simple as that. Hiding your idiocy behind "western democracy" is just pathetic. Can you get any lower?

Re:You free speech defenders

[Mindcontrolled]

No way, you are indeed serious? Now I have seen it all.

Re:You free speech defenders

[DamonHD]

Don't get me wrong: I think transparency is the right thing here and in general, and if the reports are accurate then the Japanese government is making a big mistake, and it wouldn't be the first. However, given the other irresponsibly gross inaccuracies spouted in conjunction with this incident I'm finding it difficult to take the premise of *this* story seriously. And that's the corrosive effect of blatant misreporting and conspiracy-mongering: it obfuscates what's really going on even for those with NO ulterior motives. Irony doesn't begin to cover something as important as this.

Rgds

Damon

Re:You free speech defenders

[Luckyo]

Actually it's not radon, it's the actual background radiation from Sun. The biggest filter against ionising (read: harmful) radiation from the Sun is atmosphere, and the higher city is located, the more ionising radiation from space is among the background radiation.

A great example of this is Mexico City. When the "highly elevated" radiation levels were talked about in Tokyo, and streets were largely deserted because of the scaremongering... radiation levels were approximately HALF of those in Mexico City at that same day. And it was just a normal day in Mexico City, with no unusual factors raising radiation levels.

That is the example of hysteric media destroying the economy. And in this light, yes, the measures are understandable (and culturally acceptable at least in Japan).

Re:You free speech defenders

[MightyYar]

You are seriously saying the soviets evacuated the exclusion zone around Chernobyl to show off their care to the west?

Pretty much, yeah. It's pretty clear that whoever was in charge initially cared little for human life. People watched the damn thing make the sky glow blue from the rooftops on nearby apartment buildings. They thought it was pretty.

An alternate explanation is that the bureaucracy was so thick that the Soviets were simply incapable of responding to the crisis until a few weeks passed.

I think it's a combination of the two.

Re:You free speech defenders

[edxwelch]

> It is still exceedingly unlikely that even *one* extra cancer death will be attributable to Fukushima.

Especially, if the accident report is published before the deaths have a chance to take place and ignore other health effects. Cancer is not only effect of radiation posioning.

> To the best of my understanding there are habitable towns throughout the world whose background radiation levels

A meaningless comparison. People living in the exclusion zone are at risk from ingesting radioactive caesium and iodine, not from external radiation.
Indeed, radioactive iodine-131 has already been found in the breast milk of several women living in areas around Fukushima:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8465248/Radioactive-iodine-found-in-breast-milk-of-Japanese-mothers.html

Re:You free speech defenders

[Beardydog]

It's exactly tne type of language China uses to censor everything. Pornography harms the public order... simple documentary articles about Tienanmen harm the public order. In fact, the more provably true a piece of information is, the more likely it is to harm the public order, by triggering protests, indepndant evacuations, or general anger toward and mistrust of the government. Any law that specifies "order" as a goal is doomed to become a tool of tyranny.

Re:You free speech defenders

[LordLimecat]

Did you not read those court cases? The supreme court, which you invoked in your own defense, disagrees with you. The case you quoted used "fire in a crowded theatre" as the PRIME example of acceptable and prosecutable restrictions on free speech. They quoted an earlier supreme court case which used that as the PRIME example of why not all free speech is acceptable.

As for whether loudly announcing the evils of the government may cause someone to be influenced into targetting government official - of course that's a reasonable expectation.

In the very case you brought up, Justice Douglass used the term "speech brigaded with action"; it seems implicit that one must use judgement to determine whether ones speech might reasonably be expected to cause "clear and present danger to others". So saying "our government needs to be change" is a far ways removed from "lets go murder some politicians with these guns right here". If you cant understand the difference, then I am not sure how to clarify it any further; in issues like these the courts tend to appeal to the fact that people have some degree of sense, and if they do not then they are culpable for that (it is often termed "negligence" or "manslaughter").

I don't perceive that at all. Maybe it was a credible risk before fire regulations limited crowding in a theatre. If merely yelling "fire!" is likely to cause a dangerous stampede then there's already something very wrong either with the theatre layout or with its patrons or staff.

That is unfortunate-- particularly that you seem to think human nature changes over time. Do tell, do you think that during Sept 11, 2001, folks in the Trade Center towers were being orderly? Or do you suppose there was a degree of panic?

Re:You free speech defenders

[Anonymous Coward]

But you get to shout fire and then be prosecuted for it. You don't get your tongue ripped out in case you might shout fire, or be required to whisper quietly into a box, then the recording inspected by the proper authorities, and then maybe played back so long as it isn't shouting fire or mentioning that a politician is corrupt.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Kyusaku Natsume]

Please stop smoking that. Is bad for your health. TEPCO was irresponsible to not upgrade their tsunami defenses in Fukushima Daiichi since they became aware of the risk toward the NPS, but is also irresponsible to repeat the stupid bullshit that many people have been spouting in the web about this disaster. The mayor radiation contamination goes in a plume 45 degrees northwest around 8-10 km wide up to 35-40 km long from Fukushima Daiichi. But, even at MP-1 in the boundaries of the power plant, you will need to spend there several months unprotected to receive any radiation damage. At the main building, around the reactors or around MP 7 and 8 is other history, the levels there go from dangerous to really dangerous. At Fukushima Daini, 9 Km to the south, the radiation is 3-6 times the normal background radiation at the site, similar to the radiation that you will get if you live in a town over 1500 m sea level.

But, since many idiots in the web and in mass media are talking about the radiation in the most scary and sensationalist way possible, people are even afraid to travel to Kyoto, when there wasn't detected anything dangerous at any time after the earthquake. Really, that people would love nothing more to see someone to die from cancer to be happy, smug and say "I told you so!"

Re:You free speech defenders

[Hazel Bergeron]

(1) Douglas clarifies that he considers no immunity from prosecution for the consequences of the speech. You said "such an action is prosecutable", whereas Douglas is saying that the consequences of such an action are prosecutable.

(2) The decision re limits of free speech was majority and legally binding. The caveat was merely part of a concurring opinion. You may be arguing that no-one has actually used this case specifically to prosecute/defend someone shouting fire in a crowded theatre, but to me it seems clear that the majority decision (regardless of any caveats by individual judges) is putting clear limits on the limits to free speech such that imminent lawless action (which doesn't include "fire!") is the new test, not clear and present danger (which may include "fire!").

Re:You free speech defenders

[Mindcontrolled]

One has to wonder why the MIT nuclear science department does not use an ".edu" adress. Might it be because the guys behind that blog are just some random shills trying to reinforce their bullshit by a recognized name? No, no... can't be so....

Re:You free speech defenders

[Hazel Bergeron]

Did you not read those court cases? The supreme court, which you invoked in your own defense, disagrees with you.

A single judge in a concurring opinion asserts that the consequences of such speech are prosecutable. This is not the same as considering the speech prosecutable, nor is it regarded as the precent-forming opinion of the court.

You're skimming over words but you're ignoring the language and the context.

Do tell, do you think that during Sept 11, 2001, folks in the Trade Center towers were being orderly? Or do you suppose there was a degree of panic?

I'm assuming someone in the towers alerted his colleagues to the plane which had just rammed into the building. Are you suggesting that people there died from a stampede?

Re:You free speech defenders

[Rakishi]

What do you find so odd about that? Granted, it was probably about how the soviet people perceived the government as well although the west was likely a big source of information on that even inside the soviet union.

In other words if not for the west there would have been little care for the people impacted precisely the same reason, appearances. Except this time it'd have been to show how small of a failure it was and that there was nothing to worry about (all reports to the contrary being censored, of course).

Re:You free speech defenders

[The End Of Days]

So lets stipulate the long term existence of this exclusion zone.

Does that justify ceasing all nuclear power production? All research? And how?

Re:You free speech defenders

[Anonymous Coward]

> Next time someone makes fun by shouting authentically "Fire! Fire! Run!"

Nobody advocates "absolute freedom"; in Brazil, for instance, you have freedom of speech, but there are other laws against defamation and prejudice which prevent freedom from being boundless. Incidentally, I think the GPL is more free (as in freedom) orientated than the BSD license exactly because of some limitations it has. BSD licenses basically give one the freedom to remove freedom. And that is not ok.

Now, what we are seeing here is the same that goes for patent law being used to prevent innovation: someone is trying to preserve "good morals" by cleansing internet sites.

Apparently that's a lot easier than cleansing nuclear contamination.

Re:You free speech defenders

[LordLimecat]

You're skimming over words but you're ignoring the language and the context.

No, Im pointing out that your statement,

The right to falsely "shout fire in a crowded theat[er]" principle is upheld in Brandenburg v. Ohio

is utterly false-- the only MENTION of the phrase "fire in a crowded theatre" is by Douglass, where his statement COMPLETELY contradicts your assertion. They did NOT uphold that right.

As for precedent, the earlier precedent being cited is Shenck v United States, where the "fire in a crowded theatre" example comes from. This isnt some urban legend thing; it is real case law, and it has been known for quite some time. And in THIS instance, the "fire in a crowded theatre" quote comes from the unanimous opinion, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, jr, and in THIS instance, it WAS a precedent forming opinion. And as for context, THIS case was SPECIFICALLY about speech that incited insubordination.

Are you suggesting that people there died from a stampede?

Im suggesting that people are prone to panic, and that people in a panic are prone to do foolish and dangerous things; and that a person bears some responsibility for his speech (which is well understood in many areas-- from this scenario, to perjury, to laws on threats).

Re:You free speech defenders

[Technician]

I wonder if that will mean that the latest high resolution UAV photos will be removed. Sometimes the photos tell more than they are saying. It does not take any kind of internet crackpot to view the side view photo of the drywell lid in #4 and draw a proper conclusion that the containment may have been breeched.

http://www.japannewstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/FukushimaUnit4-4.jpg

Care to explain what that lid is sitting on?

http://www.japannewstoday.com/?tag=fukushima-nuclear-plant-photos

Re:You free speech defenders

[LordLimecat]

No, it couldn't, since http://web.mit.edu/nse/ actually links to www.mitnse.com as their official blog. Its on their homepage, right side.

This is exactly the kind of frothing mouthed paranoia and FUD that needs to stop. Being responsible about reporting doesnt mean youre a shill, and anyone making that claim is part of the problem with the media today, in general. Not everything needs to be sensationalist.

Re:You free speech defenders

[jd]

Sellafield's nuclear plant workers routinely get doses in excess of 500 mSv and rather more often than they should get doses in excess of 1000 mSv. The leukemia levels are 2,000 backgound. Plutonium (not exactly a natural element) is found in the house dust in people's homes. Yet in the court case over those deaths (later dramatized by Granada TV's "Fighting for Gemma"), the courts ruled that not one single incidence of leukemia could be attributed to Sellafield.

It's bloody obvious to anyone who hasn't contracted Mad Cow Disease as to what the reality is.

In other words, you're a bloody idiot.

(Incidentally, I find it interesting that a functional, operational, tuned and monitored nuclear power plant can give 1000 mSv doses but the workers at Fukushima - a reactor that has been subject to repeated extreme earthquakes and explosions, a partial meltdown and a tsunami - are only supposedly getting a tenth of that. Pardon my skepticism, but shouldn't people in a nuclear accident site get MORE than people at a functional and officially "safe" site?)

Re:You free speech defenders

[Opyros]

You're—serious? That example you just used is an (approximate) quotation from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.!

Re:You free speech defenders

[ENIGMAwastaken]

(1) I have a hard time understanding how you can even possibly think that passage says what you're saying it says. Douglas argues that when your speech causes a panic, it can be prosecuted. In your original post, you said the opposite of this. Ergo, you were wrong.

Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater can be prosecuted if it causes a panic or or is deemed by the court to have been likely to do so. Claiming it's the consequences themselves which are prosecuted is blindingly stupid, since that means you'd prosecute the people who panic, but not the person who's yelling fire caused the panic which is both a) totally stupid and b) not anything like what Douglas says. Douglas' position is CLEARLY that some instances of speech are criminal

(2) Yelling something that could cause a panic and result in people dying is the very definition of saying something that would incite "imminent lawless action". According to Brandenburg v. Ohio you're not allowed to say something that you know or should reasonably believe will start a riot. How can you think that would allow you to start a riot in a theater by yelling "fire" when there is none? That's exactly the sort of case the court rules isn't permissible speech.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Anonymous Coward]

The act itself it not illegal in the U.S., but the results would be falsifying information to authorities, filing a false police report (the result of the police showing up), and a ticket that includes the fees for the costs of the arrival emergency services.

Additionally, the resulting deaths would result in the maximum charge of 3rd Degree Murder (reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life).

Now, we all know that the murder would reduce to manslaughter, the fees reduced (if not completely erased), and some very short jail time if the person has a good lawyer.

The point being that the speech "Fire! Fire! Run!" in the theater itself is not against the law in the U.S., the results would be the damaging factor.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Happy-R-BOB]

Could be wrong, but I always thought that the 1st Amendment stated you had the freedom of speech in so much that it does not impede or infringe upon the rights of others. In the same way that Libel and Slander is technically not protected free speech, neither is the raising of a false alarm. And to go off on a tangent of a footnote it also means you cant barge into private gatherings or the like and protest things as it infringes on others rights to privacy. As the internet is a sort of gray area in most legal frameworks (probably since most law makers barely know how to work email and probably think its a system of tubes) Its mostly considered a public forum of sorts. Although if you posted false alarms or threats etc, I'm fairly sure the authorities will come knocking sooner or later...

Re:You free speech defenders

[Hazel Bergeron]

is utterly false-- the only MENTION of the phrase "fire in a crowded theatre" is by Douglass, where his statement COMPLETELY contradicts your assertion. They did NOT uphold that right.

It doesn't matter how many times you type the same thing, it doesn't make your simplistic and fallacious argument any more correct.

(i) He only talks about non-immunity from the consequences of the speech, not about the speech itself;

(ii) Douglas' statement does not form legal precedent. Only the majority opinion of the court does. And the majority opinion of the court overruled Schenck v. US.

Im suggesting that people are prone to panic, and that people in a panic are prone to do foolish and dangerous things; and that a person bears some responsibility for his speech (which is well understood in many areas-- from this scenario, to perjury, to laws on threats).

Yes, a person may bear some responsibility for his speech. Now, on what basis today is it not permitted to shout fire in a crowded theatre? Don't give an answer which relies on an overruled decision, and if you even manage that, don't give an answer which relies on responsibility for the consequences of that speech.

Re:You free speech defenders

[jd]

Then ban misleading or wilfully degenerate presentation. (I wish the US would. Get rid of Talk Radio, most of the news channels, over 50% of politicians, 100% of the campaign ads AND Sarah Palin in one go.)

Information can be true or it can be false. That's it. I've no objection to Japan banning false information, provided it is indeed false, but the claims seem to have nothing to do with false information.

Presentation can be deceptive and frequently is. The best lies contain only truths, merely truths selectively chosen and couched so as to present a picture utterly different from reality. AGWers and NeoCons use the technique all the time. Banning perversions of reality that are designed to mislead or corrupt is not such a bad idea, again provided (a) it's actually a perversion of reality and not just something the politicos don't like, and (b) it really is designed to mislead (see: Time Travel in China story for details on the hilarity that ensues when alternative realities are banned when it's obious to anyone that they're intended as fiction).

Getting rid of the genuinely sick and twisted scaremongering, along with the genuinely sick and twisted efforts to hide the reality of the situation, would not be so bad. But that's clearly not what is intended here. What is intended here is to convince people that the Japanese parliament is The Word Of God. This isn't the first time that the Japanese government has decided it was a Living God. Didn't end well, the last time, did it?

Re:You free speech defenders

[Anonymous Coward]

Should we really cut off the tounge of every person that screams 'fire' at the wrong time thou? That's curious.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Hazel Bergeron]

Douglas argues that when your speech causes a panic, it can be prosecuted. In your original post, you said the opposite of this. Ergo, you were wrong.

No. Douglas says:

"a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused"

Is that clear? He says that the overt acts actually caused can be prosecuted. He does not say that the speech can be prosecuted. He does not say that speech can be prosecuted because it causes a panic. He doesn't say that speech can be prosecuted if it is deemed by the court to have been likely to cause panic.

Claiming it's the consequences themselves which are prosecuted is blindingly stupid, since that means you'd prosecute the people who panic,

No. It means that, in Douglas' opinion, the speaker is reponsible for consequences. Please entertain me with a different interpretation of Douglas' very clear phrase above, if you have one.

Yelling something that could cause a panic and result in people dying is the very definition of saying something that would incite "imminent lawless action"

No, it isn't. Panic per se is not defined anywhere as a lawless action.

And it is not even reasonable to believe that yelling "fire!" in a modern crowded theatre will cause any sort of panic which leads to dangerous acts. If you have any research showing otherwise, now's the time to cite it.

Re:You free speech defenders

[c6gunner]

Personally, I wouldn't be waiting for the government to tell me to move far, far away from a nuclear disaster site.

Personally, I welcome the opportunity to buy you house for 1/4th the pre-disaster market value.

It's a win-win situation!

Re:You free speech defenders

[Anonymous Coward]

However objectively they are lairs, scum, and apologists. It's in the spirit of democracy to call people on their shit.

For instance, anyone that knows what happened at three mile island knows that the fuel assemblies were destroyed within a few hours after they lost circulation. The hydrogen release and explosion after venting of all three reactors is proof that the zirconium was reacting with superheated steam. The radiation spikes were primary evidence that the fuel had burned through the bottom of reactor #2 and that serious leaks had developed in #1 and #3. Letting the spent fuel ponds boil off and overheat indicates extreme and criminal incompetence.

Re:You free speech defenders

[LordLimecat]

2 comments, because I feel more than that is going in circles.
1) Why did you neglect the case that IS precedent forming that I linked, Shenck v United states, where this supposedly ficticious prohibition of "fire, crowded theatre" originates?

2) How are you reconciling your original statement that Bergman v Ohio "upholds... the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre", with a Justices specific (majority, concurring) opinion that no such right exists? Context may be important, but that is the only mention of "fire in a crowded theatre" in the opinions; and no such right is upheld.

I am repeating it because i see nowhere where any Justice upholds such a right; I only see a Justice reinforcing the prior precedent that there IS no such right.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Mindcontrolled]

All? Don't know. That's for the people to decide, locally. Around here, strictly locally, where every single reactor is in the immediate vicinity of a city with 100k-1M inhabitants, yes, here it justifies it.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Hazel Bergeron]

OK, maybe you're just not understanding the law.

The overall decision is precedent-forming, being a majority decision. It also overrides previous contradictory decisions.

Each individual judge's concurring opinion, as tacked onto the end of the decision document, is not precedent-forming. (But it can be used to influence a court in certain circumstances - this might have been a valid point for you or the other guy arguing with me to make, but neither of you did. )

Attached opinions are only precedent-forming if they express the majority opinion used to make a decision, rather than being merely concurring opinions.

Put simply, a group of judges can come to the same conclusion for different reasons. Where reasons differ, the underlying reasoning is less relevant. This should be obvious: otherwise one Supreme Court judge's thoughts would end up being regarded as the opinion of the Court, and one judge could effectively speak on behalf of the whole Supreme Court. This is especially relevant in this case where Douglas feels the need to mention a caveat which the other judges may not quite agree with.

Clear?

Re:You free speech defenders

[Mindcontrolled]

Nice move. Once again - risk from dose rate and risk from ingestion of volatile radionuclides are two wholly different kettle of fish. But you know that. You lie. Deliberately. The question is - why?

Re:You free speech defenders

[DarkVader]

Free speech IS the public interest. There's nothing to "balance" there.

Without free speech, there can be no democratic society, and without a democracy, there can be no legitimate government. If the government censors ANYTHING, it is by definition a repressive oligarchy.

Re:You free speech defenders

[FormOfActionBanana]

This was my general impression, too. The people in charge really shafted the local residents by not evacuating them appropriately.

Re:You free speech defenders

[FormOfActionBanana]

Brilliantly stated. thank you.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Ungrounded Lightning]

A great example of this is Mexico City. When the "highly elevated" radiation levels were talked about in Tokyo, and streets were largely deserted because of the scaremongering... radiation levels were approximately HALF of those in Mexico City at that same (normal) day.

One problem with that idea is that the cells of the body produce protective enzymes to intercept the free radicals caused by ionizing radiation and repair the DNA damage. They're not perfect but they're pretty good. And they are expensive for the cell to produce, so they are "inducable" - the cell detects the level of an ionizing radiation product and adjusts the production of the enzymes to keep it low - like a thermostat adjusting the air conditioner. (The sensor is actually a bit more exposed to ionizing radiation than the DNA it protects, so constant low-level exposure to ionizing radiation actually LOWERS things like cancer risks, by overproducing the enzymes.)

The problem is that it takes a long time for the inducible enzymes to be produced. So a sudden increase in ionizing radiation can do a bunch of damage before the system achieves the new equilibrium.

The OTHER problem is that some of the radioactive materials released are concentrated by biological processes. A special risk are the radioactive iodine isotopes, which the human body will concentrate on its own. Another is strontium-90, which is virtually indistinguishable chemically from calcium, concentrated by both land and sea life, and laid down in bones, where it irradiates the bone marrow rather than shielding it.

The local radiation readings tell you little about the material released into the ground water and ocean, and from there into the food chain. And the area is (of course) right at sea level rather than part way up a mountain range, so the people will have been experiencing a low background exposure and have a low level of protective inducible enzymes.

Re:You free speech defenders

[kbolino]

Why is it that the crowd is blameless, and the instigator is wholly responsible? I used to feel this argument a compelling reason for the limitation on freedom of speech, but I increasingly find it as an excuse for people to avoid responsible when acting as part of a mob. If someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater (which are required to have numerous, unlocked, well labeled exits nowadays) and yet there is no evidence of such (no alarms, no ushers, no smoke, no heat), why does that excuse you for killing someone when attempting to flee? Furthermore, since when is making ridiculous claims illegal? Should we not also lock up all the political commentators who shout absolutely absurd things? What if people are incited to violence because of it?

Incitement is not a crime. The First Amendment makes no exceptions, and for good reason.

Someone who shouts "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire is an ass; if people die as a result, then he will bear the moral guilt for his actions for the rest of his life. If he has a conscience, that should be punishment enough; if he doesn't, well I'm sure that's not the only bad thing he's done, and most of those will be criminal acts.

This is not a perfect world. All speech is potentially dangerous. This is the central tenant of anti-censorship: that there can be no impartial judge of what should and should not be "protected" speech. The vast majority of people will not shout "fire" in a crowded theater; even so, taking that word as strong evidence when there is nothing else to corroborate it is foolishness. If people die, it should be criminal foolishness.

Re:You free speech defenders

[awarre]

"As long as there is an independent judiciary" you must be new here

Re:You free speech defenders

[gweihir]

Sorry, should have clarified that I was not talking about nuclear workers in nuclear power-plants working as expected. For them, I completely believe you. Bit here is a British example: The beach at Sellafield/Windscale is radioactive enough that when Greenpeace tried to import a sample into Germany for measurements, it was confiscated because it lacked a permit for the transportation of highly radioactive material. Deaths from this will be single digits per year or lower. But they will continue for a very long time.

I do think that nuclear power can be done safely and that even safe long-term storage of the waste products is possible. But not nearly as cheap as is done today. As is done today, a significant part of this stuff will end up in the biosphere at tremendous long-term cost. Have you read what just the now "containment" at Chernobyl will cost? And that is just good for 100 years at the most. Don't even get me started about some crazy terrorists flying airplanes into that, it basically has no protection against that at all. (To be fair, it did not before either.)

Re:You free speech defenders

[gweihir]

I agree that a lot of people dies from unfortunate causes. And often you find an unethical company behind it. The nuclear industry is just not better than these, yet it continues to evade having to pay for its mistakes.

As to returning to the exclusion zone, depends. If they actually have significant Pu pollution (and this stuff is very, very hard to measure), then it might be more a "forever". If it is just the usual Cesium and Strontium, they may be lucky and be able to return in a few decades, say 50-200 years.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Luckyo]

For your argument to be correct, we'd have to have a statistically significant list of cases of people travelling from sea level to Mexico City and suffering symptoms of minor radiation poisoning (cellular decay exceeding body's ability to "clean up" the damage before toxic levels are reached).

We'd also see very significant health problems from people flying long haul (ionising radiation at ~10.000m where most commercial flights cruise is vastly higher then any city on the planet).

Problem is, there isn't any evidence to suggest that any of said activities cause damage because of radiation spike. Which in turn suggests that our bodies' self-repair mechanisms either adapt extremely fast, or they are designed to compensate for such damage even at normal activity levels.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Luckyo]

I'm arguing with someone who is apparently so fanatical in his beliefs, that he/she will not even bother to entertain a thought that those who think otherwise have any worth as humans beings, as mentined by you. I suppose you are correct, I cannot get any lower then that. After all, there is an ancient saying: "Never argue with an idiot, he'll take you down to his level, then beat you with his experience".

The saying was correct. You won.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Luckyo]

There is a difference between actual acts of the government, and image government wants to project. It's the same for essentially all superpowers.

Tsernobyl was an excellent case of such behaviour. The lack of attention early on which presented the reality of government's level of caring for its people, and complete and utter "look at how good we are towards our heroic people" 180 turn later.

Re:You free speech defenders

[whereiswaldo]

Thanks for demonstrating that there are people who will trade health for money.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Luckyo]

I'm not seeing the conflict with my statement above. Grandparent essentially bitched that "everyone who supports nuclear power is...".

I have it on good authority that only a very small fraction of these people had anything to do with Three Mile Island incident. We can certainly say that all three major nuclear incidents talked about here (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima) have been largely caused by significant breaches in operating procedures and protocols. That doesn't mean that nuclear power, or all people who support it are demons of some sort, as grandparent paints it.

Hell, if you want to go down that road, let's talk chemical industry and Bopal. It alone has more victims that all civilian nuclear-power related incidents and accidents together. Even ignoring Bopal, the toxic waste alone kills more every year then aforementioned total of nuclear power of all times. Does that mean that chemical industry is some sort of evil boogeyman and all who support it are "liars, scum and their apologists"?

Re:You free speech defenders

[Dutchmaan]

There's also information that while true, is formulated in a falsely alarmist way.

Like, true fact coming from authoritative measurements: the Iodine-131 levels in Poland have risen some 1000-2000 times above their usual level. Conveniently omitted fact: that's still about 500-1000 times less than levels causing any measurable increase of risk of thyroid cancer.

Well then they should be educating the public instead of censoring the information. It's a safer route to take than censorship which is a very slippery slope. When you have censorship it breeds rumor as fact a lot more readily than some idiot blogger spreading his FUD. Censorship means they're hiding something from you in an effort to control your thought process, which is a different all be it just as significant form of fear.

Re:You free speech defenders

[CptNerd]

This is exactly the kind of frothing mouthed paranoia and FUD that needs to stop. Being responsible about reporting doesnt mean youre a shill, and anyone making that claim is part of the problem with the media today, in general. Not everything needs to be sensationalist.

Unfortunately that's exactly the kind of commentary that is constantly made and even expected on Slashdot. The origin of a statement of fact is always analyzed and rejected based on the funding of the person or organization making the statement. That's the way it is. Facts are refuted merely by villifying the party stating the fact due to the belief that the party was "paid to say that."

It makes the talk of a new Dark Age even more timely.

Re:You free speech defenders

[number11]

"Free speech" in US too excludes the right to shout "fire" in a crowded cinema hall.

Not if there really is a fire.

Re:You free speech defenders

[MightyYar]

you must be new here

If "here" is Japan, then yes, I've only been there once. Is the judiciary non-independent there?

Re:You free speech defenders

[c6gunner]

Thanks for demonstrating the ease with which a fool can be separated from his money.

Re:You free speech defenders

[MightyYar]

Without free speech, there can be no democratic society, and without a democracy, there can be no legitimate government.

Correction... without free POLITICAL speech, there can be no democratic society.

Allowing "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING" speech when there is no such danger does not help democracy, and I can't see how it helps the public interest.

Are tobacco ads in the public interest?

Re:You free speech defenders

[number11]

Could be wrong, but I always thought that the 1st Amendment stated you had the freedom of speech in so much that it does not impede or infringe upon the rights of others.

Wrong. The 1st Amendment states

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No qualifications whatsoever. Doesn't say squat about the "rights of others". The qualifications are all "interpretation". You wouldn't think such an unequivocal rule would require much interpretation (as someone said, "what part of 'no' don't you understand?"), but there you are.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Anonymous Coward]

To the best of my understanding there are habitable towns throughout the world whose background radiation levels are higher than anything yet encountered outside the Fukushima plant boundaries.

Really? I see the government coverup is working very well on you.

Chernobyl levels of contamination haven't caused any deaths in the past? I guess Chernobyl itself was all made up by fear-mongers.

Because that's what we're looking at (officially even) and it's still continuing to release contamination.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Schmorgluck]

Actually, there are places where telluric radiations (involving radon) are quite significant. Granitic regions come to mind, among others.

Re:You free speech defenders

[whereiswaldo]

Nothing further to add. lol

Re:You free speech defenders

[cheekyjohnson]

I'd blame the idiots who didn't verify that there was a fire, not the speech.

maybe then you'll remember that there are certain situations where Freedom of Speech is limited

Not in the US. At least, not according to the first amendment (which we so conveniently ignore).

Furthermore, these are merely rumors. If people get the information wrong and are idiotic enough to not verify whether or not it is correct, then they are the ones at fault. No need to go down the pointless road of censorship.

Re:You free speech defenders

[cheekyjohnson]

This does not inherently include "freedom to deceive" or "freedom to threaten".

Both of those are speech, are they not?

Re:You free speech defenders

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then they should be educating the public instead of censoring the information.

Yes, educating the public works really well. That's why 100% of Americans are now satisfied that Obama is a Christian who was born in the USA -- everyone trusts the government and believes it when it tries to explain that their favorite talk radio host is incorrect!

When you have censorship it breeds rumor as fact a lot more readily than some idiot blogger spreading his FUD.

You are correct, of course. Censorship doesn't work either.

The real solution is to educate journalists, who could then educate the public without it looking like Big Brother was trying to swamp people with propaganda. Unfortunately these days journalists are promoted based on their physical attractiveness and/or ability to rant effectively. Caring about the truth is actually detrimental to a journalistic career. So good luck with that.

Re:You free speech defenders

[cheekyjohnson]

it is false information

Which can be verified by you.

it is information that indicates an immediate threat to your life

Trampling over one another, especially when you don't even see a fire in the first place, is not going to help. Fires spread, but they don't spread at the speed of light (not to mention that trampling over each other would just slow everyone down). Not only that, but if it was false, there'd be no fire in sight, so there would be no immediate threat to your life.

and the reasonable individual response to the threat causes death when emulated by many people.

Whose fault is that? The fault of the idiots who panic so easily, I'd say.

Re:You free speech defenders

[russotto]

As for precedent, the earlier precedent being cited is Shenck v United States, where the "fire in a crowded theatre" example comes from. This isnt some urban legend thing; it is real case law, and it has been known for quite some time.

Schenck is real case law, but it's no longer good law. Brandenburg v. Ohio is. Douglas, in that same concurring opinion, referred to the "clear and present danger" test originated in Schenck thus:

When one reads the opinions closely and sees when and how the "clear and present danger" test has been applied, great misgivings are aroused. First, the threats were often loud but always puny and made serious only by judges so wedded to the status quo that critical analysis made them nervous.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Haeleth]

Without free speech, there can be no democratic society, and without a democracy, there can be no legitimate government.

Hahahaha, how adorable. He has learned a talking point!

Seriously though, by your standards there has never once in the entire history of the world been a legitimate government, because no society has ever been in the situation where all speech is free and equal. There has always either been censorship, or a concentration of ownership of information dissemination channels in the hands of a few people whose editorial power has effectively controlled what the public see. Even today, where the internet is finally lowering the barriers that have historically prevented the vast majority of people from having any meaningful voice, the majority of information is still controlled by a minority.

Indeed, it may still be even less democratic than government censorship would be. At least we get to vote for the government. I don't recall seeing Rupert Murdoch's name on any ballot papers.

Re:You free speech defenders

[cheekyjohnson]

Do I shoulder any responsibility for what may occur beyond their stupidity & gullibility?

I don't think you should because they should always double check to make sure the information is true.

Could I (should I) get away with claiming freedom of speech?

I think so.

Re:You free speech defenders

[pla]

Correction... without free POLITICAL speech, there can be no democratic society.

Um, no. Sorry. Free speech necessarily extends beyond "political speech", if only because what I care about in a government, you might have no interest (and vice-versa). To me, the whole abortion issue has no place in politics, while for all I know you might care strongly about the president's favorite color of Fruit-Loop.


Are tobacco ads in the public interest?

Do any ads serve the public interest? And why stop at tobacco - Heart disease kills more people than cancer, yet I can probably find a McDonalds ad playing somewhere on the dial every minute of every hour of every day. You can't just say "cigarettes = bad; obesity = lifestyle choice".

Re:You free speech defenders

[wrook]

wildly inaccurate? Seems to me TEPCO and the japanese government have been the biggest offenders as later reality proves their lies:

How about backing up your claims. You have 2 posts in this thread, both saying the same thing, both modded up highly and both without any references

"don't need an exclusion zone, just stay indoors and you'll be fine"
 

According to Wikipedia: "A nuclear emergency was declared by the Government at 19:03 on 11 March. Initially a 2 km, then 10 km[336] evacuation zone was ordered. Later Prime Minister Naoto Kan issued instructions that people within a 20 km (12 mile) zone around the plant must leave, and urged that those living between 20 km and 30 km from the site to stay indoors." Are you saying those measures were inadequate?

"no fuel has melted
"the rods in the spent fuel pool aren't uncovered"
 

According to Wikipedia: In a press release at 07:00 JST 12 March, TEPCO stated, "Measurement of radioactive material (iodine, etc.) by monitoring car indicates increasing value compared to normal level. One of the monitoring posts is also indicating higher than normal level."[75] Dose rates recorded on the main gate rose from 69 n Gy/h (for gamma radiation, equivalent to 0.000069 m Sv/h) at 04:00 JST, 12 March, to 866 nGy/h 40 minutes later, before hitting a peak of 0.3855 mSv/h at 10:30 JST.[75][76][77][78] At 13:30 JST, workers detected radioactive caesium-137 and iodine-131 near reactor 1,[3] which indicated some of the core's fuel had been damaged.[79] Cooling water levels had fallen so much that parts of the nuclear fuel rods were exposed and partial melting might have occurred.[80][81] Radiation levels at the site boundary exceeded the regulatory limits.

"containment hasn't been breached"

According to Wikipedia: On 25 March, officials announced the reactor vessel might be breached and leaking radioactive material.

Look, I'm not even trying hard and I can tell that you're just spouting nonsense. It pisses me off that you get modded up without anyone even going through the pretense of checking up on your BS.

Re:You free speech defenders

[charlieo88]

Saul Rubinek did a great scene on Starfate SG1, Season 7 Episode 18 "Heroes Part 2".

These people are risking their lives for us? I want to SEE what they are going through. Even if they don't want us to. And I want other people to see it. What do you think they are doing there? Protecting and defending secrecy? That's the world of Mao and the world of Stallin. The world of secret police, secret trials, secret deaths.

You force the press into the cold and all you'll get is lies and innuendo, and nothing, nothing is worse for a free society than a press that is in service to the military and the politicians. Nothing!

Re:You free speech defenders

[Anonymous Coward]

One man's tyranny is another man's harmony. For example, I am rather fond of the fact that, in order to preserve public order, the law cruelly denies my neighbor his natural right to beat me around the head with a golf club.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Luckyo]

I live in one such region, and I'm not denying it - it's calculated that a very significant number of lung cancer cases around here in people who live on the ground floor or basement levels is caused by radon in the air.

Point remains however that radon generally only causes lung cancer in meaningful numbers after extremely long exposure (tens of years). When talking about ambient background radiation, spikes because of radon are extremely rare to my knowledge, with radon being a natural product of uranium's spontaneous fission, so amounts of radon in the air inside basements (where concentration is highest) is usually stable.

Radon actually causing radiation poisoning (rather then functioning only as a carcinogenic) is usually only possible by going unprotected into an abandoned, unventilated uranium mine where radon222 concentration would be extremely high.

Re:You free speech defenders

[WaffleMonster]

Next time someone makes fun by shouting authentically "Fire! Fire! Run!" in a theater or some other 'suitable' place, and your relatives die there having been crushed by the panicking crowd trying to get out, maybe then you'll remember that there are certain situations where Freedom of Speech is limited, and rightfully so, precisely to prevent panic and to save lives

After the double talk and contradictory statements the Japanese government and TEPCO have been spewing for months screw this nonsensical analogy... Nobody is going to die in a stampede over information about the nuclear disaster.

People have a right to make their own decisions and discuss the issues without government being arbiters of "fact".

How would you feel about USG outlawing the "loose change" 9/11 conspiracy video just because it inflames anti government cooks? Part of living is having a brain and using it.

Re:You free speech defenders

[NeutronCowboy]

Which can be verified by you.

The reason that fires in a theater are dangerous is because they can start in an area outside of the main auditorium, and cut off exits. You might not even see smoke. As a result, you are forced to rely on hearsay.

Trampling over one another, especially when you don't even see a fire in the first place, is not going to help. Fires spread, but they don't spread at the speed of light (not to mention that trampling over each other would just slow everyone down).

Have you ever see a large mob in action? You can't slow it down. The most common way to die is being crushed against a barrier. Or someone trips, and you can't do anything but step on them, because the mob behind you prevents you from stopping or side-stepping them.

Whose fault is that? The fault of the idiots who panic so easily, I'd say.

And doesn't solve the problem that people do panic.

I still don't see what your argumentation has to do with the problem at hand: that the approach of the Japanese government is completely ludicrous, self-serving and destructive to society.

Re:You free speech defenders

[nomadic]

You're missing the main point of Brandenburg; it turns on the constitutionality of a statute inhibiting advocacy, not making a bright line test as to what kind of speech can be regulated and what can not be. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is a type of verbal act outside of what the Court was analyzing; Brandenburg doesn't really apply to the argument as to whether it's permissible under the Constitution (and even Douglass isn't saying that speech must be done in concert with an overt act to be punished by the government; he's saying the instance of speech IS an overt act).

Re:You free speech defenders

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if that will mean that the latest high resolution UAV photos will be removed. Sometimes the photos tell more than they are saying. It does not take any kind of internet crackpot to view the side view photo of the drywell lid in #4 and draw a proper conclusion that the containment may have been breeched.

http://www.japannewstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/FukushimaUnit4-4.jpg

Care to explain what that lid is sitting on?

http://www.japannewstoday.com/?tag=fukushima-nuclear-plant-photos

Drawing a conclusion that containment may have been breached would completely wrong, since reactor #4 was offline for maintenance and all fuel had been removed.

In other words, there was no containment to begin with.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Anonymous Coward]

Y'know, theft was illegal in Nazi Germany. There were even cases where innocent people were convicted of theft for political reasons! Clearly it follows that we should make theft legal. Because we don't want to be like Hitler, do we?

Slashdot! Come for the poorly-edited submissions of old news, stay for the poorly-reasoned comments that manage to mix ad-hominems and straw men into one bubbling miasma of foul Hitleracious horribleness!

Re:You free speech defenders

[cheekyjohnson]

As a result, you are forced to rely on hearsay.

Yet panicking will do nothing. Calmly try to verify whether that is true. In many cases, it is easy to tell if someone is lying. Someone randomly screaming that there is a fire simply isn't convincing enough.

and cut off exits.

Don't they typically have emergency exits as well as normal exits?

Have you ever see a large mob in action?

Knocking one another around will indeed slow it down. It creates more obstacles which people then might trip over (even if only some people are slowed down). More people knocked down means more people knocked down and more people hurt, which is completely the fault of the idiotic mob of panicking humans.

And doesn't solve the problem that people do panic.

Then they can suffer for their stupidity.

I still don't see what your argumentation has to do with the problem at hand: that the approach of the Japanese government is completely ludicrous, self-serving and destructive to society.

People are mentioning that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater should be illegal. I disagree with this, as it is still speech (and, in the US, is protected by the first amendment).

Re:You free speech defenders

[LordLimecat]

The ENTIRE point i was making is that NO, Brandenburg did NOT turn the "fire in a crowded theatre" thing on its head. I am not an expert in this, and will readily admit that there are likely several mistakes in my posts-- but the fact is, Hazel made a statement waaay back up at the top that Brandenburg upheld some so-called right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, when in fact nearly the opposite is true-- regardless of the other facts of the case. Its ONLY mention was in direct contradiction to Hazel's statement.

It would be helpful if Hazel could affirm or deny his statement that this argument hinges around-- does he still claim that Brandenburg v Ohio upholds some "right to yell fire in a crowded theatre"? And if so, can he give a citation please, because when i went to the case and did a page search on "fire in a crowded", it took me directly to Douglass stating that such actions were in fact prosecutable.

So yes. I was wrong in several areas; specifically I missed the part about how Shenck was overturned by Brandenburg; but the overturning was to clarify where precisely these limitations on free speech were, but NOT to say that speech is never illegal, a prime example being where it can be reasonably expected to cause harm (though the specific legal criteria are more specific and limited than that).

Re:You free speech defenders

[nomadic]

No, you misunderstand; I was agreeing with you, and disagreeing with the person you were disagreeing with. Brandenburg's just not really that much on point; the issue discussed in Brandenburg deals more with the line the Court will draw regarding advocacy of violence versus immediate incitement to violence.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Schmorgluck]

Yeah, but radon is only part of the equation, namely only a part of the natural radiations (which is what the discussion was initially about). After all, an like you mentioned, it's the result of the desintegration of uranium, which is also radioactive. Regions rich in granite (I'll keep with this example becasue it's the one I know best) especially if said granite is rich in uranium, have significantly higher natural radioactivity than most others, ceteris paribus - while said level of radioactivity isn't considered nocive, indeed.

In fact, in France, when the first reports came about Fukushima Daiichi, journalists used Brittany, the Massif Central, and sometimes the Vosges Mountains as points of comparison to explain that the level of radiation around the nuclear plant was not yet alarming (that was before any rupture, meltdown or leak happened).

Actually, I'd be interested in knowing how the geological composition compares to altitude in contributing to natural radiations. I've been trying to find information about this, to no avail for now.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Maestro4k]

wildly inaccurate? Seems to me TEPCO and the japanese government have been the biggest offenders as later reality proves their lies: "don't need an exclusion zone, just stay indoors and you'll be fine"

The just staying indoors applied to different areas, it was even applied to Tokyo at one point when the prevailing winds shifted from blowing out to sea. And that was fine advice for Tokyo residents at the time. There was an evacuation zone applied immediately, which the government expanded as the situation at the plant evolved. Additionally the government advised those at larger distances than the evacuation zone to stay indoors, also fine for the time. The situation at the plant has not been one solid steady-state thing, it's changed over time and obviously advice given at one point may be incorrect at other times.

"no fuel has melted

Which was, at that point, true to the best of everyone's knowledge. Once it because obvious (mainly due to the types of isotopes being found in water used to cool the reactors being discovered) they stated otherwise.

"the rods in the spent fuel pool aren't uncovered"

See above, they've since said otherwise on this as well.

"containment hasn't been breached"

Again, they've said otherwise once they knew otherwise.

The only person lying here is you. You're deliberately taking statements given at one point in the crisis and trying to imply that they're lies because we now know different. But at that point they were made, TEPCO and the Japanese government didn't know any differently either, or in the case of the evacuation/precautions, they were appropriate for the situation at the time but would not be appropriate at different times.

There are certainly reasons to criticize how TEPCO and Japan's government has handled this crisis, but making shit up just makes you look like a loon.

Re:You free speech defenders

[gullevek]

For the fact that they just didn't know. TEPCO is know to lie and cover up, but in this even they really did the best they can.

It is just hard for outsides (aka people outside of Japan and/or people in Japan who do not understand japanese) to get this. Mainly because really haven't seen the news.

Re:You free speech defenders

[camperslo]

There's also information that while true, is formulated in a falsely alarmist way.

Like, true fact coming from authoritative measurements: the Iodine-131 levels in Poland have risen some 1000-2000 times above their usual level.
Conveniently omitted fact: that's still about 500-1000 times less than levels causing any measurable increase of risk of thyroid cancer.

You should provide a link to the source so that we can tell how much of the issue is what the source said, and how much might be in how you read it. There are a number of issues with what you said.

First off, in a normal location there isn't any "usual level" of Iodine-131 because it is something that has a short half life. And since the noise that's at the threshold of such measurements isn't a stable constant, saying 1000 or whatever times that isn't specific. Provide levels with units, and know the difference between a dose and a dose rate.

And what you say about levels causing a measurable increase in thyroid cancer needs to be qualified too.
The risk is not the same for all individuals. It's far far higher for a fetus or a child. Since cancer may not show up for 10 or 20 years, and there are other risk factors, it being difficult to measure the harm doesn't mean there isn't any.

The NRC generally recognizes a zero-threshold proportional model for long-term risk from exposure.
The more the exposure, the more the risk. The risk level for a particular condition plots to a line offset at zero exposure because is usually risk from other causes as well (chemical etc.). So radiation at any dose carries risk, it just may be very small. Doubling a small dose of radiation still doubles the risk. A dose in a single glass of milk would be a fixed amount. The doses are additive. How much does it matter? Well if the milk in an area is only affected for a short time, a given dose per glass is far less significant than if you get that dose every day.
Some of the abnormal levels seen in some places are continuing for a longer time period than emergency plans called for. So in some areas outside the previous evacuation zone (and shelter inside zone) in Japan, people have been told they'll have about a month to evacuate. It's not that the radiation being released from the plant is increasing. Levels have been going down. The problem is that the dose people are getting is adding up, and in certain areas will be more than they wish to allow if they continue to stay. That's because the length of time that levels are up is longer than was expected.

Levels spiking in Poland are likely said to be insignificant risk not only because of the level, but because it probably a transient event from a passing air mass carrying material from one of the fires or small explosions. It tends to be worse when there is rain. It can bring more of the material down fairly abruptly. The rain falls on the grass, the cows eat the grass, then it is in the milk. Studies have shown that most of the cancer in Sweden years after Chernobyl was from fallout that occurred on a single day. It was a matter where the air currents were going and when and where the rain fell.

Low levels of long term increased cancer can be small enough to be indistinguishable from that caused by food additives, chemicals in water, and other pollution including smoke exposure. If there was reason to panic, we should have been doing it already. Some, in certain cases most, of the so-called background radiation isn't some normal thing from the earth or space, it's what's still around mostly from earlier in the atomic era when there was atmospheric testing going on, some messy processing facilities, WWII and various accidents.

So make no mistake about it, less is better but there is no reason to panic. The Russians have lifted advisories on going to Japan after finding that levels in Moscow were twice that of Tokyo. Japanese products are being well screened. They could use our business.

Don't rely on sound bites

Re:You free speech defenders

[Lazareth]

That's using the wrong semantics. Is the written word speech? Technically it is the vocalized from of human communication, thus applying the wrong set of semantics could mean to imply that freedom of speech doesn't cover things in writing or paintings. However that is a misapplication of semantics and it is generally held that freedom of speech covers those two forms of expression as well.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Anonymous Coward]

Thyroid cancer is treatable

http://gabrielabulisova.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Chernobyl-Revisited/G0000L1Q11Nk0tH0/I0000RsDOGWrwW9I

Re:You free speech defenders

[gknoy]

How is an illegal act different from a criminal one? (curious, not being pedantic)

Re:You free speech defenders

[Technician]

The explosion in #4 was minor compared to #3. In #3 the location where the dome should be is pretty much an empty space with steam rising from it. There is no sign of the lid.

If you watch videos of air fuel explosions, building implosions, and cannons and large artillary, then watch the videos of the 3 explosions at Fukushima, it doesn't take a physicist to know from basic physics that for every action there is an equal and oposite reaction. The main blast from #3 was highly directional. There was lots of heavy objects lifted very high. You can see them fall out of the top of the blast at the end of the video.

I can be called a conspiracy theory person for even suggesting the main blast in #3 was in a cannon barrel called the dry well. Due to the low radiaton from the blast, I suspect the lid is still on the reactor, but I can not confirm it.

One of the official reports did mention finding fuel rods on the ground between #3 and #4. Many of them were bulldozed under.
From the NY times.

The document also suggests that fragments or particles of nuclear fuel from spent fuel pools above the reactors were blown âoeup to one mile from the units,â and that pieces of highly radioactive material fell between two units and had to be âoebulldozed over,â presumably to protect workers at the site. The ejection of nuclear material, which may have occurred during one of the earlier hydrogen explosions, may indicate more extensive damage to the extremely radioactive pools than previously disclosed. /quote>
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/asia/06nuclear.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&hp

Since the pools are water coupled to the dry well by a gate so rods can be moved from the flooded dry well to the storage while maintained underwater, I'm taking a guess the dry well in #3 was involved in the removal of rods stored in the bottom of the pool.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Alex Belits]

"Free speech" in US can be roughly described as a right to lie to the public. Being able to tell the truth is a side effect of it -- after all, American ideology recognizes truth as "one of the equally valid opinions" even if it describes observable facts.

Re:You free speech defenders

[cheekyjohnson]

That's using the wrong semantics.

Yet, if we allow them to do things as they please, they could literally do just that. I don't think they should be able to apply exceptions to amendments wherever they please like they've done. For instance, free speech zones.

Is the written word speech?

I'm fairly certain that there's also some definitions that could easily be applied to written things, as well.

Re:You free speech defenders

[uninformedLuddite]

Agreed 100%. I'd add that there is one of those slippery slopes between honest difference of opinion and people spreading intentionally false or misguided (uninformed) information.

I'm sorry but data can be made to say just about anything. One of the benefits of the meltdown in Tokyo(see I'm getting it right) is that the boiling point of water has been lowered by two degrees. This in itself will help to ameliorate the greenhouse effect in a quintessentially dodecahedral exponentially extrapolated curve. Thank God that Jesus loves us all and we get to die soon for being so evil. I must blog on this now.

Re:You free speech defenders

[squizzar]

Since all those official reports are readily available on the websites of the organizations that produce them, could you provide a link? All I could find was a few forums that seemed to have fairly limited technical content.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Anonymous Coward]

I must blog on this now.

And I would defend to the death your right to do so.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Hazel Bergeron]

Consider the law's position on yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre before Brandenburg: it is via Schenck's "clear and present danger" test.

Now consider what Brandenburg is saying about Schenck's test.

Re:You free speech defenders

[squizzar]

Well, next time you're in or near a crowd of idiots I hope you have a plan for making them aware of their stupidity in case anything bad happens. There's an element of pragmatism here - people are not educated and it is difficult to educate them in the midst of a disaster. For every one of you standing on your chair asking people to politely remain calm and exit patiently there are a hundred people panicking, screaming that everyone is already dead and that Satan himself is holding the doors closed. But hey, they're stupid people, let them whip themselves up into a frenzy and cause their own short sighted downfall, you couldn't possibly be affected.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Lazareth]

What exactly are we disagreeing upon? :)
I was merely working to elaborate upon the meaning of the term. I don't wish to discuss the exact implementation of a select nation, unless we are to change the topic to such?

Oh and the last thing was a bait: It is called freedom of expression and is used more or less as being synonymous to freedom of speech. Rarely do you talk about freedom of speech strictly in the vocal sense, although the literal meaning would imply such.

Re:You free speech defenders

[squizzar]

I'm not sure that Sellafield counts as monitored and controlled - there are certainly bits of it that aren't safe. It, like many other sites that were used in the glory days of the quest for atomic weapons, has many areas that contain undocumented and unknown materials. Like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Dirty_Thirty The Fukushima workers haven't been in the reactor buildings, I'd hazard a guess that it will be the long slow cleanup that runs the greatest risk of exposure for workers, just as the long, slow cleanup of Sellafield does. See also http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7773593.stm It's pretty shameful, but I'd hazard a guess that there are a lot of industrial (non-nuclear) sites that are as dangerous to the environment and those who are trying to clean them up.

Re:You free speech defenders

[cheekyjohnson]

Well, next time you're in or near a crowd of idiots I hope you have a plan for making them aware of their stupidity in case anything bad happens.

If that happened, then it's a shame that they are 'idiots'. That's no fault of the speech, though, and I wouldn't want it banned merely because of that.

Re:You free speech defenders

[cheekyjohnson]

What exactly are we disagreeing upon?

In your post above, you said:

Freedom of speech is, roughly speaking, the freedom to express your opinions without fear of retribution or censor.

But then you said:

This does not inherently include "freedom to deceive" or "freedom to threaten".

I don't see how those aren't speech themselves, since you were talking about freedom of speech. So I'd say that the phrase "freedom of speech" does inherently include those. How could it not?

Oh and the last thing was a bait: It is called freedom of expression

Yeah, but there are technically a few definitions of the word "speech" that would fit writing.

Re:You free speech defenders

[TheTurtlesMoves]

There is no question IMO which way it should go. Freedom of the press, period. An informed public is the only defense against incompetent, misleading or flat out lies of the media or any other source. Introducing laws to "fix" the problem only changes who is telling the lies. But lies they will stay.

IIRC Fox news won a court case that its lies are not misleading because it not really news. Its entertainment.

The General Public get what they want. They get what they consume. Sensationalized omg the sky is falling crap.

Next up Justin Bieber farts in public.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for demonstrating that there are people who will trade money for land

Re:You free speech defenders

[MahJongKong]

You don't realize that the smarter people can snap off in case of emergency. In the same fashion you do realize that at any point a country can elect a new Constituent assembly and shove the former Constitution to the bin?

Re:You free speech defenders

[dbIII]

If you apply that to other situations where does that leave people like Glenn Beck?
Irresponsibility in commenting on news and pretending lies are truth seems to be the American way these days.

Re:You free speech defenders

[cheekyjohnson]

You don't realize that the smarter people can snap off in case of emergency.

I personally wouldn't call an overly panicky person smart, but even if they were, that does not destroy the point I am attempting to make. The speech is not what hurts people. Human stupidity hurts people in these situations. The speech can't make them do anything. Indeed, I'd say the behavior is stupid, even if the individual is not, and any damage they cause is their own fault, and not the fault of mere words.

In the same fashion you do realize that at any point a country can elect a new Constituent assembly and shove the former Constitution to the bin?

Yes. But, until then, the current constitution is still in effect.

Re:You free speech defenders

[dbIII]

It's still very early days so I don't think you can truthfully say such a thing but I hope you are right and no more is released.

Re:You free speech defenders

[dbIII]

Don't even get me started about some crazy terrorists flying airplanes into that

Actually TMI was designed to deal with almost exactly that which is what pulled everyone's arse out of the fire when things went badly wrong inside. It was close enough to an airport that there were worries about what would happen if a plane hit it. The extra strong containment which at the time was unique in the USA was really what prevented TMI from being the sort of disaster that occurred in Japan. Instead it became a wakeup call to stop being complacent about nuclear and stop treating it as being perfect and infallible - which meant putting decent monitoring equipment in for a start instead of something which would not pass regulations for a fertilizer works.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that's not necessarily illegal everywhere. In particular, it seems to be perfectly illegal in the land of the allegedly free.

Re:You free speech defenders

[MightyYar]

Free speech necessarily extends beyond "political speech", if only because what I care about in a government, you might have no interest

I don't follow your logic - as soon as we say the word "government" it becomes a discussion about political speech.

If I say "pla rapes babies", that is not protected speech. Presumably it is false, and in any case I don't have any proof. You could take me to court for defamation, libel, etc. Allowing people to slander each other does not benefit society.

Do any ads serve the public interest?

LOL, are you trying to prove my point? Commercial speech is not and should not be protected.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Anonymous Coward]

this doesn't happen enough for it to be worth risking our freedoms. maybe the effort should be spent on educating people to not panic like retards at the first rumor they hear?

Re:You free speech defenders

[Luckyo]

The comparison would be flawed for a reason. Radon's actual radioactivity is very low - the danger lies in the fact that it collects in lungs because it's heavier then air, and irradiates tissue from inside.

On the other hand, ionising radiation from the Sun is purely gamma radiation with source at the Sun itself - the moment you leave the heights, it drops due to atmospheric filtering. It also irradiates you across all tissues, rather then focusing on lungs alone.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Jawnn]

When sites claim Face-melting radiation levels and contamination of food to attack competitors in Fukushima, or to intentionally undermine Japan and its economy, it's equally as bad as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

Really? How, exactly? Please cite your metrics and the numbers, along with their source, that you've plugged in to support your claims. Take your time. We'll wait... a long, long time, I predict.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Opportunist]

Rather weak analogy, since there's nobody going to run just because someone's screaming "meltdown!". We are there already, thanks for the wake-up call, now if you don't mind, let me go back to sleep. You can't really make it any way worse by creating a panic reaction, everything that could spark a panic already DID happen!

The danger is that now every crackpot conspiracy theorist becomes a credible source.

"So... you're saying the Japanese use the radioactive waste to breed super soldiers and seek revenge for the nukes we sent in '45?"
"Yeah, right"
"And you have any proof for that?"
"I have this copy of a Japanese page that I made just nanoseconds before the Jap Government shut it down."
"So they censored that info? Hmm... must be credible."

Ok, maybe SUCH an outlandish claim will be dismissed as something the Weekly World News wouldn't even have printed, but imagine this conversation with less harebrained claims. You think they'd be believed? I am fairly sure they would. Make a claim about the Fukushima reactors and claim that your source has been censored and you get instant credibility. First, you needn't present a source and second, you suggest that this info has to be considered "dangerous" by the Japanese Government because they took it down.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Opportunist]

Don't worry, our authorities reacted immediately to the elevated levels of radioactivity: They upped the warning thresholds.

(Sadly, I'm not kidding)

Re:You free speech defenders

[locallyunscene]

Not defending censorship per se, but that is a flawed solution as well. Easily repeatable and alarmist rumors are easier to spread than complicated and nuanced facts. It's a battle of asymmetrical information.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Chelloveck]

It does not take any kind of internet crackpot to view the side view photo of the drywell lid in #4 and draw a proper conclusion that the containment may have been breeched.

No, I'd say that's exactly what it takes. I'm no expert in reactor design, but I look at that photo and wonder just what the Blue Meanies have done to that poor Yellow Submarine. Pepperland is in danger!

Which, btw, is as credible an explanation as a layman looking at the blurry YouTube-quality still and coming to the conclusion that it "may have been breeched". Yeah, it may have been. And it may not have been. But I have no basis for drawing a conclusion from that photo.

Re:You free speech defenders

[cos(0)]

criminal as opposed to civil.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Bing Tsher E]

Next time someone makes fun by shouting authentically "Fire! Fire! Run!" in a theater or some other 'suitable' place, and your relatives die there having been crushed by the panicking crowd trying to get out

Has there been a lot of that happening lately? Anybody whose relatives have died, please raise your hand. Or is that just the standard textbook example to excuse censorship?

Re:You free speech defenders

[Lazareth]

Because threatening a person is not an expression of opinion, it is a verbal attack. Where you draw the line between an expressed opinion and a threat depends on the court, the circumstances and the exact wording of the threat.

An expressed opinion is such a thing as "I hate X" (a shallow opinion in itself, but an opinion philosophically covered by freedom of speech). Saying you "hate christians" or "hate muslims" is an opinion. Saying you would "kill the next christian I see!" is not an expressed opinion, but a statement of implied future action - which can be illegal depending on the context and most certainly has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It is a threat. Saying you "think all muslims should be killed" is an opinion, but implies a threat so it could potentially be viewed as criminal speech - not for the opinion, but because of the implied threat.

Likewise telling somebody that you "own a stable firm with promising returns" and "just needs some venture investment" when in fact you're planning to con somebody out of their money and do not plan to return any money is deceit and illegal and has nothing to do with expressing opinions.

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression covers ideas, opinions and the like. It does not cover threats, lies , etc. And no, the "idea of wanting to kill somebody" or "the idea to steal money by lying" is not "opinions".

Re:You free speech defenders

[Bing Tsher E]

LOL, are you trying to prove my point? Commercial speech is not and should not be protected.

What about political advertisement? Are you going to pull out a 'boiler plate' argument against any private spending on political campaigns? If not, to what degree do you think the spending needs to be controlled? Should Unions be barred from participating in politics? How about businesses?

Re:You free speech defenders

[Bing Tsher E]

I don't recall seeing Rupert Murdoch's name on any ballot papers.

It was a secret ballot. The ballots literally were printed on green paper, and the fairness of the election was strictly regulated by the government. So of course, none of the candidates have their names printed on them.

The ballots, of course, were dollars, or your local currency.

Re:You free speech defenders

[cheekyjohnson]

Because threatening a person is not an expression of opinion

Opinions aren't the same thing as speech. Merely saying "freedom of speech" inherently includes all speech.

It does not cover threats, lies , etc.

Threats and lies are speech.

"I'm going to kill you."

That is definitely speech. The act of doing it is, of course, not speech, though.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Lazareth]

Aha, semantics. You're taking the term and interpreting it literally, disregarding its established meaning as a subset of freedom of expression in favor of your opinion. You're allowed to that and I'm allowed to not wanting to participate :)

Re:You free speech defenders

[cheekyjohnson]

You're taking the term and interpreting it literally, disregarding its established meaning as a subset of freedom of expression in favor of your opinion.

"Established meaning"? The only "established meaning" that "freedom of speech" has is exactly what it implies: freedom of speech. That's what it says in the constitution, and, as far as the law is concerned, that is all that matters. That is what we know for a fact. If we go by that logic, the government (or someone) could merely say, "The first amendment doesn't protect opinions that criticize the government! That wasn't its established meaning!" They could create exceptions (which they've already done) even more easily than they can now.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Lazareth]

I'm talking about the philosophical concept, not the USA implementation. I stated that quite clearly previously in the thread. The philosophical concept has an established meaning, thank you, which goes back to roman times, maybe further and has evolved and been elaborated on. It does not cover lies, it covers truth and opinions. It is universally regarded in human rights theory as the right to seek information and ideas, the right to receive information and ideas and the right to impart information and ideas. It has nothing to do with threats or willful untruths.

If you want to argue semantics or a specific implementation I'm all for that, but don't just assume I'm automatically talking about America or its constitution just because I say freedom of speech.

Re:You free speech defenders

[radtea]

The NRC generally recognizes a zero-threshold proportional model for long-term risk from exposure.

Which is completely unsupported by any of the science of radiation exposure, either in terms of low-dose chronic exposure (people who live at high altitudes) or in terms of what we know about radiation effects at the microscopic level.

In particular, if the zero-threshold proportional model was correct, the quality factor would be unity for all types of radiation.

Re:You free speech defenders

[MightyYar]

What about political advertisement?

It's a complicated issue, and I won't be so arrogant as to think I have the answer.

I do not think that corporations/organizations/unions/etc should have free speech rights at all, and I do not think that they should be allowed to run political ads. Or even "education" campaigns that are just disguised political ads.

Individuals should be able to do whatever the heck they want.

Where you have a hazy line is when an individual wants to buy commercial speech - for example, Ross Perot with his hour-long network television infomercial. I lean towards tightly regulating this, because it's really just an individual circumventing the commercial limitations.

Of course, this becomes difficult to define as well. Is a website commercial or individual speech? How about a book? What about a newspaper ad? Unfortunately, I think we'll need to micromanage all of this - and once you do that, you are right back where you started: the people in charge will make the rules benefit themselves.

So maybe it doesn't really matter all that much...

Re:You free speech defenders

[radtea]

160'000 are permanently disabled.

If they had symptoms that are actually caused by radiation exposure that would be a matter of concern. My only question is what has disabled 160,000 people? Since radiation exposure does not disable people, there must be something else going on.

Thanks for this information. It's good to know Chernobyl's radiation release had so little negative effect that people are bringing up completely unrelated health claims.

Re:You free speech defenders

[interkin3tic]

Next time someone makes fun by shouting authentically "Fire! Fire! Run!" in a theater or some other 'suitable' place, and your relatives die there having been crushed by the panicking crowd trying to get out, maybe then you'll remember that there are certain situations where Freedom of Speech is limited

Oh man, I HATE it when that happens. Seems like every Tuesday, my relatives get trampled by crowds in theaters.

Wait a minute, no, that's such an extreme example and happens so rarely that it's absurd to talk about even OUTSIDE the context of the news. The news is a separate beast, and it's never so cut an dry as the scenario you bring up. Unrestricted news flow might lead to people evacuating areas when it wouldn't be optimal, sure. Most of us "free speech defenders" I think view that as an acceptable risk, and might point out that the government seems to have failed, causing the crisis, not the media.

Why would any sane person trust the government to suddenly have better judgment about what we should know than the media?

Re:You free speech defenders

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

The problem here is, with not sending experts, with deleting information, with the stance they had initially, most likely to save face (which trumps reality). It could be more like a case of supressing someone saying Fire in a crowded theater that actually is on fire, because you did not want people to panic and your relatives die in the ensuing conflagration. With nuclear power, certainly with explosions that rip open the building and probably core meltdown. I think that the Fire Fire Run analogy is out of place. We are talking about potential atomic bomb's and class 7 nuclear accident.

Re:You free speech defenders

[camperslo]

In particular, if the zero-threshold proportional model was correct, the quality factor would be unity for all types of radiation.

Nonsense. we're talking about risk scaling proportionally with everything else held constant (exposure of a given type etc.). That's not saying that all types of radiation are equal. Of course different types of radiation, and different energy levels within a type make a difference, as do the regions of the body being exposed, and molecular properties affect how the body absorbs different things. That last item is why the thyroid is so sensitive to radio-iodine.
Materials don't disperse in the same way either. Particles of something that doesn't become a vapor, like cesium, may become farther apart at a distance, but each particle is still just as potent. So while fewer people would inhale particles, they're still a risk to those who do. Emitting alpha radiation even paper can stop what a particle on the ground radiates, but throw it in the air with a dust blower and inhale it and it is still a risk.

There's nothing wrong with using a conservative risk model either. Obvious the EU does better than the U.S. at that. BP can use chemicals in the ocean here that wouldn't be allowed in the U.K. We've had additives in plastic food and water containers used in the U.S. that were banned in the E.U. They went with materials just every so slightly more expensive. So the U.S. got people with messed up hormones and who knows what else as a result. It's been causing smaller penises. I guess no one would care about that? NHK has reported falling male fertility in Japan. I wonder if they used the same thing. But it's okay... if the background level on contaminants in our environment is high enough, industry can always blame problems on something else.... like "It wasn't our bottles, it was the hormones in the milk or meat". No... no...it wasn't us.... it was the heavy metals in the fish..... No no it wasn't us.... it was the cell phones on people belts

Letting industry promise jobs to the regulators that should be keeping us safe, or to broadcasters that report on them, IS A REALLY BAD IDEA.
We have standards for federal judges, why not regulators?

Re:You free speech defenders

[Anonymous Coward]

We're sitting at a crucial juncture right now. We may continue on our way up. We may reach the point where human consciousness can be transferred to a machine. We may make intelligent robots. We may remove the need for menial labor.

Or, we may be on our way to another dark age. Our enlightenment may be feared by those in power, or by the masses who can't make their own responsible decisions. Our vast access to information and ability to communicate may be stifled. We may burn down our new Library of Alexandria that is the "Internet" and fall back down for a couple centuries.

Do our current circumstances necessitate a Foundation-style downfall? I guess we'll find out. I hope we can manage to preserve our current knowledge if it happens.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Technician]

Unfortunately the report the NY Times mentioned is not online that I could find. I wish I could source the original report the NY Times mentions.

Re:You free speech defenders

[KingBenny]

The question might remain, does the public want to be educated or does it prefer to stay in a semi-conscious state of routine where every difficult question is taken care of, because of the "what can we do about it?"-mentality.
I think a lot of people (probably not the kind to be hanging around a flashless website full of info you have to actually read) are very content with not knowing about every filthy bit reality has to offer. It's sad, but i think that goes for a lot of people.

Re:You free speech defenders

[richlv]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Finally, Douglas dealt with the classic example of a man "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." In order to explain why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for this, Douglas called it an example in which "speech is brigaded with action." In the view of Douglas and Black, this was probably the only sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech.

Re:You free speech defenders

[snowgirl]

As cos(0) says, but I'll clarify as I'm totally pedantic:

An illegal act is any act that is contrary to any law, while a criminal act is an act that is contrary only to criminal law.

As noted, shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater might actually end up getting you in trouble for a couple tens of wrongful death suits, however the key note is: it won't send you to jail.

Well, ok, actually... if you had good reason to anticipate that it was going to cause the death of another person, you might get charged with "reckless endangerment of human life" which might get you some jail time... and thinking about it since really any reasonable person knows that shouting 'fire' in a theater can cause a panic and the deaths of people, it would almost definitely get you charged with at least a manslaughter charge.

So, well... ok... the laws are always fuzzy, and honestly, prosecutors overcharge stuff all the time (as it's easier to dismiss indictments than add them) so you're likely to get at least charged with some pretty nasty sounding charges, and both sides of the law and order episode would be trying really hard to get you to plea to something... mostly because proving it would be harder than getting you to plea out. But if you stuck to your guns and had a decent lawyer, you probably ought be able to get out of any charge, because the act itself wasn't itself illegal, and you had no intent to get anyone hurt. (But the later would be an affirmative defense, which would kind of force you to admit that you did shout 'fire' in the theater, and so the likelihood of a conviction if the jury doesn't believe you, or depending on if the charge has a strict liability, you're kind of screwed.) ... I know maybe you didn't want that pedantic of an answer, but cos(0) already gave you the simple one. An illegal act can only be sued for, while a criminal act can get you arrested and convicted.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Ol Olsoc]

And we all know that no information is better than this "alarmist" stuff. We need to expand this to eliminate all alarmism Here are the official and happy news.

The plant is in great shape.

The plant proved that Nuc power is safe and effective.

No radiation escaped, and even if it did, it won't hurt you

Nothing to see here folks - keep moving.

See how much better that is? Happy for everyone.

Re:You free speech defenders

[nomadic]

Brandenburg is not throwing out the entire clear and present danger test; it simply changes the parameters of what the courts should consider clear and present danger.

Re:You free speech defenders

[SharpFang]

more interestingly, the treatment involves large doses of Iodine-131. (removal of most of thyroid tissue surgically followed by killing off all the rest using radioactive iodine in doses that cause it to die instead of mutating into cancerous tissue.)

Re:You free speech defenders

[SharpFang]

> First off, in a normal location there isn't any "usual level" of Iodine-131 because it is something that has a short half life.

Actual results were like this. Change dates for others.
http://www.clor.waw.pl/Raporty_ASS500/CLOR_wyniki_24_04_2011(a).pdf

There is the usual level of other radioactive substances that have I-131 in their own fission chain, and particles excited by cosmic radiation. So there's always a minimum amount of it in the air.

The usual meanurements were around 20 microbecquerels per m^3 per day in some areas, below error level in others. That is, with count above error level, it's 1 I-131 particle in 500 000 m^3 undergoing fission in a day; with 8-day halflife, that would be roughly 32 particles per 1 000 000 m^3 of air. THIS is the usual level.

In case of I-131 dose rate is far above dangerous content - direct ingestion has marginal effect. Instead, combination of light rain (to settle the iodine on grass but not flush it down the rivers/sewers) + grazing cows + high milk consumption is the primary cause of thyroid cancer. Air->rain->cows->milk->humans->thyroid absorption, this is the primary route that causes most harm. Other vectors are at least two orders of magnitude less significant. So there is no significant dose-rate due to I-131 present in the environment, there is only direct dose absorbed with milk.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes/i131

Now the alarmist message (sorry, won't give you sources) found the CLOR report with counts of above 5000 microbecquerels per m^3 per day at various locations of the country. The levels have soared! To... roughly 8 particles per 1 000 m^3 of air. Dire news indeed!

Re:You free speech defenders

[cheekyjohnson]

I'm talking about the philosophical concept, not the USA implementation.

Oh, right. Sorry. I'm just used to talking about the first amendment when someone mentions free speech. I don't really care what a lot of people think it means (especially if they leave out important details).

Re:You free speech defenders

[LordLimecat]

It would be helpful if Hazel could affirm or deny his statement that this argument hinges around-- does he still claim that Brandenburg v Ohio upholds some "right to yell fire in a crowded theatre"? And if so, can he give a citation please, because when i went to the case and did a page search on "fire in a crowded", it took me directly to Douglass stating that such actions were in fact prosecutable.

Please clarify this ^^^. Regardless of whatever else that particular case did, I still fail to see how your original statement has any basis in reality.

Re:You free speech defenders

[Kyusaku Natsume]

There is not a single piece of fuel inside of unit 4. So from that picture, you can only say that the screws are not orderly put.

Re:You free speech defenders

[AmiMoJo]

Okay, just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment:

This measure seems to be targeted more towards irresponsible reporting than blogs and rumours. There was some idiot professor on the BBC's Newsnight program the other day claiming that the situation was far worse than Chernobyl and that there were massive amounts of radiation being released - well anyone can buy a Geiger counter for a few hundred pounds and check for themselves. You can't hide radiation. The problem is that serious news outlets are giving these crackpots airtime.

Now back to myself again:

For the most part the reaction in Japan has been quite moderate and sensible, but as ever some elements of the press want to go further. I don't think censorship is the answer but at the same time this stuff does real damage to the Japanese economy and makes life difficult for people living near affected areas. Some countries have already banned Japanese food exports and there is a danger that large areas could become uninhabitable and unusable simply because of the stigma attached to them.

Like the parent says, discussion is the way to deal with this, not censorship.

Re:You free speech defenders

[AmiMoJo]

The dose rates are not that high, the problem is long term exposure. They are currently saying 6 months before people can go back. It is in fact safe to enter the evacuation zone, just not to live there long term.

Japan isn't like Soviet Russia. The press is relatively free there. They can't cover up high levels of radiation either. Anyone can buy a Geiger Counter and check for themselves, not to mention the many foreigners at the plant itself helping with the clean-up operation. Even many foreign governments have lifted advice not to travel to Japan. Actually I was in Japan when the earthquake hit and shortly before I left towards the end of March the British government lifted their advisory.

Re:You free speech defenders

[gweihir]

You should read up on radiation poisoning. Permanent muscle cramps, nerve damage, and a host of other crippling effects.

"Illegal Information"?

[gmhowell]

"Illegal Information"? Orwell would be proud.

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[polar red]

nuclear lying continues

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Down through the memory hole with ye!

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[SquirrelDeth]

In Canada they fire the nuclear watchdog if they say anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk_River_Laboratories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Lunn

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[gilbert644]

He wrote 1984 as a cautionary tale not a wishful fantasy you know.

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[MacGyver2210]

In the US it is against the law to spread false information about people and events...how is Japan saying the same any different?

Libel and Perjury are nothing but stops on 'Illegal Information'.

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the japanese government is blocking real information and spreading their own false indormstion.

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[trapnest]

Information implies truth. That's why the modifier "false" is required in your first sentence. Japan is trying to stop the spread of facts. That's a bit different than your example.

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they are stops on "incorrect and harmful" information.

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Japanese government says "The truth is out there..."

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US it is against the law to spread false information about people and events..

Unless you're a media organization like Fox News, in which case it's entirely legal.

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[cratermoon]

It is absolutely NOT illegal to spread false information, though you CAN be charged for defamation caused by that, and that is not an easy hurdle to jump over for public figures and events -- Times vs. Sullivan set the standard for "actual malice" where the defamed must prove the person who spread the information did so maliciously. It's a strong protection for free speech -- that's why you don't see celebrities and politicians filing a million defamation suits (though they do use other means to suppress dissent).

Also, there are NO laws against defamation at the federal level, and fewer than half the states have criminal defamation laws.

I find myself rather frightened to find that people don't understand this important provision of US law.

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[DrBoumBoum]

So it's more like a nightmare come true?

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[AK Marc]

You have confused "illegal" and "criminal." It is illegal in all 50 states to state something falsely with the intent to harm another. Whether that illegality is in the civil or criminal statutes is irrelevant to whether it is illegal.

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[cratermoon]

'with intent to harm' is key.

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[AK Marc]

With most, the intent to harm need not be there. Anything spread falsely which does harm, regardless of the intent to do harm, is generally illegal. However, I have not read the statutes of all 50 states, so I could not be certain of such a generalization as I stated. If you intend harm, you are breaking the law everywhere in the US. If you don't intend harm, but knew the statement was false and it did cause harm, you did break the law in some places I know of, and I know of no places in the US where that is legal.

Or, put another way, there's an easy way for you to prove yourself right. Just point to one place in the US where telling a known falsehood which causes actual harm isn't illegal if the person spreading the known falsehoods didn't intend harm. If you can't do that, then I will assume you are wrong and that it is illegal in all 50 states.

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess polar red knows that. Furthermore I think (s)he is voting "illegal information" to be the euphemism of the year.

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"illegal Information" a.k.a. "The Truth"

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if I'm wrong although nothing prevents you from spreading the illegal information. You are only forced to stop by the way of civil orders and the likes. When information is stopped prior to it being spread you are censoring. Both may be censorship though. The later is significantly less of a restraint though as public opinion will be drummed up vs the prior nothing.

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's about time that they realized this and acted onto it. The liberal media has been brainwashing people into thinking that nuclear reactors are horrible and that all they do is bad, and that we don't need them. Any possible way to make nuclear technology look bad, the libs will be there to talk smack against it. They have been saying things like "the next Chernobyl" since it first started when it has been proven that it cannot be possible. The news was telling people to stock-up and get gas masks, iodine, etc and that people should avoid getting anything from Japan at all costs. Seriously? Then you get people in Ohio and Michigan who believe this crap and think that somehow if they don't prepare they will die from something that is realistically pretty small. It could have been big if the reactors were built differently, but it didn't, and its worse-case scenario won't affect more than that tiny region of earth for a while. I am entirely 110% FOR nuclear energy, whoever says we shouldn't invest into this are crazy and love spending all their money on bills.

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[Anonymous Coward]

My idea was that in US is allowed to publish false news.
That is to avoid news differ from oficial ones being sued.
In other words, to avoid censorship from central goverment.
That is what Japan wants to do now.

Isn't it?

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US it is against the law to spread false information about people and events...how is Japan saying the same any different?

Libel and Perjury are nothing but stops on 'Illegal Information'.

...

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Try again.

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Minamata disease Part II

Re:"Illegal Information"?

[cratermoon]

Take a look at New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) and the following case law.

Political suicide

[eyenot]

Why would they risk their image? The upcoming elections are going to be haRd enough on the ruling party. This is like suicide. There is already strong resentment because of allegations and discoveries of cover ups.

Jurisdiction

[Daetrin]

Putting aside the issue of censorship in general, what do they intend to do when their requests are ignored? Are they only going after Japanese media companies? If so, then there's nothing to stop people in Japan from getting information from other sources. For media hosted in Britain they could probably sue for libel, but they'd have a hard time doing anything to media hosted in the US.

I'm also having a hard time telling from the article if they're actually concerned about real scaremongering news, of which we've certainly seen a lot of in the west, or if they're just using that as an excuse to express "scary" but accurate news.

Re:Jurisdiction

[jafac]

Are you kidding?

The government is; just to start off, opening up with a hundred billion (dollars) worth of reconstruction work.
Anything that endangers the future of the nuclear industry - or the reconstruction, including "scaremongering" about contamination on the land on which they will be rebuilding. . . is going to be considered "illegal information". And you better believe that media entities outside of Japan will honor this. This is an international finance concern now.

There *have* already been many stories of early cancers in those who are in the evacuation zone; stories which are not in the mainstream media; (and these accounts are rapidly disappearing from social media sites). Personal stories from survivors. Some are among people who should have evacuated and didn't; but also in areas where no evacuation warning was ever posted. (because they were based on a strict radial basis, instead of actual locations where contamination was detected). We can suspect there will be more such stories in the coming months - but we will not hear them.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Daetrin]

Uh, citation please? I have a hard time believing that even if cancer was caused on the very day of the quake that it would be detectable only a month and a half later. Cancer cells divide faster than normal cells, but _that_ fast? Unless there's some actual evidence to back the claim up i suspect that anyone reporting cancer now had it long before the earthquake, and this sounds like exactly the kind of "scaremongering" story i was talking about.

Health threat

[ilguido]

According to the WHO, the biggest impact on public health of the disaster of Chernobyl was to the mental health, thanks to a lack of accurate information. I'm with the Japanese Government. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html

Re:Health threat

[rubycodez]

except the Japanese government has been going along with TEPCO's lies until later truth is revealed. No melted fuel, no need for exclusion zone just stay inside you'll be fine, no breach of containment, not a Chernobyl (already the same order of magnitude of contamination released and it's still rising), etc. As an engineering physicist, I could tell weeks ahead of time that B.S. an lies were being spewed by certain tell-tales (e.g. chlorine detected reveals ongoing fission) I'm not with the Japanese government, since when has a bunch of bureaucrats been qualified to advise on safety or correct steps of action to any accident involving scientific or engineering principals? Never ever, they are just power and money grubbing parasites, in every age and every civilization.

Re:Health threat

[zugedneb]

yes, but the state has to go along with what it is told - for a time. so if tepco says "no leak" than there is no leak - it is no good solution to have "know it alls" like you telling the "truth", neither in government or corporation.

IF LATER it is possibile to show that any part did intentionally lie, then, I think, they should be tortured to death rather slowly. that way one can't be trusted are (evolutionally) elimintated.

Re:Health threat

[Anonymous Coward]

> No melted fuel

They admitted that after the first hydrogen explosion.

> no need for exclusion zone just stay inside you'll be fine

They evacuated people right away, they just didn't lock people out.

> no breach of containment

I never heard them claim that one.

> not a Chernobyl (already the same order of magnitude of contamination released and it's still rising), etc.

The scale is almost meaningless. There's a huge difference between having the core exposed to open air and having a containment vessel ruptured by hydrogen explosions. "Still rising"? That's horribly misleading. They've actually got the core reasonably well cooled right now, so they're not releasing anywhere near as much as before the core was cooled.

> As an engineering physicist, I could tell weeks ahead of time that B.S. an lies were being spewed by certain tell-tales (e.g. chlorine detected reveals ongoing fission) I'm not with the Japanese government, since when has a bunch of bureaucrats been qualified to advise on safety or correct steps of action to any accident involving scientific or engineering principals? Never ever, they are just power and money grubbing parasites, in every age and every civilization.

That's what they brought in all the nuke experts for. If they'd actually been able to hook up those generators way back at the start, there probably wouldn't have been much of any problem at all.

Re:Health threat

[Microlith]

not a Chernobyl (already the same order of magnitude of contamination released and it's still rising)

It's still not a Chernobyl, and likely never will be. Unless you're suggesting that we missed one of the cores exploding and vaporizing enriched uranium over several hundred thousand kilometers, and people dying due directly to radiation exposure on site within hours.

The total amount of radiation released is roughly equivalent, but the contamination is nowhere near the degree of Chernobyl. It's a bunch of goddamn hype ridden by people who are more interested in humping their pet cause rather than looking at reality.

Re:Health threat

[hitmark]

I guess the basic problem is one of not having independent entities that can review and fact check the information for the government, and so have to rely on whatever the corporate representatives tell them.

Tho given how dependent Japan seems to be on nuclear power, i guess they need to keep the bad news to a minimum to try and keep the militant environmentalists at bay.

Re:Health threat

[Anonymous Coward]

*You* are the one supplying the damn lies.

TEPCO has always said that fuel is at least 30-70% damaged, depending on reactor.
They have evaluated 20km immediately and have told people within 30km to leave as well.

So what the fuck are you talking about? This is stuff that was made available THE VERY FIRST DAY! You are an example of what constitutes lies.

Chernobyl (already the same order of magnitude of contamination released and it's still rising)

Gold!

e.g. chlorine detected reveals ongoing fission

If you are a "nuclear physicist", as you claim to be, wouldn't the tell-tale sign be, you know, neutrons??

Re:Health threat

[Anonymous Coward]

Except what you are saying is untrue. Right from the beginning they had a 20 km exclusion zone. I also personally watched the representative from TEPCO say that some fuel may have melted back in the first week. I'm not a big fan of these guys but if you want to understand what's going on in Fukushima you really have to watch the Japanese news. Foreign coverage and even English language coverage in the newspapers has been dismal.

Re:Health threat

[Anonymous Coward]

The Japanese are in jeopardy of losing their way of life as they know it. It is not about money grubbing parasitical maneuvers, but more to keep the calm in markets and general population as well as secured indebtedness for which they are sweating for sure. The Chinese are juxtaposed to pounce on Japan if the government can't secure the outcry and danger.

Re:Health threat

[lennier]

The total amount of radiation released is roughly equivalent, but the contamination is nowhere near the degree of Chernobyl.

Interesting claim. In what form does "radiation" get released from a leaking fission power reactor that is not "contamination"? Like, bursts of pure gamma rays or something?

Everything I've read suggests that what has been released from Fukushima, and is still being released, is radioactive isotopes that can't help but be contamination. The land area over which the contamination is spread is smaller than Chernobyl owing to there being no graphite fire - but on the other hand, contaminated water is also leaking into the sea, with all that that implies for the fishing industry, which wasn't an issue for Chernobyl.

Re:Health threat

[karuna]

Censoring information will only make matters worse. The Soviets already tried this before the Internet and failed. Today if the government tries to shut down any controversial or even illegal web site, it becomes more popular due to Streisand effect.

And some Japanese have already committed suicide due to Fukushima nuclear accident. These deaths are direct result of nuclear power.

Re:Health threat

[gullevek]

Um, I have no idea where you get your information, but TEPCO never said that.

But I guess you are another conspiracy guy on slashdot, so I leave you be.

Re:Health threat

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, actually the released radiation is not close to where Chernobyl's. You just became proof in point that false information is bad information. The only RAISED the level to 7 which matches Chernobyl's. Chernobyl's mess will take a very long time to get cleaned up still. This mess will be cleaned up inside of a decade.

Re:Health threat

[Maestro4k]

Interesting claim. In what form does "radiation" get released from a leaking fission power reactor that is not "contamination"? Like, bursts of pure gamma rays or something?

Chernobyl managed to eject into the environment many radioisotopes that have never been released before or since, stuff that normally stays as part of the fuel rods, even if they melt (it stays part of the corium formed when the rods melt). It also managed to aerosolize things like Plutonium which are very difficult to turn into an aerosol, and of course ejected that into the atmosphere. There's very little chance of that happening at Fukushima, one of the reactors would have to explode and complete vaporize its pressure shell and secondary containment shell in full to make it possible. The stuff leaking out in the water, while nasty, just isn't on the same level.

Everything I've read suggests that what has been released from Fukushima, and is still being released, is radioactive isotopes that can't help but be contamination. The land area over which the contamination is spread is smaller than Chernobyl owing to there being no graphite fire - but on the other hand, contaminated water is also leaking into the sea, with all that that implies for the fishing industry, which wasn't an issue for Chernobyl.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, but the fact it's the ocean it's leaking into helps a lot because it'll end up highly diluted in fairly short order. The currents around Japan actually help with this. But they are focusing on trying to find and stop the leaks into the ocean and making doing so a priority so they're not ignoring the possibility. Also the contamination being limited to a small area makes a huge difference. It's easier to cleanup, or failing that, contain by limiting access to the contaminated area. Far easier than having to block off huge areas like the Chernobyl exclusion zone.

And while there's been talk about entombing the reactors, they'll probably be able to decommission them eventually. They decommissioned Three Mile Island and it had a partial core meltdown as well. It certainly makes the decommissioning process more difficult, but not impossible.

Re:Health threat

[rubycodez]

no hype at all, just because there wasn't spectacular core explosion doesn't change the truth of my words, which even you affirm with "The total amount of radiation released is roughly equivalent". And the contamination release is ongoing, check back in six months and we'll compare the totals with Chernobyl then.

Re:Health threat

[rubycodez]

Get a clue, contamination is measured in becquerels for a given type and origin, not your "levels".

Re:Health threat

[rubycodez]

TEPCO changed their tune, but people like you with malleable marshmellow memories are a propagandist's delight.

Re:Health threat

[rubycodez]

I do watch japanese news. March 15, japanese within 30 kilometers told to stay indoors. those within 10km advised to leave but no enforced exclusion until quite recently.

Re:Health threat

[gullevek]

Are they? Are you sure? I am the one to be lucky to understand several languages and therefore be able to read news and information from various countries. I am the worst a propaganda minster could meet.

Old Sayings

[ae1294]

When information is made illegal only outlaws will have information.

Re:Old Sayings

[Gaygirlie]

When information is made illegal only outlaws will have information.

That makes many high-profile government employees, ministers and presidents outlaws... Hmm.

Re:Old Sayings

[Anonymous Coward]

09 F9

Re:Old Sayings

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes it easy to spot the outlaws.
Unless of course, in this case, you don't know that it's illegal to have information... but then... ...oh darn

Re:Old Sayings

[ae1294]

Makes it easy to spot the outlaws.
Unless of course, in this case, you don't know that it's illegal to have information... but then... ...oh darn

Yes... it is indeed, a TRAP!

Re:Old Sayings

[Anonymous Coward]

That information isn't illegal - just exposing it to the wrong people is.

Re:Old Sayings

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yeah. Duh.
You must be new on this planet...

Re:Old Sayings

[jd]

When marriage is illegal, only outlaws will have inlaws.

Re:Old Sayings

[ae1294]

When marriage is illegal, only outlaws will have inlaws.

When inlaws are made illegal, there will be cake...

Re:Old Sayings

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes many high-profile government employees, ministers and presidents outlaws.

"ministers" huh? *chuckle*

Re:Old Sayings

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the stupidest I have heard today. Thanks for making my day.

They have a record of doing this...

[Essequemodeia]

And so the official underreporting and censorship of the magnitude of the Fukushima incident by official governmental agencies begins. Or, really, continues. And all I got was this irradiated tee-shirt.

This just in...

[Jyunga]

Newly announced Japanese Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf: "No radiation in Fukushima. I can assure you that those villains will recognize, will discover in appropriate time in the future, how stupid they are and how they are pretending things which have never taken place".

Authority gone - this is what you get

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how they handled public communications in the early going.
They wouldn't be in the position they are today was it not for their own incompetence.
Lesson learned.

Let the rumours & conspiracy theories start

[Alain Williams]

This may have been done with the best of intentions, but it is crassly stupid. People will now start to doubt official reports as to what is happening if they think that ''inconvenient truths'' might be erased.

Re:Let the rumours & conspiracy theories start

[Anonymous Coward]

People /already/ doubt the official reports. A recurrent theme throughout the crisis was people saying they didn't think their government or media was being straight with them, and they were having to rely more on international news outlets to get a clear picture.

TEPCO's own reputation for being straight with people was already garbage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Electric_Power_Company#Corporate_image"

Yes, certainly, Nippon has crazy righ-wing-agitators and cultists etc who will try to make gains by spewing FUD, but a big reason they've got room to maneuver is people have already learned to distrust the "official" line.

Slippery Slope

[gman003]

Now, if we judge this purely on the current situation and setting, it is logical and justifiable. There's a reason "freedom of speech" was listed in the Bill of Rights before "right to bear arms" - speech, if used improperly, can be more damaging than bullets. IF this is strictly limited to "blatantly and dangerously false information" AND strictly limited to the current crisis, it is an appropriate action for the government to take.

However, I'm hesitant to flat-out support this due to several things. First is the ever-present "Slippery Slope" factor - if we permit this, then what is to stop them from deploying such measures inappropriately later? Second is the fact that, until it is used in action, we do not know the scope of "illegal information". It could be as restrictive as banning only "there is no meltdown IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY" and "it's 4,000,000 times worse then Hiroshima", but it could also be as restrictive as banning anything that isn't essentially parroting the Official Government Report.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Surt]

The tradition of 'the pen (speech) is mighter than the sword (killing)' is very misleading. Speech itself in this context is mainly a motivator for killing. It's a shorthand that says that one good speaker can get you access to a lot of swordsmen, while one swordsman gets you precisely one swordsman.

Re:Slippery Slope

[misexistentialist]

Speech is so powerful that is recognized as a primary right...therefore it is justifiable to take that right away? I hope you are being paid by a propaganda ministry somewhere to come up with this stuff.

Re:Slippery Slope

[gman003]

No, I am saying that if "speech > weapons" and "limited regulation of weapons is acceptable", then "limited regulation of speech is acceptable". The key there being "limited" - the only time I want freedom of expression curtailed is when it would otherwise cause significant harm and/or death.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Mindcontrolled]

You mean when speaking the truth threatens you beloved nuclear energy? Then, obviously, everything is possible. Start the bookburnings, dude, start the bookburnings.

Re:Slippery Slope

[cdp0]

No, I am saying that if "speech > weapons" and "limited regulation of weapons is acceptable", then "limited regulation of speech is acceptable". The key there being "limited" - the only time I want freedom of expression curtailed is when it would otherwise cause significant harm and/or death.

1. And who decides when freedom of speech is to be limited ? The government ?

2. Could you please give a realistic example of how freedom of speech could cause significant harm and/or death for the case of Fukushima ?

Re:Slippery Slope

[sixsixtysix]

so if an asteroid was heading to destroy the earth, you wouldn't want everyone to know?

Re:Slippery Slope

[gman003]

As to your first point, I think that's the most logical option. Or would you rather contract that out to the lowest bidder?

As to the second, I can think of plenty. Say that whatever Japan's equivalent of CNN or Fox News runs the story "Fukushima to explode with force of 20 gigatons in 20 minutes, will obliterate most of Honshu". Mass panic erupts, and everyone tries to flee. Instant recipe for stampeding deaths, car wrecks, etc. With 100 million people trying to evacuate, you're going to get significant casualties.
Or perhaps the alternate. Major news networks start saying "Fukushima completely safe, radiation is well below detectable levels. People start moving back in. Then there's another accident at the reactor, and BAM. Massive radiation leak in an area that is no longer evacuated.

Re:Slippery Slope

[gman003]

While I do believe that nuclear fission is a relatively safe and effective method of generating power, I also believe that it can stand on its own merits, and does not need attacks on any disparaging reports. The Truth will eventually win. I am of the opinion that "The Truth" in this case is "nuclear power is overall good", but if reality decides to contradict me, who am I to disagree?

Re:Slippery Slope

[gman003]

That depends. Would notifying people cause more loss of life than not notifying them? That is the criterion I believe such things should be judged by.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Mindcontrolled]

With strong emphasis on "relatively", I guess... I hope that reality contradicts you with a workable smart grid powered largely by renewables soon. One can hope, at least.

Re:Slippery Slope

[khallow]

There's a reason "freedom of speech" was listed in the Bill of Rights before "right to bear arms" - speech, if used improperly, can be more damaging than bullets.

One has to actually pay attention to the wording of the amendments as well. The wording of the second amendment is vague (and probably deliberately so, to be honest) so there is some room for interpreting it as claiming regulation of firearms is allowed. No similar claim can be made for speech in the first amendment. Despite being perceived as you say as being more dangerous, speech in the US is also more protected than firearms in the US.

it is an appropriate action for the government to take.

And an action that the US government is heavily proscribed from making by the First Amendment.

It's worth noting that there are a few times when the US has, despite the barrier of the First Amendment, been able to prohibit certain kinds of speech on the grounds described in the original post. But, as in the case of the 1918 Influenza epidemic, these prohibitions have often worked against the public good (in that case, encouraging ignorance and complacency of an unusually lethal disease as well as dangerous behaviors such as public gatherings which increased the number of influenza infections and deaths).

Re:Slippery Slope

[gman003]

Renewable energy makes a lot of sense. I'm entirely in favor of increased solar, tidal, hydroelectric, wind and geothermal power. I'm just not sure that it will actually be able to provide nearly enough power for 7 billion people. Nuclear fission at least has the advantage of having reusable fuel, since significant amounts of fissionable material can be created in breeder reactors, or recovered from waste. That should be able to tide us over until nuclear fusion provides effectively unlimited, low-space power generation.

I particularly like the combination of nuclear plant + hydroelectric plant. Put the reactor upstream of the dam, and you get an easy way to temporarily stop or filter any leaks into the water. Plus, nuclear plants have to produce energy constantly, meaning that there is a lot of extra power at night. Some places already use that extra power to pump water back up the dam, allowing it to produce even more electricity during the day (essentially using the artificial lake as a battery for the nuke plant's excess power). Such a combined plant would have significant advantages over either of them separately.

Re:Slippery Slope

[gman003]

There are, despite your claims, several constant limits on free speech. Libel laws and slander laws are essentially limits on freedom of speech. Most people would agree that they are logical limits - if your free speech is causing undue and quantifiable damage to me, I deserve reparation.

Military secrets laws are also logical limits (although they have been taken too far by recent administrations). I don't need to know what the current deployment patterns of security personnel at Cheyenne Mountain are. I don't need to know the precise operational specifications of the B-2. I need to know enough to be assured that my government isn't fucking me over, true, but I don't need to know everything.

Re:Slippery Slope

[khallow]

There are, despite your claims, several constant limits on free speech.

It's good that you are more aware of these issues than you first appeared. They do not change my argument since you were arguing for a particular type of regulation which is strongly restricted by the First Amendment and the current cultural environment in the US, not well known exceptions such as slander/libel.

Re:Slippery Slope

[sixsixtysix]

srry. "destroy the earth" = world-ender. i'd rather have mass panic/hysteria and all that comes with it, then, "hey? what's that in the sky?"...SPLAT




side note: how can you possibly quantify how much loss of life is caused simply by telling the truth?

Re:Slippery Slope

[cdp0]

As to your first point, I think that's the most logical option. Or would you rather contract that out to the lowest bidder?

I don't find governments to be trust worthy in these matters. Besides, freedom of speech is IMO something that you either have or not. You can't just have half of it.

As to the second, I can think of plenty. Say that whatever Japan's equivalent of CNN or Fox News runs the story "Fukushima to explode with force of 20 gigatons in 20 minutes, will obliterate most of Honshu". Mass panic erupts, and everyone tries to flee. Instant recipe for stampeding deaths, car wrecks, etc. With 100 million people trying to evacuate, you're going to get significant casualties. Or perhaps the alternate. Major news networks start saying "Fukushima completely safe, radiation is well below detectable levels. People start moving back in. Then there's another accident at the reactor, and BAM. Massive radiation leak in an area that is no longer evacuated.

This is not about freedom of speech, but more about lying for some form of profit, or being completely retarded. I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure this would be considered criminal.

Re:Slippery Slope

[cheekyjohnson]

"limited regulation of weapons is acceptable", then "limited regulation of speech is acceptable"

How do you come to this conclusion? "Acceptable" is subjective. I'm sure there are people (like me) who do not find that acceptable. Not only that, but just because one rule is broken, that alone does not mean that it is okay to break another.

Re:Slippery Slope

[cheekyjohnson]

It is not the speech that is dangerous. It is human stupidity. The willfulness of people to believe things without even verifying it. Speech is mere words. They alone can not do any harm. If people are stupid and do idiotic things based on that speech, then that is their own fault. They decide that for themselves.

Re:Slippery Slope

[cheekyjohnson]

There are, despite your claims, several constant limits on free speech.

That doesn't imply that they are constitutional. It's just that some people decided they liked it, and those restrictions, despite not existing in the first amendment, were put in place.

if your free speech is causing undue and quantifiable damage to me

It is people that cause that damage, not speech. If someone chooses to act based on faulty information without even verifying it, then who is at fault? The speech didn't make them do anything.

Morality

[iDuck]

"...authorities deem harmful to public order and morality" Well, this must be bad information if it's corrupting the population's sense of morality... or should that be morale? :-)

There is no "illegal information"...

[gweihir]

... except in totalitarian states. Or states that have so massively screwed up as Japan has in its oversight (or better lack of it) of Tepco that now have to face a panic as the truth begins to dawn on those ripped off. Quite possibly this could be the end of Japan as a 1st world country. They have been spiraling down for some time now.

The real tragedy is that Tepco could not even make ends meet with reactors built and running and paid for. If you take into account the cost they have to face now and the cost for permanent storage of the regularly spent fuel, you can see how hugely expensive (in addition to the risk of incrementally poisoning the biosphere) nuclear power really is. Seems to be the most costly way to generate electricity by a very large margin. Why people still stick to it is possibly that the largest part of the cost will be to future generations. Despicable.

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[TheGratefulNet]

oil and wars in the mid-east. THAT's why people consider nuclear.

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[Svartalf]

Be sure you're talking about the Nuclear Power that TEPCO is using. Liquid Salt Thorium and Pebble Bed Reactors don't pose the risks you mention, for example.

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Seems to be the most costly way to generate electricity by a very large margin.

A typical nuclear power plant the size of the Fukushima complex will cost $20 billion or so to build (including money to get past the lawsuits from the treehuggers).

A typical coal-fired plant the same size will cost much less to build, but spend more than $60 billion over the thirty year lifespan of the nuke plant to buy coal.

Note that this isn't counting the cost for disposal of coal ash and such. Just the cost to get the coal to the plant.

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[gweihir]

And they are not commercially viable. For example, the pebble-bed reactor has a problem with cracked fuel spheres and the feeder system that they could never work out. I read the technical reports. They still have the long-term waste storage problem.

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[ColdWetDog]

Be sure you're talking about the Nuclear Power that TEPCO is using. Liquid Salt Thorium and Pebble Bed Reactors don't pose the risks you mention, for example.

Liquid Salt Thorium and Pebble Bed reactors don't exist as commercial products. That's a subtle, but important distinction. While it's potentially possible that some nuclear technology might be relatively safe and non polluting there is very little push to have any industrial level research. Supposedly, the Indians are working on a Thorium based reactor. The Chinese are trying to improve current PWR designs. But MOST of the plants running in the world are older style BWRs or PWRs. And up until Fukushima most of the utilities were hell bent on keeping them going past their original design lives. Now that this behavior has suddenly become politically unpopular, you either have to decommission the things or ???? (who knows what).

We've boxed ourselves in quite nicely as far as nuclear power goes. Long term prevarication by governments and industry has left us with few useful choices in the short term. And the long term is quite a bit away. Might as well work on improving solar and wind.

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[arf_barf]

So you have a "safe" liquid salt / single fluid reactor. What happens when there is a disaster and that fluid comes in contact water (like from a Tsunami)?

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[arcade]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_reactor

Also, do read the german wikipedia article about it through Google Translate.

It's rather interesting that Pebble Bed is continously pushed as 'the future of nuclear power' on the internets, at the same time that AVR turned out to be rather .. interesting.

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[gweihir]

And it will cost something like 10..100x time that to deconstruct it as the end of its lifetime. Then there is the cost for the long-term storage of the nuclear waste. True, at this time nuclear fuel is about a factor of 1000 cheaper per energy contents than coal. But you need to ignore all other costs and the costs of accidents to run with that figure. You also need to ignore that the world supply or uranium is dwindling, less is produced than used and that nuclear reactors need to run a very, very long time to be cost-effective, again not including long-term waste storage, risk of major disaster and the cost for tearing down the plant at the end of its lifetime.

Suddenly the cost figure looks bleak. But with misdirection and outright lies nuclear power can be made to look reasonable. Sad though that so many intelligent people fall for the scam.

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[Mindcontrolled]

Pebble bed existed as a research facility in Germany, at the Juelich site. And it was an utter failure. Possibly the most contaminated site in the country by now, depends on how the storage facility at Asse works out. As for liquid salt - cooling stuff with molten beryllium fluoride? How nuts can you get?

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[johanw]

[quote]... except in totalitarian states.[/quote] Like the USA. Just ask Julian Assange or Bradley Manning. Or that Whitehouse dude that told the press someone was working for the CIA.

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[AK Marc]

I thought that they managed to get a pebble bed reactor to melt down (even if only in theory). The issue was that extended use can result in an increase of the maximum runaway temperature. And sufficient increase in maximum reachable temperature will hit the temperature needed to cause a meltdown.

Couple that with the increase in radioactive waste from pebble bed reactors, and they may not be the best solution.

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[Rising Ape]

As for liquid salt - cooling stuff with molten beryllium fluoride? How nuts can you get?

Why is that nuts? It has a high heat capacity, high boiling point (no pressure required, making a loss of coolant accident less likely) and is relatively unreactive. Beryllium compounds are toxic but industry handles a lot worse.

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[JSBiff]

"And it will cost something like 10..100x time that to deconstruct it as the end of its lifetime."

Oh, really? Citation needed.

We don't need to store nuclear waste for 'long-term'. It's idiotic that we are even talking about long term storage. The solution to nuclear waste is to burn off the long-lived elements in either a fast-breeder reactor, or a Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor. Once you do that, the final 'waste' only needs to be stored for 200 years, then it's basically inert soil which can be buried anywhere. We really need to move forward on one or both of those technologies, ASAP.

Also, if you use fast breeder (like the Integral Fast Reactor - IFR) or thorium reactors, we have enough fuel to last us for about 100,000 years. It's been estimated that we could power the U.S. for about 5000 years just by burning our current inventory of 'nuclear waste' in IFR-style reactors.

However, you're right about Uranium supplies in as much as our current 'once through' reactors will near the end of their ability to extract power from known Uranium supplies within about a century, I believe. But, like I said, you burn the waste from our current reactors in an Integral Fast Reactor, and we have many thousands of years of fuel supply.

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[Rising Ape]

Decommissioning costs are much lower than construction costs thanks to the time value of money - the construction costs are penalised by interest charges, decommissioning costs are helped by them. Given that decommissioning will happen maybe 60 years after construction, this makes a huge difference and effectively makes decommissioning costs very small.

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[Mindcontrolled]

It is nuts because if, no, WHEN you have a loss of coolant in such a plant, you not only have to deal with radiation, but also with a couple of tons of toxic crap that I only handle in a glovebox if I have to deal with it in gram amounts. Beryllium sucks.

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[Rising Ape]

Well yes it's nasty, but hazardous material handling isn't new to the nuclear business. Is the toxicity that much worse than, say, the radioactivity of sodium as used in fast breeders?

The designs I've seen have the core and coolant in an underground tank, with any pipe entries and so forth above the level of the core - so you can't have a loss of coolant unless you can find a way to make liquids flow uphill. I suppose in an extreme accident it could boil, but that's where the high boiling point and passive cooling capability come in - a lot better than a light water reactor, where a loss of coolant is depressingly easy and needs active engineered systems to handle.

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[Mindcontrolled]

I give you the point that it is indeed an improvement over light water. I might be somewhat irrational here, but beryllium is quite high on my "avoid if possible" list - and I did have to handle it, glovebox and all, as I said. It has quite nice properties when you consider it as a coolant, though, but still - I can't get myself to like the idea.

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[gweihir]

"And it will cost something like 10..100x time that to deconstruct it as the end of its lifetime."

Oh, really? Citation needed.

Provide them for your numbers first. I would also like a long-term uranium price projection and realistic cost estimates for to-be expected additional disasters and long-term waste-storage. Interesting how these always get omitted in the cost estimated, isn't it?

Fact is, in this debate, both sides lie. One side also has the responsibility to operate hugely dangerous machinery and makes tons of money from it. That puts the onus on proving anything on them. An their numbers about the likelihood of a nuclear catastrophe have already been proven to be completely bogus by reality. Either incompetence or outright lies. In both cases they cannot be trusted with something as dangerous as nuclear reactors. Solid engineering and risk management is one thing. What I see the nuclear industry doing is "hopeful engineering" and plain incompetence. That is just criminal.

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's no illegal information, why have so many states been throwing sissy fits about wiki leaks?

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[Douglas Goodall]

Die now in a war, or die later of cancer, it is unclear which is worse and more or less desirable. But this article is about the government declaring that some information is illegal. I can vaguely see that false information is problematic, but you cannot suppress the truth for long in a well connected world. I would think the Japanese people would have a serious commitment to knowing everything about nuclear activity in Japan. I can't throw many stones at Japan though as I was only several miles from the largest reactor event in American history and it tool decades to find out about it (San Fernando Valley sodium reactor melt-down at Atomics International facility).

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[Thomas Shaddack]

You forgot the possibility to reprocess the spent fuel. You also forgot about fast reactors able to use the secondary raw material currently improperly called "nuclear waste". And what about thorium-cycle reactors? And breeder reactors in general? There is a plentiful supply of nuclear fuels for thousands of years if you don't insist on not seeing it.

Every energy source has its costs. Being it coal mining accidents, CO2 production, cost of dependency on fossil fuels located in politically inconvenient locations, cost of wars needed to maintain access to these resources, displacement of people because of building hydropower dams, food prices influenced by biofuels, cost of manufacture of solar arrays (and the limited amount of gallium and indium available), name it and there are associated issues.

Compare the number of people displaced because of nuclear energy accidents with the number of people displaced by hydro dam constructions, number of people killed by coal and oil mining accidents with number of people killed by reactor mishaps, and we don't even need to start including wars in the cost comparisons to see that nuclear power with all its risks and drawbacks is still way ahead of the competitors in cost, safety and reliability.

Sorry...

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[Anonymous Coward]

oil and wars in the mid-east. THAT's why people consider nuclear.

G.E.E.T., it burns water...THATS why "people, (not I, please speak for yourself) dont consider the poison nuke option.

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[dbIII]

Liquid metals have a horrible tendency to cut through things via liquid metal embrittlement, which is why you couldn't take mercury thermometers on aircraft even back before everyone was terrified of mercury, and which is one reason the French has so many problems with their liquid sodium reactors. A devils brew of highly toxic and radioactive liquid metal is something that's going to strike fear into the heart of every engineer with a clue. That's probably not a bad thing because it will inspire design for the worst case. Make it small and make it so the stuff won't escape if it blows up as badly as it can and it may have a future. We've known big reactors are bad news since at least the early 1970s. The entire idea of pebble bed since at least then if not earlier was to have a lot of little reactors that won't produce a catastrophe even if they all lose cooling at once. The same idea applies to some other designs. When fuel cost is such a tiny fraction of the total costs you really do not need huge reactors.

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[MWoody]

Bullshit. Libel and slander are illegal information in every free society on Earth.

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[Lost Race]

Hmm... Die now or die later? I'll take later, thanks!

Re:There is no "illegal information"...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, decomissioning costs are so HUGE and UNKNOWN (we don't know how we're going to cut up all that hot metal and concrete or where we're going to store it) that the industry refuses to calculate them.

When non-industry people make such estimated calculations and reach MASSIVE amounts of money, the industry just blithely says "It ain't so" but won't give you a real answer.

The industry's answer is to keep applying to extend the working life or the reactors so they never have to face the decommissioning. That's what they did at Vermont Yankee (in only one example), where they just waved magic bureaucratic wands and signed paper and suddenly a plant with an original design life of about 20 years (ending in 2002) now runs at 120% rated power and is licensed until 2032 (30 years beyond design life). Note that the utility still won't talk about decommissioning or what they'll do in 2032...

makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Reads to me as: "media from the USA incorrigible; information kept from would-be helpful country in attempt to improve the general state of things."

To defend against misinformation

[Anonymous Coward]

Provide accurate and detailed information, and more of it.

Idiots.

Hey you dicks!!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you would supply *correct* information ("woah, sorry, our measurements where off by a factor 1000000"), there wouldn't be so many rumors!

what if all the .govS told the truth up front?

[Anonymous Coward]

absurd for sure, but then wouldn't there be less/0 need for all the other conspiratorial.chosen.neogod.whackos.govs rumoristic glowbull warmongering terrorism campaigns, if the 'offending' .gov told the truth to start with, ever, once? as the topic of disarmament is no longer anywhere in with any notion of stuff that really matters, is that not a realistic indication of our plight, & expected outcome, like in sci-fi? no wonder we really don't want to know.

Gee

[unity100]

i wonder why such a move is necessary, since everything is alright and under control. despite it being already officially declared to be a level 7 (chernobyl) disaster by japanese government itself.

A statement of the obvious...

[whizbang77045]

Isn't this just an admission of what they are already doing? It's been evident since day one that the news released by the Japanese government was heavily censored.

Can anyone say "Barbera Streisand" ?

[burisch_research]

Streisand effect all over again. Except this time, the Japanese government may actually be right. It seems to be trendy these days to over-hype the scaremongering.

Illegal information?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the information is true? Information that is true should never be illegal.

+Mod Up

[handy_vandal]

Well reasoned.

What I think is...

[Haedrian]

I remember seeing an article about how little they were taking care of the really poor workers which did all the 'dangerous' jobs. Something about not letting them leave when they saw the tsunami or something like that.

I think it makes the government look like a bunch of savages and I'm pretty sure that sort of stuff will disappear very quickly. Not just the "Don't eat bananas, they're radioactive" rubbish.

Idiots!

[erroneus]

As I have said before, it is a cultural standard not to be forthcoming with information and I still hold this is true. But the other side of the issue is that people WANT to know, regardless of their cultural ways and Japanese people TALK. They talk a lot. In fact, I hold the most significant reason Japan has such a low obesity rate is the fact that people talk about each other and they are actively seeking not to have people talk about them. So how is this relevant? Obviously, there are results to the government and big business withholding information that the public wants and even needs to know.

The government obviously doesn't care about issues of public trust. That's really too bad.

It seems a wrong step

[Anonymous Coward]

Do They learn that from their Chinese neighbor?

Fight bullshit with data, not censorship

[Trerro]

I can understand them wanting to stop all the "ZOMGOURCOUNTRYISDOOMED!" reports, but this is very much not the way to do that. If anything, it makes the public MORE scared, as they assume if you're stopping reports, you're covering up the truth rather than trying to release it.

If you want the reality known, publish the exact numbers, and make sure that creditable scientists unaffiliated with the government or TEPCO are allowed to go in there and verify your data. How much radiation is leaking, how fast is it spreading, what's the half-life, and based on these numbers, what is a reasonable safe estimate of the contamination area? How long will it take to fully shut down the reaction, and once that's done, how long before no significant additional radiation will be leaked, and therefore, how long will the existing radiation take to decay to negligable levels? Include a handy chart like the XKCD one (http://xkcd.com/radiation/), as most people have no clue what a sievert is.

Remember the swine flu panic? Remember how badly the MSM blew the details out of proportion? Remember how fast the panic died once it was clearly explained that "epidemic" doesn't mean to the CDC what is does to the general populace... and that it was just a new strain of flu, and thus nothing to worry about if you weren't worried about normal flus? People pretty quickly realized it amounted to "if you have a weak immune system or are otherwise abnormally vulnerable, get a flu shot. If not, ignore it. You might get it, but you'll get it over it like every other flu. The CDC is monitoring it on the very low chance it mutates into something more dangerous, and is increasing flu shot reserves as a precautionary measure." Sure, it took a few weeks, but the panic died once the average person had the exact numbers.

Airborne diseases and radiation are similar in that both are scary because you can't see them, and it's quite possible to die from them. The only way to fight that fear of the unknown is by making it known - full data, full facts, realistic risk assessment that neither over- nor understates the problem.

Re:Fight bullshit with data, not censorship

[Mr. Underbridge]

Remember the swine flu panic? Remember how badly the MSM blew the details out of proportion? Remember how fast the panic died once it was clearly explained that "epidemic" doesn't mean to the CDC what is does to the general populace... and that it was just a new strain of flu, and thus nothing to worry about if you weren't worried about normal flus? People pretty quickly realized it amounted to "if you have a weak immune system or are otherwise abnormally vulnerable, get a flu shot. If not, ignore it

This is a nit for me, because a lot of the above isn't true at all. First, the swine flu was significantly more deadly for the non-AARP generations, due to lack of immunity for people under about 60. It was hitting teenagers and others who weren't immune-compromised far harder than normal. Second, the CDC got hit for 'blowing the details out of proportion' because it enacted a vaccine program that prevented a wide-scale loss of life. In other words, they did a great job. Talk about a no-win situation - either they screwed up and failed to save lives, or they do save lives and blow it out of proportion.

In this case, I do support the notion of getting as much accurate info out as possible. The best way to fight the scare sites is to tell the full truth. If the government gets caught minimizing or hiding anything, they won't be believed again and the ZOMG sites will become the authorities.

Re:Fight bullshit with data, not censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it wasn't that they got the details wrong on whether or not it was a pandemic flu. It was, and it moved through the population rapidly.
It just wasn't in a form that resulted in high mortality. If it had mutated into a highly lethal form early on we'd have been in real trouble without an awareness of what could be in store.

Re:Fight bullshit with data, not censorship

[drinkypoo]

If you want the reality known, publish the exact numbers,

Don't worry, the linked article doesn't say they want the reality known, only that they want "rumors" (true or not is not specified) to stop, and that if the government deems them to be a hazard to safety or morality then they will ask them to take down the information.

They most certainly do not want the reality known, which is why they are not publishing exact numbers. The numbers, in fact, have been almost amazingly fragmentary. Well, that's not amazing; since when does big energy admit wrongdoing? What's amazing is the lack of international outcry for those numbers. It's almost like big energy is one big gripping hand all over the planet instead of a whole bunch of different organizations...

Re:Fight bullshit with data, not censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Airborne diseases and radiation are similar in that both are scary because you can't see them, and it's quite possible to die from them. The only way to fight that fear of the unknown is by making it known - full data, full facts, realistic risk assessment that neither over- nor understates the problem.

Fortunately, they are not similar. Radiation doesn't multiply. Rate of radiation is important, not as much total amount. It doesn't accumulate as LNT model would have you believe. The reason is we do not live very long. Even receiving 100mSv/year for your entire lifetime - you are FAR more likely to die of non-radiation illness than radiation induced. People living in parts of Iran with 300-400mSv/year radiation levels supposedly live longer than average westerner. They have radium in soil - this collects in your bones like Strontium or Plutonium (NOT like Cesium, which is more like Potassium, and part of Potassium is radioactive - actually potassium radiation is 3x more energetic than Cesium).

You would be extremely surprised to the amount of radiation present in your soil. Top 10cm of soil contain about 400,000Bq/m2. People are were evaluated from Chernobyl area bases on increase of 1mSv/yr or deposition of 37kBq/m3. That is only 10% increase in natural soil radioactivity! But many areas of the exclusion are in Ukraine now are only 7mSv/lifetime, which is basically nothing, yet it is still exclusion area. A good paper to read about this is "Chernobyl disaster and LNT".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20585443

Everytime I read more about LNT, the less I like it. I actually use to "believe" LNT as a valid model. Not anymore. Studies that seemingly support LNT conclusions for low doses of radiation are not following proper data analysis. I have yet to find a study that actually supports LNT for lower rates than 1mSv/h and about 400mSv total dose.

Anyway, long story short, there is a shit ton of stuff about radiation that is not very well known by the public. They continue with then merry lives in complete ignorance and then some scientists detects 1000 atoms of Iodine and the public freaks out. This is mostly because they are do not understand they live in a radiation soup already.

PS. Maybe Japan should have instituted sane reporting guidelines back during Chernobyl days instead of having headlines like "DUST OF DEATH IN POLAND". The only people that suffered any consequences of Chernobyl were the ones that took lots of iodine for extended period of time as a "preventative measure" - they basically killed their thyroids ;)

I wander what is the number of destroyed thyroids in the US considering they bought so many Iodine tablets.

Re:Fight bullshit with data, not censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

H1N1 had a much lower kill % than normal flu, but was far more infectious, leading to more overall deaths.

Re:Fight bullshit with data, not censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

I can understand them wanting to stop all the "ZOMGOURCOUNTRYISDOOMED!" reports, but this is very much not the way to do that. If anything, it makes the public MORE scared, as they assume if you're stopping reports, you're covering up the truth rather than trying to release it.

If you want the reality known, publish the exact numbers, and make sure that creditable scientists unaffiliated with the government or TEPCO are allowed to go in there and verify your data. How much radiation is leaking, how fast is it spreading, what's the half-life, and based on these numbers, what is a reasonable safe estimate of the contamination area?. How long will it take to fully shut down the reaction, and once that's done, how long before no significant additional radiation will be leaked, and therefore, how long will the existing radiation take to decay to negligable levels?

And what if this is exactly the fear-inducing data that they don't want people to have?

Include a handy chart like the XKCD one (http://xkcd.com/radiation/), as most people have no clue what a sievert is.

Let's see Mr. Clever Cartoonist distribute signed copies of this chart to his fans within the exclusion zone.

Re:Fight bullshit with data, not censorship

[antifoidulus]

The real root of the problem is that it's really hard to ethically gather information on how deadly a flu strain is. The swine flu actually had a relatively low fatality rate(from 'kipedia):The virus is currently less lethal than previous pandemic strains and kills about 0.01â"0.03% of those infected; the 1918 influenza was about one hundred times more lethal and had a case fatality rate of 2â"3%

However, when the strain first it killed a large number of young people in Mexico. As it turns out those people probably had other conditions that caused their death, the flu probably just exacerbated them.

So when the flu first hit a lot of people warned that it could be incredibly lethal based on the very small amount of data they had at the time, and thus people panicked. However the panic didn't really seem to die down as more data came in.....

Which of course raises an ethical question, at what point should you warn people about a pandemic? You wait for enough data to roll in and it may be too late, you work off too little data, and you get unnecessary panic.

Re:Fight bullshit with data, not censorship

[Mr. Underbridge]

The real root of the problem is that it's really hard to ethically gather information on how deadly a flu strain is. The swine flu actually had a relatively low fatality rate(from 'kipedia):The virus is currently less lethal than previous pandemic strains and kills about 0.01â"0.03% of those infected; the 1918 influenza was about one hundred times more lethal...

Of course, a whole lot of things are different about 1918, but that one is definitely the high water mark for flu outbreaks. Swine flu certainly wasn't expected to be that bad, even given the most pessimistic early worst-case predictions.

So when the flu first hit a lot of people warned that it could be incredibly lethal based on the very small amount of data they had at the time, and thus people panicked. However the panic didn't really seem to die down as more data came in.....

Those stats are hard. As I mentioned in my first post, the group normally responsible for a lot of flu deaths actually had some degree of immunity (ie, old people), so it's hard to compare death tolls on an apples to apples basis. After you back out the geezer effect to focus on American younger folks, the lethality for healthy people looked a little worse (if I recall). I will say, I do recall the panic dying down for sure after a couple months. After Thanksgiving, let alone Christmas, people had nearly forgotten about it because it simply wasn't killing throngs of people, due to A) a flu strain that wasn't as bad as claimed, and/or B) effective vaccination and control of infected population. I recall this time acutely, as I had a newborn at the time who was struggling to gain weight. We were in the 'take all precautions' group, but even we started to get more lax by New Year.

Which of course raises an ethical question, at what point should you warn people about a pandemic? You wait for enough data to roll in and it may be too late, you work off too little data, and you get unnecessary panic

That's the canonical problem of detection theory, whatever the field. It's easy(ish) to quantify the number of additional deaths due to late announcement. It's much harder to estimate how many people are killed due to the population getting desensitized due to too frequent warnings.

Re:Fight bullshit with data, not censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

"If the government gets caught minimizing or hiding anything, they won't be believed again"
B.S., for profit media does what the establishment wants. People with for profit media as their only news source bend over and take it over and over.

" and the ZOMG sites will become the authorities."
You mean real people with real blogs, who present real data, that you now spin into TEOTWAWKI sites?

Contrast this with the for profit media who's establishment agenda goes like this.

Declare Pandemic (Use as grounds for arrest and imprisonment without charge, without representation and for an undetermined amount of time.)
Use the Public Spectrum to Compel Vaccination day after day
Remove any liability from the drug companies involved if their products kill or maim.
A combination of draconian laws, garbage science, and a corrupt/incompetent for profit media(mostly corrupt via CAFR and FCC) are working together to make "voluntary" acceptance mainstream.

No mention of Rumsfeld / Tamiflu? Companies Roche, Gilead Sciences and GlaxoSmithKline? Or of "Terrorism Expert" Jerome Hauer?

And now in 2011 we have this japan nukequake, after being frustrated the trust problem in government and for profit media, I had to go buy a geiger counter and sort it out one way or the other for myself personally, so yeah we agree on one thing the best way to get to the truth is to go dig it up yourself because this piece of crap lying, stealing, murdering, oath breaking government ain't telling us squat, and until the trust can be restored through indictments, impeachments, and prison of meaningful top level officials, and banksters the trust will remain absent as you can now see with your own two eyes Silver at $50 and Gold $1500

You want us to trust the CDC? Hell, they're the one's RELEASING the crap! That's like a Presidential inquiry on the monetary system a complete joke, if the POTUS wanted to get at the people driving up the cost of oil, all they need to is arrest themselves.

(How you get a +5 informative?)

homer simpson is at fault and he will blame the gu

[Anonymous Coward]

homer simpson is at fault and he will blame the guy who can't speak English T-bore.

OH HAI!

[Mindcontrolled]

Hello, dear apologists! This is the crowd you are associating with. Feel in good company? Yes? Though so. Scum attracts scum. Shall I dig out all the "nothing happened here", "this is proof of nuclear safety", "no meltdown is happening" - posts from 4 weeks ago?

Re:OH HAI!

[Mindcontrolled]

Yup, mods. Go ahead. Bury it deeper. You can't handle the truth.

Re:OH HAI!

[Steeltoe]

I already de-bookmarked /. several months ago. This type of thinking is exhaggerated in a force-feedback loop where the "believers" discredit whoever says something out of line of the crows-speak. Open-minded and truly sceptical discussion, almost never happens on /., only reiteration of dogma. Calling it "science" is a big intellectual bluff, because without fail, it always seeks to reinforce an already fixed belief system, and seek to destroy anyone else having a different world perspective and experiences.

Good luck with your war against your strawmen Creationist-boogeymen, and whatever fruits that may bring you. New discoveries, inventions, progress and evolution is meant for others I guess. Creationism is not worth anyone's attention, but these days, people fall for anything.

elements of modern journalism

[zugedneb]

reminds me of a documentary film I saw about political journalism, where one of the commenters pointed out that in the old days the journalists sat in the back listening and taking notes, but nowdays they stand in the front, both in person and in words - that is they say and write the interpretation they think they can get away with...

this is a downside of "the free market" - those who live on talking are dependent of your mony, so they say what sells...

Who descides?

[Anonymous Coward]

So who exactly decides what is illegal and what is not? Oh wait...

One website that was taken down...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Reactor Core website was taken down two days ago by a DoS from Tokyo and mainland China simultaneously. The puzzling thing is, the website was PRO nuclear, not anti. Google still has reactor-core.org in its cache.

Way to misrepresent!

[fnj]

The right to falsely "shout fire in a crowded theat[er]" principle is upheld in Brandenburg v. Ohio

You are completely misrepresenting the case. In fact you've got it backward, as well as making the most tortured parallel imagininable. Brandenburg v. Ohio was about what constitutes incitement to violence, in this particular case, white supremacy. On appeal to the US Supreme Court, the finding was to overturn the guilty verdict because the government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of violence as it does not rise to the level of imminent danger. In fact, far from your assertion, Justice William O. Douglas' concurrence with the unanimous ruling specifically cites "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" as the only sort of case where prosecution would be constitutional - i.e., you're dreaming; you better believe you do not have that right.

In brief, it's protected (though evil) to say that Amish people suck and are a dangerous enemy to right-thinking people someday they might get what they deserve, but it's not protected to incite rash action which you know full well will put people in immediate danger and to no purpose.

Or, certainly, that was the situation in 1969, but more recent shenanigans with outlawing "hate speech" may have expanded the set of things that are not OK to say. Certainly not the direction you are going.

Do I think any of this specifically bears on the subject of TFA? No, for a variety of reasons.

Re:Way to misrepresent!

[Hazel Bergeron]

Again, no. You're simplistically misinterpreting both what Douglas actually said and how the law works.

Re:Way to misrepresent!

[fnj]

Douglas said what he said. You are trying to torture it illogically. Unlike yours, his logic is very clear. I'll go with Douglas on this and not you, thank you.

Re:Way to misrepresent!

[Hazel Bergeron]

The concurring opinion of one judge isn't the majority opinion of the Court, either logically (1 is not greater than 1) or in law.

The opinion of the judge refers explicitly to consequences, not speech itself.

His logic is very clear, and the law's view on applicability of his logic is very clear.

HTH.

All your...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mechanic: Somebody set up us the nuclear meltdown!
Operator: TV screen turn on.
Japanese Gov.: All your information are belong to us.

Bzzzzt! Too late

[Scarletdown]

Sorry, Japan. Once the information is out there outside your jurisdiction, it's game over. No way to rein it in now.

on varying degrees of free speech

[KingAlanI]

It seems to be all about balancing two sets of rights that are sometimes in conflict with one another.

You seem to be alluding to things like British libel laws in the 2nd paragraph.

As for varying degrees of free speech, here are a couple more examples:

* Legality and the degree thereof for obscenity/profanity
* Legality and the degree thereof for conspiracy theories/extremist beliefs (For example, the wide US definition of freedom of speech and religion protects the Westboro Baptist Church, whereas Fred Phelps et al are literally banned from the UK for inciting hatred.)

What is "illegal"?

[EricX2]

What do they mean Illegal Information? Information that is false? Information that is true, but could cause panic? Information that is retrieved by illegal means such as the wikileaks type information?

Unless they make a list of what is illegal so people know what type of information will be censored, they will have the ability to censor anything they want.

Re:What is "illegal"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it's about time! I'm sure TEPCO
will be the first company on the list, and I'm sure Japan was very upset to find out TEPCO was spreading false truths. Perhaps Japan should bring charges against TEPCO. Oh that's right, they were "good" lies.

Eheh

[SmallFurryCreature]

What about if there really IS a fire? Am I going to be silenced as well then?

History is rife with examples where the powers that be wanted to silence the person pointing out the fire in the theater. Imagine for instance 10 years ago, how would the same government of Japan have reacted to someone claiming the protection at Fukushima were in-adequate? A false alarm OR the truth? We know now. The state claimed the defences were adequate. They claimed doubters were wrong. They lied.

It is all to easy to claim speech must be silenced for the common good. The common good however might not be what you think it is.

Yes, of course clearly spreading false alarm is wrong. But do you trust the state to be able to truly separate false alarm from inconvenient truths?

Re:Eheh

[Mindcontrolled]

If the real fire is not approved by the /.-techno-cornucopian groupthink, well, yes, you are going to be silenced then. What should not happen can not happen, and nuclear energy is safe. Didn't you get the memo?

That's why I'm of split mind here...

[KingAlanI]

The potential for censorship abuse is obvious, but the media over-the-top fearmongering is also obvious.

please, enough horseshit

[edxwelch]

> The fact is, unless you're within 6 or so blocks(not counting the ocean) of the Fukushima plant, there is no dangerous level

readings taken by the Japanese government shows that is plainly not true (which is why the evacuation zone is in place):

"An analysis of MEXT's data by New Scientist shows just how elevated the levels are. After the 1986 Chernobyl accident, the most highly contaminated areas were defined as those with over 1490 kilobecquerels (kBq) of caesium per square metre. Produce from soil with 550 kBq/m2 was destroyed.

People living within 30 kilometres of the plant have evacuated or been advised to stay indoors. Since 18 March, MEXT has repeatedly found caesium levels above 550 kBq/m2 in an area some 45 kilometres wide lying 30 to 50 kilometres north-west of the plant. The highest was 6400 kBq/m2, about 35 kilometres away, while caesium reached 1816 kBq/m2 in Nihonmatsu City and 1752 kBq/m2 in the town of Kawamata, where iodine-131 levels of up to 12,560 kBq/m2 have also been measured. "Some of the numbers are really high," says Gerhard Proehl, head of assessment and management of environmental releases of radiation at the International Atomic Energy Agency."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20305-caesium-fallout-from-fukushima-rivals-chernobyl.html

Re:please, enough horseshit

[DrBoumBoum]

Stop ruining our beloved fantasies with your damn facts!

Re:please, enough horseshit

[zalas]

I don't know where New Scientist got their 1490 number, but the IAEA report on Chernobyl (http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1239_web.pdf) cited by Wikipedia gives an upper tier of 1480+ kBq/m^2 of cesium-137, except that 3100 km^2 of land in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus had at least that level of contamination. If you look at the total area at 555+ kBq/m^2 of cesium-137, you get 10300 km^2 of land which had at least that level of contamination. You'd need a circle with a radius of ~57 km to contain that much land.

Since 18 March, MEXT has repeatedly found caesium levels above 550 kBq/m2 in an area some 45 kilometres wide lying 30 to 50 kilometres north-west of the plant.

The wording here is kind of weird. Why are they using a single length to describe area? Furthermore, does "repeatedly found caesium levels above 550 kBq/m^2" mean that the entire area has that level of radioactivity or that simply they measured it in a few places and got high readings? The New Scientist article then gives high peak rates like 6400 kBq/m^2 of cesium, but fail to provide a comparison with Chernobyl. And to finish it off, they move onto talking about a totally different isotope (iodine-131). Becquerels measure the number of decay events per second, so comparing becquerel readings between two different isotopes is kind of pointless -- it doesn't compare the amount of energy being released.

Re:please, enough horseshit

[edalytical]

Great, let's all start quoting a magazine that has been criticized for its "level of scientific illiteracy" and that had the audacity to print "Darwin was wrong" on its cover. By the way, I looked over the reports from MEXT and never found mention of "kilobecquerels," in fact all the measurements I found were in microsievert. From what I could gather most were only a few times greater than background radiation. So please kindly explain this to me or link to a comprehensible article that references reports from MEXT that I can actually verify.

Spreading false information, say what???

[fnj]

Entirely, comprehensively incorrect. In the US, constitutionally protected freedom of speech is not circumscribed by the line marking the limit of what is provably true. It is certainly not punishable to state that the earth and the universe were created in 7 days at around 4000 BC, or deny the same, or that smoking marijuana is a terrible danger to health, or that smoking marijuana is completely harmless. It is not punishable to say that people and governments that criminalize victimless crimes are stupid and should rot in hell. It is not even punishable to say that Governor Goodguy or radio personality Joe Somebody suck and are the doom of the nation, because they are public figures. It is practically impossible to be convicted of libel or slander against a public figure, unless you really make a point of trying to be convicted.

It is NOT protected to knowingly cry "fire" in a crowded theater. The question is whether the published material under discussion is in any way comparable to that.

Panic had GREATER effect for Chernobyl

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the WHO report, beside the 30-50 dead fire fighter from direct irradiation, the health damage done by the panic and angst, was greater than the one done by radiation.

and for fuck sake already one country had a knee jerk reaction and decided to shut down nuclear plants immediately ., and this led directely to importing electricity to coal heavy plant Tchecoslovacia.

Yes, the panic and false info spread among the ent and journalist did MORE damage I would say on the short term and the long term than yelling fire in a crowd.

physicsforums.com

[Christian Marks]

The Japan Earthquake thread in the nuclear engineering forum at physicsforums.com has become a more reliable and timely source of information on the stricken reactors at Fukushima than mainstream news sources, according to commenters posting from Japan. The latest news:Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency says air may be leaking from theNo 2 and No 3 reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant.Another example, as of March 30, 11 AM JST: Radioactive iodine 3,355 times legal limit found in seawater near plant. Another from March 30: IAEA Confirms Very High Levels of Radiation Far From Reactors.

April 11, 2011. The Japanese government's nuclear safety agency has decided to raise the crisis level of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant accident from 5 to 7, the worst on the international scale. Also, see this post from the physics forum. In each case, the news was available on physicsforums.com before publication in the mainstream press.

Let's hope that the Japanese government does not suppress this essential source of information.

Re:physicsforums.com

[FormOfActionBanana]

The legal limit multiplier to four significant digits doesn't tell me how a) unusual or b) unsafe I-131 in seawater is!

Re:physicsforums.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the MIT Nuclear Science and Engineering blog (http://mitnse.com/ ) on the Fukushima incident hasn't been updated since April 15.
Just Spring Break, or...

Re:physicsforums.com

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with that information is it's utterly meaningless for the layperson whilst sounding terrifying.

3,355 times the legal limit? Legal limits for toxic or radioactive materials are immensely low to begin with, they have to be ok with millions potentially drinking litres of water a day, they have to allow for increased concentrations as it moves up in the foodchain, the effect evaporation when cooking has and so on. With no info on health effects, potential for the contamination to spread and other important information it does little but spread panic.

The international scale for atomic disasters itself is incredibly flawed. 7 Puts the accident at the same level as Chernobyl when the situation as Fukushima is nowhere near as bad. Although contaminated water has leaked from the plant, nuclear fuel wasn't thrown into the atmosphere, the contamination is very localised and nowhere near as grave or as long lasting. The effects will be orders of magnitude less than what happened there.

Re:physicsforums.com

[hackus]

I wouldn't trust a forum that has its interest in a industry that funds the jobs these people currently have.

I would check out and look for ordinary people with proper instrumentation and get the facts there.

Besides there is enough information about radioactivity on the web that people can read and decide for themselves.

History has demonstrated that you should not trust a centralized authority for information of this nature.

Use your noggin, but anything posted in the physicsforums.com sit should be taken with a little bit of iodine...and salt.

-Hack

Re:physicsforums.com

[jimmyswimmy]

I think your tin foil hat is too thick.

What you are saying is that you shouldn't trust people who know the field best. Certainly it makes sense to keep in mind that the people on there may have hidden agendas, and you should use your brain. A forum populated by people informed on the topic because they actually work in the field is the place I want to go to become informed. These are guys who will present or point you towards raw data and help you learn to interpret it yourself. It is possible to work in a field yet retain integrity and ethics.

I agree with your final point - anything you read on the internet should be taken with a grain of salt.

Re:physicsforums.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the IAEA has been saying that reactor 2 and 3 were at atmospheric pressure ever since off-site power was restored. They can only be at atmospheric pressure, if containment has been breached and steam is continuously venting.
Also, INES is just a number, and severely lacks granularity. While it's a matter of interpretation to combine the three reactors into a single incident (and assign a separate incident rating to reactor 4) to come up with the INES level of 7, it's not necessarily difficult to see the gravity of this situation, even given only the IAEA published data.

Re:physicsforums.com

[Anonymous Coward]

> immensely low to begin with

So, now you're smarter than all those genius scientists who studied low-level radiation effects for decades and established the limits?

One more time, for those who just don't get it: low-level radiation can be just as deadly as high level exposure, it just may (may, not will) take longer to get "hit" with whatever particle does the tissue damage. It doesn't matter if the radiation level is high or low: if ionizing radiation exists in your ambient environment, you're getting zapped and there is little comfort in knowing your cancer was caused by 10 years low level or 1 afternoon high level exposure. Hospital technicians who work with low level nucleotides wear dosimiters, are carefully trained in radiation safety, and have very detailed procedures to follow (safe use and disposal of the nucleotide-bearing reagents being among the main concerns). And that's only for Iodine-131!

The fact that I'm spraying you with a low concentration of solvent does not mean you're safe, just that you will take longer to dissolve than if sprayed with a higher concentration.

Re:physicsforums.com

[hackus]

"It is possible to work in a field yet retain integrity and ethics."

No it is not.

We don't live in that sort of world.

I can point to a litany of people who had whole scientific careers destroyed by entire organizations and industrial complexes because the reality they discovered was against dogma.

So go ahead, be my guest. Pay $6 dollars a gallon for gas and eat your perfectly fine sea food from Japan and die knowing chemo therapy is the only thing that can save you.

-Hack

Does not follow...

[msauve]

Next time someone makes fun by shouting authentically "Fire! Fire! Run!" in a theater or some other 'suitable' place, and your relatives die there having been crushed by the panicking crowd trying to get out, maybe then you'll remember that there are certain situations where Freedom of Speech is limited, and rightfully so, precisely to prevent panic and to save lives.

If there actually were a fire, I'd hope that someone would indeed let people know, instead of letting them die without even being able to try to get out.

Is the analogy implied by your comment that there is no significant radiation danger from Fukushima, and the reports are just "making fun?"

My god, the FUD is staggering

[SmallFurryCreature]

So you count only the building cost of the nuclear reactor vs the operational cost of a coal burning facility?

How about the operating cost of the nuclear reactor INCLUDING the security measures needed to safe guard the nuclear material for all its life span? How about the dismanteling costs?

My my, you certainly spread the FUD fast and hard. Are you either that stupid you do this by accident or so morally corrupt you can't even think someone will see through this?

Re:My god, the FUD is staggering

[JSBiff]

The security and other operations costs are very small for nuclear, compared to the energy output/revenues from the reactors.

At least in the U.S., utility companies which operate nuclear reactors are required to pay money for nuclear waste disposal AND decommissioning costs, into funds dedicated for those purposes, for each kWh sold. Even with those additional costs, the per kWh price of nuclear electricity is competitive with coal and gas.

It's also possible for plants to make some relatively inexpensive (compared to the amount of revenues expected to be generated) upgrades and repairs/replacements, to keep them safe, and be able to renew their licenses by 20 years. Those additional 20 years make nuclear dramatically more economical, because the initial construction costs, AND the decommissioning costs have been payed for after the first 20 or 30 years.

So, nuclear plants which have earned a licenses extension can typically sell electricity during that last 20 year extension at a price significantly *below* coal/gas prices (and make great profits for the owners even at those low prices).

The state HAS to go along with private industry?

[DingerX]

Sorry, that's wrong. TEPCO, like BP last year, has no interest in presenting an honest assessment of what's actually happening: the corporate barons got where they were by downplaying problems. The only difference between their actions as junior executives and as senior ones is that now the problems aren't human but environmental and factually verifiable. So, they've got no experience in the matter.
The takeaway from this is not that we should kill nuclear power — good grief, did you see what BP did last year with oil, or Massey coal has done for generations? What we need is a procedure to deal with emergencies that removes them early on from the control of the captains of industry who got us in this mess to start with. Because yes, a magnitude 9 Earthquake and tsunami is more than any nuke plant designed in 1971 was built for, but we need people in charge of the emergency response who are willing to acknowledge this fact on day 1.

Re:Nuclear nightmare:

[JSBiff]

You *do* know that Chernobyl was a nuclear weapons production reactor, right? It was specifically designed to generate the maximal amount of weapons-grade plutonium possible.

How is that *better* than MOX fuel?

You do know that *all* reactors generate a reasonably large amount of plutonium, and that MOX fuel, while it starts with more Pu, actually tends to burn up more of the plutonium than LEU (low enriched uranium), right?

The whole situation at Fukushima is bad, but I don't see how a few MOX rods (most of the fuel rods were *not* MOX - even in the one reactor that was using MOX, it was only a small number of the total rods loaded in) has made the situation any worse?

Can you please tell me how, right now, in real terms of what has been released from the reactors, this would be any better if MOX had not been used? So far as I know, no significant amounts of PU have been found outside the reactor, so how has MOX made this worse?

Insurance - time to invest.

[Anonymous Coward]

The word they really don't want to hear mentioned.. Something most people won't know.. in the run off of the plant the plant HAS to be insured.. There will be no payout due to the cause of the leaks been a tsunami - a new policy must be negotiated.

Insurance companies have to now assess the risk of future leaks (near 100%) and include damages caused by leaks that could have happened in the past but can't be proven to be (near 100%).

The projected cost of damages are therefore "astronomically high".. Without spelling it out too much - this disaster is going to make Japan very very poor and somebody in the right place very very rich... a little clever googling you have a very small list of companies(actually I think I've narrowed it to one) that are going to have some unusually high turnovers come next April. - be aware this is a sector of insurance where there has NEVER been a payout - ever!

3 Google

[zAPPzAPP]

"Ads by Google

Hotels in Fukushima
Book a hotel in Fukushima online.All hotels with special offers.
www.booking.com/Hotels-Fukushima"

The 1st is an instance of the 2nd!

[anwyn]

Because the human mind is the most powerful weapon in existance and because information is the amunition for that weapon, the first amendment is an instance of the second amendment and is logicaly implied by it. The first would be totally unnecessary if the founders could be sure that the judges would not willfully misinterpret things. But, because judges might try to wiggle out, it is good that we have a 1st.

I don't lie and here is why

[Kyusaku Natsume]

The concentration of volatile radionuclides in the air from Fukushima Daiichi is below the maximum allowable limit at the moment. See
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11042405-e.html Press Release (Apr 24,2011)
The results of nuclide analyses of radioactive materials in the air at the site of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (30th release)
And the attached documents:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110424e4.pdf
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110424e5.pdf
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110424e6.pdf

In the last document, you can see that the concentration of volatile radionuclides at Fukushima Daini is almost two magnitudes below the maximum limit set by regulation. I'm not here defending TEPCO, because if their managers had been a little bit less greedy and far more intelligent that power station could be out of service but overall fine; also, I wouldn't have been forced by my death scared family to cancel my spring vacations to Japan and lose around 800-1000 USD in the process. In fact, I should be on board of one of the planes at my returning home flight at this precise time.

Best regards

Not reusable, censorship counterproductive

[Roger W Moore]

Nuclear fission at least has the advantage of having reusable fuel, since significant amounts of fissionable material can be created in breeder reactors, or recovered from waste.

The fuel is not reusable. Once the nucleus has fissioned it is gone. You can breed more with a neutron source but ultimately it is a limited resource because it is a "fossil" fuel - you are releasing energy stored from the supernova which preceded the creation of the solar system.

To return to the original topic though censoring even inaccurate data like this is stupid because it will make people doubt the accuracy of official information. A better law would be to require any incidents of inaccurate reporting to include a link or text with the accurate information and then let people see for themselves. This is different from something like yelling "fire" in a crowded area because people have time to think before they act and so hysteria should not occur because there is opportunity to refute stupid arguments. If damage to commerce is caused then sue the idiot who posted the inaccurate information for libel. This is a system which has worked acceptably for decades/centuries, why should Fukushima be any different that the countless other disasters before it?

Re:Not reusable, censorship counterproductive

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

Nuclear fission at least has the advantage of having reusable fuel, since significant amounts of fissionable material can be created in breeder reactors, or recovered from waste.

The fuel is not reusable. Once the nucleus has fissioned it is gone. You can breed more with a neutron source but ultimately it is a limited resource because it is a "fossil" fuel - you are releasing energy stored from the supernova which preceded the creation of the solar system.

To return to the original topic though censoring even inaccurate data like this is stupid because it will make people doubt the accuracy of official information. A better law would be to require any incidents of inaccurate reporting to include a link or text with the accurate information and then let people see for themselves. This is different from something like yelling "fire" in a crowded area because people have time to think before they act and so hysteria should not occur because there is opportunity to refute stupid arguments. If damage to commerce is caused then sue the idiot who posted the inaccurate information for libel. This is a system which has worked acceptably for decades/centuries, why should Fukushima be any different that the countless other disasters before it?

Well said Roger! 10-4

Radioactive Tyranny

[hackus]

There are numerous postings on you tube about the radiation, posted on servers not in Japan.

I doubt you are going to be able to contain a story of this sort of magnitude.

Who really knows that is going to happen. Instead of one, we have like 3 major nuclear piles under going uncontrolled reactions due to a variety of reasons, which cannot be stopped, only cooled with sea water. Explosions that ripped apart equipment, damaged fuel piles and eject fuel rod contents all around the plant.

Now only robots can go anywhere near the place.

On top of that the cooling waterr contains Plutonium and it is being pumped back into the Pacfic Basin.

If they do this for much longer, no fish in the Pacific ocean will be safe for human consumption.

There will be massive disruptions to the top of the food chain.

Make sure if you are in the Pacific, you check your seafood before you eat it with a radiation detector.

Oh, and by the way, if you discover the food to be unacceptable, you cannot tell anyone else, you cannot post it on the internet, you must remain silent and eat it.

Or they will come for you now.

-Hack

Re:Radioactive Tyranny

[lennier]

no fish in the Pacific ocean will be safe for human consumption.

Does that mean that they will be safe from human consumption? Good news for the fish, then.

Or they will come for you now.

When they came for the giant mutated irradiated octopi, I did not speak out because I was not an octopus. Or a giant mutant. Or radioactive.
When they came for the giant mutated irradiated sharks, it was too late because the giant mutated irradated octopi had respawned.

"Waku waku, Waku waku"

[Anonymous Coward]

A quote from Sasami, TenchiMuyo!, Ryoohki, Special, Ep. 7, "The Night Before the Carnival."

Outlawing stupidity does not work...

[WaffleMonster]

The Internet is full of nonsense and hyperbole..part of using it effectivly is having a brain and thinking rather than beliving everything you read. Heck the same goes for life in General.

Anyway I'm sure Japanese need no help evading government censors...it is a shame and inexcusable the government of any country would behave this way.

Be careful of sources. This article in particular

[ashitaka]

Look at the byline:

"Makiko Segawa is a staff writer at the Shingetsu News Agency. She prepared this report from Fukushima and Tokyo. She can be reached at shingetsunewsagency@gmail.com"

Look up who the "Shingetsu News Agency" is. Note that they have no real press credentials and their articles, especially those by Miss Segawa fall well into the fear-mongering "OMG!! BIG GOVERNMENT COVERUP!!" end of the scale.

The situation in Fukushima is being watched by nuclear experts all over the world and the basic facts of the aituation are posted on the IAEA's site. Anything beyond the stating of pressure, temperature and radiation readings as well as remediation steps being taken should be taken as pure guesswork. There has been way too much "This could mean that the reactors are undergoing fission and could go critical" kind of speculation.

Re:The state HAS to go along with private industry

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't agree. TEPCO, as BP, have said pretty much as much as they knew. BP didn't cover up that their rig exploded. They didn't cover up that there was a massive leak. Hell, BP even said they would compensate above the required amount.

Now, I'm no fan of BP, but saying that they lied is ridiculous. There is only so much information that is available to the decision makers at a given time. Whoever authorized their broken blowout preventer wasn't exactly running the show after the shit hit the fan. Furthermore, a working blowout preventer may or may not have worked anyway.

The takeaway from this is not that we should kill nuclear power — good grief, did you see what BP did last year with oil, or Massey coal has done for generations? What we need is a procedure to deal with emergencies that removes them early on from the control of the captains of industry who got us in this mess to start with. Because yes, a magnitude 9 Earthquake and tsunami is more than any nuke plant designed in 1971

That I can agree with.

Did you check out the coal reserves? These will actually run out much sooner than expected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_China

As of the end of 2006, China had 62 billion tons of anthracite and 52 billion tons of lignite quality coal.

Since they are currently burning 3.3 billion tons per year, this coal will only last 33 years. And this is 3rd largest reserves in the world.

On July 6, 2008 in central and northern China, 2.5% of the nation's coal plants (58 units or 14,020 MW of capacity) had to shut down due to coal shortages. This forced local governments to limit electricity consumption and issue blackout warnings. The shortage is somewhat attributed to the closing of small dangerous coal mines.

So saying no to Nuclear is NOT AN OPTION. It will not be possible to fuel China and rest of the world with coal + oil + gas as it will simply run out. That's aside from Global Warming and terrible air pollution it causes.

The future will be nuclear for base load + renewables for peak load and as augmentation of the grid. Solar is great for day peak load in sunny places, like California desert or Texas or places like that (see Saudi Arabia ;).

Re:Nuclear nightmare:

[dunkelfalke]

You *do* know that Chernobyl was a nuclear weapons production reactor, right? It was specifically designed to generate the maximal amount of weapons-grade plutonium possible.

Not really. The RBMK design is a modified military reactor design because it was easier to modify a military reactor than to design a true civil reactor from scratch. Also it could use natural uranium and could be built for very large sizes in a cheap way. Weapon grade plutonium production was more like a bonus. And yes, VVER was also based on military reactors (submarine propulsion).

Industry gets dodgy a long time after a disaster

[dbIII]

Can we trust every utility to be on top of that

I used to work for an electricity generator outside of the USA in the 1990s doing component failure analysis. We had a big set of books published by EPRI which had examples of just about every type of failure in a component in a power plant that you can think of, most had proceeded to the sort of extent you can only get if you ignore any signs of problems for a long time. They were all examples from the USA - things like failures costing in the hundreds of millions because the power plant was too cheap to pay the salary of a chemist to check the water quality. Many bits of plant were run until they actually blew up (small steam explosions are not a big deal in safety terms if nobody is within sight of the bit of gear, but they are destructive and expensive) before they were fixed.
In my country scientists and engineers are cheap so what looks to us like utterly stupid preventable failures don't happen as much. In the USA there often also seems to be the sort of clueless management approach where you have to treat those above like some sort of infallible god-king that never learnt the lesson of King Canute that they can not control the tides. If you find a problem outside of that environment you can usually do something about it without losing your job over some divine decree that reality can not exert itself and cause problems in your plant.

Illegal information?

[Starport]

Didn't know information could be "illegal" - that a "new" take on it. While If true, It may be "inconvenient", but certainly not illegal. If false, it's not information, but fictional stories (who may be aimed at creating damage), and that's a different story. What we need, is not a curbing of the flow of information, but rather all information that can be gathered and presented, to build a better picture of what is going on, and to stop single sources (that may have been tainted) to dominate the scene, and possibly turn fictional content, such as Tepco's "all is fine!" statements into information. What is the best source of information, in terms of trustworthyness? A few controlled sources, stating something, or a multitude of independent and uncontrolled sources saying the same thing (albeit with small variations)? I would opt for the multitude in almost all cases, and especially if authorities has any kind of involvement in the controlled sources. It's not tinfoil-hat reasoning behind this, but a valuation of what source(s) of information seems to be most coherent and untainted?

You have shifted the goalposts ...

[dbIII]

... and you score! Luckyo wins by pretending that "fanclub" means the entire nuclear industry, and then goes off with the cup before Mindcontrolled even knows that there was some sort of game!
What a pathetic waste of time it was to generate such weasel shit as you have written above.
It's obvious what he was writing about - the liars and over the top PR we sometimes see coming out of the nuclear industry instead of the entire industry itself. I really do not understand this increasingly common argument style of pretending to be incredibly stupid and miss the point, then relying on any readers to be even more stupid if you want them to agree with your misunderstood points. Do they teach this crap in school this days or do you get it from watching Rumsfeld or other idiots in action?

Nuclear isn't really private industry anywhere

[dbIII]

It's entwined with government in all places because no bank anywhere and no insurance company anywhere has ever wanted to touch that industry. Massive capital costs and long construction times mean that private enterprise is never interested without a handout from the taxpayer no matter what the long term benefits to that enterprise will be. That's really why the US nuclear lobby has been treading water for thirty years and spending more money on lobbying than R&D - they know they won't get money for good designs because nothing large will attract private funding, but if they can wine and dine a few Senators they might get a lot of taxpayers money to build TMI painted green. Meanwhile the rest of the world has accepted that it's a governments job to do what private enterprise won't do and even South Africa is a couple of decades ahead of the USA in civilian nuclear technology (pebble bed).
If you insult TEPCO you are also insulting powerful people within the Japanese government that committed a vast amount of public resources to making TEPCO possible. That's really why we have reactions like the one the article is about.

Any examples?

[RockDoctor]

It seems like Japan isn't the only country that needs to prevent regulators from later taking jobs with the companies they were supposed to be tough with. They shouldn't be allowed to be paid lobbyists either.

Do you have any examples of any countries that have effective laws preventing a "revolving door" between employment by a regulatory body and employment by a regulated business? Any examples at all?

It is not impossible that general anti-corruption ethos and relatively high moral standards make the "revolving door" ineffective in the Nordic countries ; but whether there are actually laws on their books is a different question. (I don't recall hearing allegations of doors revolving to public disquiet, but I don't keep a particularly close ear open across the German Ocean.)

Re:Any examples?

[Bing Tsher E]

The only way effective laws like this could be enacted is if totally clueless Liberal Arts types are made into the inspectors. In which case they will either end up led around by the nose at inspections, or will adopt an adversarial approach so aggressive that safety will be come a stealth thing at the facilities.

No, it is not possible to not hire industry-insiders as inspectors and regulators.

Re:Any examples?

[camperslo]

Do you have any examples of any countries that have effective laws preventing a "revolving door" between employment by a regulatory body and employment by a regulated business? Any examples at all?

Did I imply that I did? Finding additional places that need to improve certainly wouldn't lessen the need, so I'm not sure what you point is. The post is meant as constructive criticism, not something to raise or lower the opinion of some country relative to others. Calling attention to a problem seems a positive step in encouraging positive changes.

Knowing very few specifics of how these things are done in other countries I'm left mostly with impressions of what others do, and what logically seems like good policy based on problems with regulation in other industries. Hopefully the unfortunate events in Japan will drive positive changes everywhere. That's at a technical level. And looking at the causes and handling of problems (in energy and in industry/government as a whole) may encourage reforms in other areas as well. People should know about these things. Democracy depends on well informed citizens to drive desirable choices. When we've got too much influence of money in politics and what's portrayed in the media, we've got a problem. We also need more diversity in the media.

Without know much about how things are handled in the EU, the impression I get is that government/industry is being held to a higher standard. For instance the German defense minister stepping down because of things he did in his college thesis doesn't seem like something that would happen in the U.S. (the stepping down, not the copying).
I think there is a better citizen to industry ratio when it comes to control over regulations, and I think industry in the E.U. acts more positively (things like less outsourcing, more being deeply devoted to the education of young people).
Hopefully the nations transitioning to democracy will be much better for it. It's a vulnerable time. I hope that their democracies end up truly representing the people. If their media and elections processes are influenced too much by money (perhaps even foreign corporate interests), they suffer. Let's all keep a watchful eye and support healthy democracy in all nations.

Some of the things posted about nuclear power are disturbing. Some of the problems are with the industry instead of just technical issues. Again that's a sign that the watchful eye of an informed public is needed.
Though there are still problems, an installation such as Diablo Canyon is built far better than it would have been had the public not brought pressure. 40,000 at a local rally/concert, protests that included 40 college professors and the entire San Luis Obispo city council getting arrested. People spoke. The plant was better as a result. It costs far more when things aren't done right the first time. Maybe that's why the industry backed away from building more plants after Diablo Canyon.

The plant has a long history.

http://www.energy-net.org/01NUKE/DIABLO1.HTM

Although supposedly ready for disasters, a mere winter storm was enough to do millions of dollars in damage to the breakwater protecting the plants' salt water intakes in the early days. Clearly the industry makes potentially serious mistakes. Radiation monitors taken out by heavy rain? Maybe it's not ready for a real tsunami.

Re:Any examples?

[RockDoctor]

Bing Tsher E (943915) concisely expresses the problem in message #35929626

No, I don't know of any examples where legislation has effectively stopped this sort of problem. It really is a cultural thing, I suspect. Cultures don't change rapidly - it's at least a decadal thing, if not a generational thing.

National scale

[Skapare]

This probably makes it a Streisand effect on a national scale.

When is the movie?

[camperslo]

The "what could go wrong" thing could support a series.

How about brain-eating bacteria from the cooling ponds?

http://earthasylum.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/brain-eating-amoebas/

Re:Be careful of sources. This article in particul

[KamuZ]

I agree.

Anyway, if you are interested in readings, here is a website that grabs the information released by the government and other sources (TEPCO, Schools, etc.) and consolidate them in graphs.

http://atmc.jp/

It is in Japanese but they added Google Translate.