The “Sophisticated Art” Of Reading Press Releases

April 3, 2011

The New York Times does some public wanking about the capability of "western" laboratories to analyze the nuclear accident in Japan:

Thanks to the unfamiliar but sophisticated art of atomic forensics, experts around the world have been able to document the situation vividly. Over decades, they have become very good at illuminating the hidden workings of nuclear power plants from afar, turning scraps of information into detailed analysis.
[…]
Indeed, the detailed assessments of the Japanese reactors that Energy Secretary Steven Chu gave on Friday — when he told reporters that about 70 percent of the core of one reactor had been damaged, and that another reactor had undergone a 33 percent meltdown — came from forensic modeling.

Chu did not get that information from forensic knowledge. That sentence might be simply a fact checking error. But given the tone of the whole piece I'd rather call it a blatant propaganda lie: "Look how good we are!"

On March 15 the Kyoto News Agency reported:

An estimated 70 percent of the nuclear fuel rods have been damaged at the troubled No. 1 reactor of the Fukushima No.1 nuclear power plant and 33 percent at the No. 2 reactor, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Wednesday.

The reactors' cores are believed to have partially melted with their cooling functions lost after Friday's magnitude 9.0 earthquake rocked Fukushima Prefecture and other areas in northeastern and eastern Japan.

There may be reasons to applaud the nuclear laboratories around the word or Secretary Chu for analyzing the incident in Japan. But Chu's simple repetition of a 18 days old official statement from the reactor owner TEPCO is not one of them. Nor is any of the other sensationalized statements about meltdown analysis in that article. Reading through the official reports from Japan and the resources below plus some basic understanding of reactor technology and science allowed anyone to come to the same conclusions.

All Things Nuclear – blog by the Union of Concerned Scientists
Atomic power review – blog
Arms Control Wonk – blog
Brave New Climate – pro nuclear blog
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Digital Globe Sat Pictures, Cryptome high res
AREVA powerpoint presentation on the incident (has some errors)
IAEA Updates
NISA Japan's Nuclear Regulator
Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (regular updates)
Japanese government press releases in English
Tepco press releases in English
Kyodo News Agency
Asahi Shimbun leading Japanese newspaper in English
NHK World TV – Live stream
Status reports in German for the German Federal Government by the GRS

Posted by b on April 3, 2011 at 06:36 UTC | Permalink

Comments

The Tepco pressers are becoming surreal. Incredible detail about the most inane aspects of the situation. What “secrecy” there is I suspect now are just result of pure lack of knowledge.
They fished out two bodies yesterday from #4 turbin rm basement. Since this is where the reactor was empty to begin with the fact that men lost to the initial quake/tsunami were not found for more than two weeks give some idea of how limited the access to any of the important areas of the facilities are.

Posted by: YY | Apr 3 2011 11:09 utc | 1

Not to divert attention from your blog, Naked Capitalism has some excellent links, today.

Posted by: Maracatu | Apr 3 2011 11:59 utc | 2

@Marcatu – NC always has good links.
—
The NYT piece also includes this:

Stanford, where Dr. Hansen is a visiting scholar, posted the slides online after the March presentation. At that time, each of the roughly 30 slides was marked with the Areva symbol or name, and each also gave the name of their author, Matthias Braun.
The posted document was later changed to remove all references to Areva, and Dr. Braun and Areva did not reply to questions about what simulation code or codes the company may have used to arrive at its analysis of the Fukushima disaster.
“We cannot comment on that,” Jarret Adams, a spokesman for Areva, said of the slide presentation. The reason, he added, was “because it was not an officially released document.”

I have uploaded and linked the original presentation in the resources above.
It contains at least one serious error. On page 22 it displays the depressurization from the primary containment into the secondary through a special line as if the depressurization was voluntary.
There is to my best knowledge and according to the plans no such line. The depressurization was not voluntary but happened because there was simply too much pressure in the primary containment. It simply leaked, likely through the lid as is described here.

Posted by: b | Apr 3 2011 12:27 utc | 3

As I said on another thread, the complexity is such that the many anomalous permutations and implications can only be estimated by highly erroneous and inadequate models, both theoretical and perceptual. I’m not a “Denier” when it comes to anthropogenic climate change, nor am I a zealous believer, but what we do know, as is the case with estimating the damage and implications from this latest Nuclear incident, is that the climate science is based largely off of modeling, and so too are credit default swaps. If modeling is all we now have in which to gauge our new reality, we truly are screwed on so many levels.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Apr 3 2011 12:51 utc | 4

a href=”http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/82864.html”>Several months needed to stop radiation from Fukushima plant: gov’t

The government expects that several months may be required before radioactive particles stop being released from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, its top spokesman said Sunday.
”If we apply methods considered to be normal, I believe that it will be something like that,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told a news conference, when asked whether at least several months would be required before the plant crippled by the devastating March 11 earthquake and ensuing tsunami is brought under control.
…
Goshi Hosono, a special adviser to Prime Minister Naoto Kan, said earlier in the day that the government has set a target of ”several months” for the release of radioactive substances from the plant to be stopped.
”What will follow that stage is the goal of stabilizing the plant by installing a perfect cooling mechanism for the reactors,” Hosono told a live Fuji TV news program.

I don’t get why they would go this way and not take more radical measures.

Posted by: b | Apr 3 2011 14:40 utc | 5

maybe there’s something they know we don’t know?

Posted by: claudio | Apr 3 2011 15:12 utc | 6

“stabilising the plant” — holy cow, are they still thinking they can salvage the installation?

Posted by: DeAnander | Apr 3 2011 16:01 utc | 7

“If modeling is all we now have in which to gauge our new reality, we truly are screwed on so many levels…”
A very good point: modelling allows propagandists, wrapped in the mantle of “objective science,” to insist that the “truth’ differs fromn the evidence of our “own lying eyes’ and other senses.
It allows ideology to trump reality and teaches the proletariat that it cannot begin to understand complex truths.
It was from modelling, I guess, that the Garbage In Garbage Out, maxim came.

Posted by: bevin | Apr 3 2011 16:08 utc | 8

“stabilising the plant” – in context, I think it means “no longer releasing radioactive substances”

Posted by: mistah charley, ph.d. | Apr 3 2011 18:04 utc | 9

Mistah @9, it’s that, or it’s when the next crisis comes along and the press goes a chasing and forgets the current nuclear nuisance in Japan. It’s going to happen, just you wait and see. This will go away because the press will no longer cover it…out of sight, out of mind.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Apr 3 2011 19:08 utc | 10

This will go away because the press will no longer cover it…out of sight, out of mind.
and the scientific community will stop acknowledging it like the 1 million deaths from chernobyl. heck, i’m worried because of the food and water i’m consuming in calif.

Posted by: annie | Apr 3 2011 19:57 utc | 11

@annie – the “1 million death from Chernobyl” “fact” is a quite murky number. It is solely derived from theoretical statistical models, not from actual cases.
As MB said up thread: “If modeling is all we now have in which to gauge our new reality, we truly are screwed on so many levels.”
There is no reasonable scientific evidence, i.e. from actual physical data, to have any worries about radiation in California.
So far the only two folks who died at Fukushima Daiichi died from earth quake damage.
Yes, the danger is great that there may be some wide spread damage. That does concern me. But so far the damage was rather local.

Posted by: b | Apr 3 2011 20:41 utc | 12

We live in a toxic stew/soup of our own creation. Any of the myriad of ingredients in this lethal concoction could cause cancer by itself alone, but also when combined with the other lethal ingredients, the resulting molecular changes can create additional carcinogenic compounds. When we finally develop that cancer 6 months from now, 1 year from now, 10 years from now, or 40 years from now, how can we determine the source, except to say it’s the stew/soup? We know radiation, even at low doses, even doses the experts are saying are safe, can cause cancer……and that cancer can manifest tomorrow, or 60 years from now. Currently, there’s no way of knowing for certain, or even with confidence, and so we are left with the Models to guide us sheep through the abyss of lethal ambiguity.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Apr 3 2011 21:13 utc | 13

so much for inductive reasoning.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 4 2011 7:06 utc | 14

If modeling is all we now have in which to gauge our new reality, we truly are screwed on so many levels.
Well there is modeling and modeling. For traffic, for example, it works pretty well – it all depends on problem, question asked, type of model, etc.
Climate Science of course is so complicated, because it is based on observations that are partial or problematic in themselves (if not always) and extrapolation from these obs. Though some small scale experiments are performed they can’t really contribute to the general picture (e.g. reproduction of shrimp or whatever in different temps./types of water.) The models made are set up to do two things – analyze interactions and make predictions, which is a bit much.
The nuclear industry is different here, as it is man-made, and if we set aside the functioning (well known), the financial cost (another topic), one is dealing with the measurement of risk, the probability of accident, cascade failure, and so on. However the effects of an ‘malfunction’ resemble climate science.
Chu is, imho, a bit of a school-boy (a political hack and all for Corps, like BP, as well.) School-boy in the sense of being a nerdy scientist and weak narcissist, not suited to high pol office, which is why he was chosen, naturally. A bit all over the place, not consistent, having little grasp of major issues. His plan for a glucose society is peculiar, not that I took time to dope it out, so who am I. His plan for painting roofs white has had some support from scientists, but it is hardly an energy policy. He supports electric cars, as hydrogen went out of fashion. He is a ‘nukulear’ enthusiast (or was).

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 4 2011 15:37 utc | 15

Back to Main