FW: Further thoughts on the MIT Engineering analysis of Fukushima si

From: Andrew Johnson

Date: 2011-03-16 19:37:33

Attachments : _filtered #ygrps-yiv-1215680366 { font-family:Consolas;} _filtered #ygrps-yiv-1215680366 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;} #ygrps-yiv-1215680366 P.ygrps-yiv-1215680366MsoNormal { MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:”Calibri”, “sans-serif”;FONT-SIZE:11pt;} #ygrps-yiv-1215680366 LI.ygrps-yiv-1215680366MsoNormal { MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:”Calibri”, “sans-serif”;FONT-SIZE:11pt;} #ygrps-yiv-1215680366 DIV.ygrps-yiv-1215680366MsoNormal { MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:”Calibri”, “sans-serif”;FONT-SIZE:11pt;} #ygrps-yiv-1215680366 A:link { COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;} #ygrps-yiv-1215680366 SPAN.ygrps-yiv-1215680366MsoHyperlink { COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;} #ygrps-yiv-1215680366 A:visited { COLOR:purple;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;} #ygrps-yiv-1215680366 SPAN.ygrps-yiv-1215680366MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR:purple;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;} #ygrps-yiv-1215680366 P.ygrps-yiv-1215680366MsoPlainText { MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:Consolas;FONT-SIZE:10.5pt;} #ygrps-yiv-1215680366 LI.ygrps-yiv-1215680366MsoPlainText { MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:Consolas;FONT-SIZE:10.5pt;} #ygrps-yiv-1215680366 DIV.ygrps-yiv-1215680366MsoPlainText { MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:Consolas;FONT-SIZE:10.5pt;} #ygrps-yiv-1215680366 SPAN.ygrps-yiv-1215680366PlainTextChar { FONT-FAMILY:Consolas;} #ygrps-yiv-1215680366 .ygrps-yiv-1215680366MsoChpDefault { } #ygrps-yiv-1215680366 DIV.ygrps-yiv-1215680366WordSection1 { } Several people wrote to me with information about the MIT guy’s analysis and I include one of the more level headed critiques below. I will preface it with some comments of my own.    Before that, I was invited at short notice to comment with other people are UWS radio:   Go to this page www.unitedwestrike.c… scroll down to this link.   Hour 2, 3   Wake News Radio/UWS Radio Emergency Broadcast Consequences Of Earthquakes, Predictions, Causes, Solutions, Survival, Physical, Spiritual – Special Guest Andrew Johnson (Cold Fusion) (MP3) Comments on Oehmen   I checked  that  Josef Oehmen   had published papers – and found the risk management link in his work.   web.mit.edu/oehmen/w…   As he was not claiming to be a nuke expert and he did have published papers – and they were about Risk Management, it seemed like the thrust of what he was saying was legitimate. Also, from my own knowledge of radioactive Isotopes, what he said about that was also basically correct.    It is true that his treatise was posted before additional explosions and events at the plant with other reactors – which some were saying were more serious than the first due to the plutonium used in one of the other reactors. (Although plutonium is a by-product of the “standard” reactors as well).   Interesting there has been an effort to “expose” the MIT guy – when the title of his post was “why I am not worried about the nuclear reactor….” – i.e. he left other people the option to worry as much as they liked!   1) I don’t entirely trust the MIT guy either – I lightly implied that in pointing out the Mallove connection at the start of what I sent round.   2) That MIT article was good simply for laying out the sequence of events that lead up to the disaster ,  even if the guy is not accurate about how the problems were unfolding and their serious nature and how much contamination would result.   3)  For those outside the UK,  Speaking as a “survivor” of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, I can tell you we were not given any special “help” here in the UK and neither were we advised to take “potassium iodide”. On the high ground, sheep ingested radioactive caesium and their meat was not allowed to be sold. I was at Lancaster Uni at the time and the local media started reporting fires at Heysham Nuclear Power station – which, according to my brother in law who worked at Huntaston B in Scotland, were quite common.  The fire at Heysham (only about 5 miles away from where I was) never affected me or anyone near by me – and its nature at the time was never properly disclosed.   4) Chernobyl was bad – but most of Russia and Europe seemed to survive – the immediate surrounding area was terribly affected, however (and, of course still is).   5) As I think you would agree, the game is to create fear – and the nuke story is one of the “better” ways of doing this – it has generated a massive amount.   6) I am “anti-nuclear” as well and so have deliberately and consciously decided to point out one of the alternatives to Nuclear and what history shows about it – my feeling so far is that that message gets largely drowned out by the fear reaction. (And on a separate note, I was kind of bemused to hear Rosalind Peterson talking about CO2-based global warming on a program the other day – to say that aircraft trails were contributing to this – not that there was no evidence CO2 was playing any role in the non-existent overall warming)   7)  Things are still “going on” – including aftershocks etc    8) Wilbert Smith, Superintendent of Radio Regulations in Canada, reported in the 1950s how “the boys topside” as he called them would go around “cleaning up” after nuclear tests – he describes this in his lecture here:  http://www.checktheevidence.com/Disclosure/Audio/Wilbert%20Smith%20Vancouver%20Talk%201958.mp3   9) Reports in Pravda (yes, not necessarily reliable) stated that radiation levels at Chernobyl were “reduced” after a UFO was seen there:  http://english.pravda.ru/news/russia/16-09-2002/18024-0/   10) Consider the “placebo effect” and any opposing counterpart it may have….   11) If the energy technology that was used to destroy the WTC could be used for nuclear clean up, I have to wonder what it would be capable of (it seems that one capability is transmutation – which might include the ability to turn a radioactive element into a non-radioactive one….   We can all, pray for the best outcome for all of us – especially those whose homes and lives have been completely destroyed. There is nothing to stop us directing positive consciousness energy to “heal” the situation there – remembering that such things seem to be “goal oriented”, though it can sometimes help to think of specifics.   Article below. www.salon.com/news/p…, Mar 15, 2011 17:37 ET Debunking a viral blog post on the nuke threat An MIT researcher’s claim that there was no threat of radiation in Japan was picked up widely, then it fell apart By Justin Elliott AP Photo/Tokyo Power Electric Co./MIT The Fukushima Daiichi power plant’s Unit 1 is seen before (left) and after (right) an explosion in Okumamachi, Fukushima prefecture, Japan, Saturday, March 12, 2011. Inset: Josef Oehmen A viral blog post claimed that there was no chance “significant radiation” would be released from damaged reactors in Japan, but despite having been republished widely around the Web, the post has not held up to scrutiny. Identified as an “MIT research scientist,” Dr. Josef Oehmen wrote the post over the weekend with the title, “Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors.” It was a modified version of an e-mail he sent to family and friends in Japan on Saturday evening, according to the blog where it was originally posted. Oehmen, it turns out, does work at MIT but has no special expertise in nuclear power. And his key claim — that “there was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity from the damaged Japanese reactors” — appears to have already been proven false. While clearly the situation is still developing and all the facts are not yet known, the New York Times reported today that an explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi plant released “a surge of radiation 800 times more intense than the recommended hourly exposure limit in Japan,” leading to the evacuation of 750 workers. Meanwhile, the government has ordered 140,000 within 20 miles of the plant to stay indoors. But Oehmen’s blog post, which also took shots at the media for what he claimed was bad reporting, has gotten lots of pickup. The essay has been reposted on literally hundreds of websites and message boards around the Web. It originally came to my attention when a few Salon readers e-mailed it in. Several well-read publications, including Business Insider, Discover Magazine and the UK Telegraph have either republished or linked to Oehmen’s blog post; it was even touted by CNBC personality Jim Cramer. Business Insider ran the piece with the headline “You Can Stop Worrying About A Radiation Disaster In Japan — Here’s Why.” Oehmen’s essay has also been seized on by pro-nuclear partisans. A website called TheEnergyCollective…. — which is run by Siemens AG, a major supplier for the nuclear industry — republished Oehmen’s blog post, and that version of the post alone was subsequently shared on social media sites 35,000 times. It was also posted on a pro-nuclear site called bravenewclimate.com. Oehmen’s post contained a detailed description of how the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi work, as well as of the various containment vessels that, according to Oehmen, would protect people from radiation in any and all circumstances. He also railed against the media for alleged reporting inaccuracies: I have been reading every news release on the incident since the earthquake. There has not been one single report that was accurate and free of errors (and part of that problem is also a weakness in the Japanese crisis communication). … I have read a 3 page report on CNN where every single paragraph contained an error. Part of the weight of the blog post comes from the fact that Oehmen was identified as an “MIT research scientist.” So does Oehmen actually work at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology? Yes. But not in the nuclear engineering department. He works at an entity called the Lean Advancement Initiative, which focuses on business management issues. Is he a “research scientist”? Yes. But, again, not in any nuclear field. Oehmen’s research focuses on “risk management” with an eye to helping companies “take entrepreneurial risks.” He writes papers on things like “Human Resource Management in China.” I e-mailed Oehmen to ask if he stands by the claims in the post. He referred me to the MIT press office, which in turn told me that Oehmen is not doing interviews. An updated version of Oehmen’s blog post is now being hosted at a website set up by students in MIT’s Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering. Oehmen’s crucial claim — that there was no chance radiation would be released — has been cut. The title, which was originally “Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors,” has been changed. An introduction pointedly says, “Note that the title of the original blog does not reflect the views of the authors of the site.” (Special thanks to reader PN for the tip.) Justin Elliott is a Salon reporter. Reach him by email at jelliott@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin More: Justin Elliott

Related articles...

Comments are closed.