Fukushima "real disaster or media campaign?
having the serious contradictions between the alarmist media campaigns undertaken almost in unison through various means, and the measured tones of the few official reports from Japan of the few voices of Argentines living there, and very cautious expressions of the few-very few-scientists who were interviewed about it, it at least had serious doubts about the "Revelation nuclear "which looks more like a media montage than an expression of reality.
Objectively, nuclear plants withstood quite well the ravages of massive earthquake, which reached a high ranking - 9 on the Richter scale - very rare indeed.
As expected before exceptional contingencies, the reactors were stopped immediately, supporting both the first major earthquake and subsequent. The problems encountered so about an hour after the quake, were a direct result of the "tsunami" (Japanese expression adopted by whites, and imposed today by the press, with "tsunami" the correct English word.)
far as was possible to read, to coincide with the consultation of specialists Nuclear Sector, problems began to flood the plant called in the jargon of "diesel emergency" supplies, despite the redundancy, contingency electricity to operate the circuit pump emergency core cooling events against lack of power supply network (situation arising from the massive earthquake affecting all surrounding towns).
That incident and the absence of other alternatives of cooling power to the widespread collapse, causing overheating of the reactor, which resulted in the oxidation of zirconium and the consequent release of hydrogen combines with oxygen caused the explosions seen on TV.
subsequent fires were of a chemical (fire flow), nuclear NO occurred in the reactor building, but did not damage the special protections called containment structure.
The proverbial Japanese organization and discipline, (verifiable on the website of Nuclear Safety Agency Industry NISA) as preventive measures were evacuating the area around the affected nuclear plant within a radius of 30 miles.
could not see more than sporadic emissions relative risk levels of radioactive emissions, this according to reports issued by the Chief of Staff Japan Yukio Edan.
should be noted that searching laboriously through the tangle of merely anecdotal media reports, catch-phrases of limited informative content and entanglements manifest bad faith mingled with the dead and disappeared by the tsunami and the earthquake with apocalyptic fragmentary "information" of nuclear power plants, very little reliable in clean and can be obtained, having instead all the characteristics of the media operating on a global scale maneuvers handled as disinformation.
in Fukushima the end is still open, but everything suggests a gradual disaster-free solution.
On the other hand, are very dubious "concerns" of Germany and France to "similar" problems than those recorded in Japan, as these countries do not experience earthquakes or tsunamis ... but of course, are in full election campaign ... and "green "" buy votes. "
addition Germany is governed by a coalition of green, very eager to continue with the costly subsidies to "alternative energy (mainly wind and solar), whose inefficiencies are paid by the treasury Germany, and the irrational attacks on nuclear generation in Germany, led to his replacement by coal-fired generation ("ecology?) to imported electricity (much of it from nuclear sources), and the massive importation of Russian natural gas, even at the cost of building a expensive pipeline in the Baltic Sea. So écolâtre irrationality is also German.
omitted some important facts are:
were burned gas storage facilities, presumably with victims (no data reported).
surely must have been damaged and / or burned some storage facilities or petroleum refining.
all indicate that the many hydroelectric dams Japan has withstood quite well the seismic shocks (such as in Turkey and other countries affected by earthquakes, in which the dams did not collapse, as expressions of the expert Mr. Juan Carmona).
emergency countermeasures and prevention caused one death due to an accident at the plant conventional 4. No radiation.
However, so far no population directly affected by the damage suffered by nuclear power plants, have taken precautionary measures were taken at large enough time, and the few gas leaks radioactive components were low levels not compromising the health of people.
To get a comparative idea, according to the authoritative opinions of several experts from the Nuclear Sector, the radiation doses that may (only may) be exposed part of the population, is equivalent to that caused by a pair of X-rays, and equal to or less that they receive from the sun commercial pilots to fly at high altitudes. Obviously
behind the huge media campaign in full assembly, is the intention to halt nuclear activity. The beneficiaries of this potential new "hiatus" nuclear, would be the big oil companies, and those who profit from the very high subsidies on the basis of which they are installing small and inefficient power plants, solar and wind power costly and problematic, which are complementary but not replacing the plants base.
In fact, it is useful to recall that the only technology suitable for use as bases of power systems are three: the thermal (burning fossil fuels and pollute a lot), hydro and nuclear.
Developed countries already use all potential hydropower, ergo: you can not build new dams. If they cancel the nuclear option is left "free field" to more power plants based on oil, gas or coal. This addition to the "placebo" (False solutions) of wind, solar, hydrogen and other "new sources."
ecology transnationals, such as "shock troops" from oil, wind and the like, throw fuel to demonize nuclear power generation. All the "mounting media" close to the action.
Meanwhile, the emerging powers (China, Brazil, India and others) that require increasing energy supplies, keep silent ... and clearly prudent not leave the nuclear option, because it is safe and that strategically need. It
finally clarify that an incident such as Japan could not occur in Argentina, at the very low seismic risk for high levels of security of nuclear technology in Argentina, and because the Atlantic coast are not prone to tsunamis.
Argentina in no way should cancel or delay our nuclear revival!
By: CPNCarlos A. Ortiz
0 comments:
Post a Comment