Quake/Tsunami

[Lamplighter]

Another very large (multi-vortex) tornado is occuring near Mulhall, OK (at the center of this map)

[xoxoxoBruce]

9 PM, the winds are active but not real strong.

[Lamplighter]

Washington Post
Chico Harlan 7:00 AM ET
9/3/13

Japan plans to freeze radioactive soil

The goverment’s $500 million plan aims to stop radioactive water,
a result of the meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, from pouring into the sea.

The next step will be for General Electric to propose building one of their well-designed
nuclear power plants to provide long term power to the refrigeration units.

[Lamplighter]

This disaster in Japan is a disaster that just keeps disaster-ing.

This is quite a long article, but here is the gist ...

The plant was built in an old river bed.
It rains in Japan ... water runs downhill

The company that built this GE reactor did not consider "what if ..."
The earthquake broke underground drainage pipes
The "ice wall" technology is untested and would cost ~ $1 billion
The company is near bankruptcy
The government basically opposes bankruptcy due to effect on economy



Washington Post
Chico Harlan
10/21/13

For Tepco and Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, toxic water stymies cleanup

TOKYO — Two and a half years after a series of nuclear meltdowns,
Japan’s effort to clean up what remains of the Fukushima Daiichi
power plant is turning into another kind of disaster.

All of the nation’s 50 operable reactors are currently shuttered.

The site now stores 90 million gallons of radioactive water,
more than enough to fill Yankee Stadium to the brim.
An additional 400 tons of toxic water is flowing daily into the Pacific Ocean,
and almost every week, the plant operator acknowledges a new leak.
<snip>
One lawmaker, Sumio Mabuchi, who was also an adviser to then-Prime Minister Naoto Kan,
says Tepco, deep in debt, neglected to take important steps against the groundwater
two years ago because of concerns about its bottom line.
<snip>
The first months of the disaster were chaotic, an improvised battle that involved
firetrucks, helicopters, robots and workers trying to cool melted nuclear fuel.
As the emergency calmed and the groundwater problem emerged, Tepco was left with two options:
It could either block the groundwater from entering the site,
or it could pump the groundwater out and store whatever had leaked into buildings.
Tepco opted for the latter — a mistake, many outside researchers say.

The remaining options to deal with the buildup are unpopular or flawed.
The latest plan includes the ice wall, a new groundwater pumping system
and yet another system to filter radionuclides. But the ice-wall technology is unproven,
and taxpayers will foot the bill because Tepco lacks the funding to deal with major,
unplanned problems at the plant.

[tw]

TEPCO management that created the meltdowns by refusing to vent is also demonstrating same mismanagement with ground water management. If drainage pipes were damaged, then major construction two years ago should have been replacing those pipes. But TEPCO decisions (even to avert the meltdown) have favored business decisions (ie cost controls) rather than what is needed (product oriented thinking). Instead, they spent years looking for and hoping to patch leaks.

Same mismanagement applies to storage tanks. Many storage tanks are now leaking or on the verge of leaking since some tanks were even constructed with plastic bolts. Long term water storage requires welded tanks. TEPCO inaction means they must now build a new tank the size of an olympic swimming pool every day.

Apparently TEPCO believed government would let them dump that water into the ocean. Then discovered that would not be permitted when numerous international NGOs were even monitoring ocean waters. So now they have created more problems traceable to decisions using business school concepts rather than using engineering concepts.

TEPCO, what does heavy structural construction and maintenance, did not even have one ground water specialist in their 40,000 employees.

[Lamplighter]

So many euphemisms in just one little article...

NY Times
HIROKO TABUCHI
November 10, 2013

Removing Fuel Rods Poses New Risks at Crippled Nuclear Plant in Japan

In the next 10 days, the plant’s operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Company
is set to start the delicate and risky task of using a crane to remove the fuel assemblies from the pool,...

Just 36 men will carry out the tense operation to move the fuel to safer storage;
they will work in groups of six in two-hour shifts throughout the day for months.
A separate team will work overnight to clear any debris inside the pool that
might cause the fuel to jam when a crane tries to lift it out, possibly causing damage.<snip>

The fuel rods must remain immersed in water to block the gamma radiation they emit
and allow workers to be in the area, and to prevent the rods from overheating.
An accident could expose the rods and — in a worst-case scenario, some experts say —
allow them to release radioactive materials beyond the plant.<snip>

“There are potentially very big risks involved,” Shunichi Tanaka,
the head of Japan’s nuclear regulator, said last week.
“Each assembly must be handled very carefully.”<snip>

“If they drop the rods, will the situation be easily contained,
or do we need to worry about a more dangerous chain of events?” Mr. Kawai said.
“There are just too many variables involved to say for sure.”<snip>

Lake H. Barrett, a former United States Department of Energy official
who was in charge of removing fuel from a stricken reactor after an accident
at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979, <snip> said he believed that
the risks in removing the fuel from the Reactor No. 4 pool at Fukushima were small
and that a significant release of radioactive material was highly unlikely.

.

[BigV]

I read your excerpt twice and found no euphemisms at all. Care to clarify your point? Or point out my oversight?

[Lamplighter]

euphemism |ˈyoōfəˌmizəm|
noun
a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be
too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing

Within my post, above

...start the delicate and risky task
...to release radioactive materials beyond the plant
...very big risks involved
...a more dangerous chain of events
...a significant release of radioactive material

Within the article:

...tense operation
...complicated, potentially hazardous
...a threat that has hung over the plant
...severe enough to force workers to evacuate

[BigV]

ok, I read all that in the post, got it. I still don't see your point though. I imagine you're suggesting those are the euphemisms you spoke of. and since we're both familiar with the definition of euphemism, what plainer, blunter, more precise and direct language should be used?

[Lamplighter]

How about ....

...start the delicate and risky task (untested and dangerous)
...to release radioactive materials beyond the plant(environmental disaster)
...very big risks involved(extremely dangerous)
...a more dangerous chain of events (environmental disaster with lethal/genetic damage to people)

etc., etc., etc.

What point are you making ?
Mine was very simple
... most every sentence and paragraph was written in such styles
which tend to down play or minimize the reader's responses.

[BigV]

My point is that the language in the article is factual and neutral, just how I expect a journalist to convey the information. I find your substitutions not neutral, and some are hyperbolic.

...start the delicate and risky task (untested and dangerous)

so, you're saying "dangerous" is more apt than "risky". Ok, a judgement call, I'm fine with your choice I guess. Delicate vs untested? How do you know it's untested? I'm certain, we're all certain the task is delicate, requiring care. I don't think your choice is better, and I'm not even sure it's true. I think the things required to accomplish this task have been tested, element by element even if it hasn't been done end to end.

...to release radioactive materials beyond the plant(environmental disaster)

Your choice of "environmental disaster" is hyperbole and speculation. The sentence as it stands is not euphemistic, it's just factual.

So in other accident scenarios that are not the worst case, no release beyond the plant, no "environmental disaster". I'm not saying what will happen, I'm only parsing the text of the article, just as you did when you found so many euphemisms.

...very big risks involved(extremely dangerous)

very big vs extremely and risks vs dangerous... Ok, a wash. I don't find your choice noticeably better, but I don't find the original phrase euphemistic either.

...a more dangerous chain of events (environmental disaster with lethal/genetic damage to people)

substituting "environmental disaster with lethal / genetic damage to people" for "more dangerous chain of events" is a problem for me for two reasons. firstly, that story's quoting someone involved in the project--changing their words in the story would be dishonest. Now maybe you're quarreling with the words spoken by the person imagining what might happen, but he chose his words, expressing his thoughts. secondly, it seems quite plausible that there might be an accident that wouldn't have the dramatic results your de-euphemism suggests. **could** it be the end of the world as we know it? I guess so. to define a range of what could happen that way is one way of couching it. but it doesn't seem like a neutral way, it seems like the opposite of a gentle, bland euphemism; it seems like hysterical scaremongering.

My point, since you asked, is that I like my journalism fair and balanced. I don't like it too bland (filled with euphemisms) or too spicy (filled with inflammatory language). I found the article neutral, fact based and unemotional.

[Lamplighter]

I found the article neutral, fact based and unemotional

That's part of the reason I try to always give a complete reference to articles I post,
so everyone can read the original writings and decide for themselves.

V, you could have just expressed your feelings in your first posting.
Instead, you played it out, asking for "plainer, blunter, more precise and direct language",
not for language that is "unemotional, balanced, and suitable" for an non-political news article.
What I responded was not (necessarily) the way I would write such a news article.

But part of the reason I have been following the situation in Japan
is a frustration within myself about the future of energy production
For me, it is not un-emotional; instead it is a serious question
with an emotional component, as from the following...

If I assume, and I do, that "global warming" is real and caused primarily by increased C02,
which at this time is caused/aggravated by the activities large, industrial nations, then
where are all the future energy needs going to come from ?

Half of the energy in the US is from coal... that's not a sustainable solution.
Natural gas may be cleaner, but it still yields CO2 ... likewise not a solution
Solar/wind may be feasible but do not seem to me to be efficient enough to meet world needs.
So... right now I tend to agree that nuclear reactors may well become the most likely path followed.

But having lived through 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl in a career of public health,
I believe the general public has been and is being soft-soaped
about the state of the art and the current safety of reactors.

We are seeing this acting out in Fukushima... technically, politically, and financially.
The U.S. and other world authorities are openly expressing doubt about the competence of Tepco.

Yet, of all countries we might expect to do a really great job of engineering for efficiency and safety,
and from the only people who have actually suffered, not one but two, nuclear explosions
on their land, we still see that bad things do happen... really bad things.
Eventually, I'm confident we will learn of men who died working to remedy this disaster.

So when it comes down to it on nuclear power, emotion cannot be left out
just for the sake of being "fair and balanced"

I feel people need the words to enable them to visualize the problems.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

So when it comes down to it on nuclear power, emotion cannot be left out just for the sake of being "fair and balanced"

Emotion means a reader added information not intended by the author. Maybe 20 different adjectives the author could have used. All mean same to an unemotional reader. Emotional readers assume hidden inferences. For example, think a difference exists between risky and dangerous. If you 'feel' the two words have a different meaning, then you are assuming a perspective that the author did not specifically define.

Unless an author says 'risky' and 'dangerous' have two different meanings, then a reader can only be logical - assume both words define a similar concept.

The report does not even discuss a greater fear and unknown during rod removals. Rods might be cracked or broken. Dropping a rod is not a major fear. Trying to remove a rod that might be shattered or about to shatter (especially when moving it) makes this more dangerous.

This 'dangerous' move from Reactor 4 building is really quite trivial. Much greater risks still remain unaddressed in the other 'melted down' reactors. Peril in reactor building 4 is less compared to the hazards that remain elsewhere. Danger, risk, peril, and hazard are four words that connote same; that define a same threat. Only a reactionary or sensational reader would disseminate confusion or misconstrue meaning by assuming those four words have different implication. Which says: all four words mean same.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter
So when it comes down to it on nuclear power, emotion cannot be left out just for the sake of being "fair and balanced"

Originally Posted by TW
Emotion means a reader added information not intended by the author.

tw, please do not miscontrue the quotes.

My sentence does not refer to wording in the NY Times article.

I am the author, not the reader, of the sentence adding "emotion" to my discussion of nuclear power.
As such, it is quite valid for me in include emotion in the discussion... if I so choose.

My discussion of nuclear power came after I responded to a question from BigV,
according to his criteria ("plainer, blunter, more precise and direct language")
My preceding responses to BigV's question were not at all a "re-writing" of any part of that article.

[Beest]

I haven't delved into the background of the original speaker, but in my training in safety assessment of equipment and processes risk and danger (hazard) are two seperate concepts.
Risk is the lilekyhood that an event will occur and the danger is what the result will be if it does occur.
That's not a common perspective, but if the speaker was an engineer then maybe that is how they used the words and a reporter editorialising and substituting would alter the meaning, possibly deliberately.

Quality in engineering does not mean something is good, just that is the same as specified