Japan and the role of the state

[fingertrouble]

As probably a lot of people I've been watching and reading the shocking footage and reports coming out of Japan...weirdly I wanted to visit this year (as did Egypt, am I cursed?) and friends have Japanese wives so like the Christchurch earthquake there's a personal element :-

So I tore myself away from disaster porn and donated - to Shelterbox and the Red Cross (beware the nasty spammers sickly using this situation) and I heartily recommend you to do so too (maybe your local Red Cross or other variant).

Friends are doing an auction which is great work and will benefit those two charities.

One thing like Katrina that shocks me is the reports that 5 days later there is no food, still people waiting in evacuation centres with no heating or power in the snow...I think disasters like this remind us how fragile the state is, and the fact that when the shit hits the fan really it does seem that we aren't the government's priority...Japan's government is in some strange sort of denial over the scary meltdown of several of it's reactors, and people are fleeing away from the zone and Tokyo...and France is evacuating it's nationals and the Brits are looking to do same. It does not look good...I can appreciate that other things might be on their mind, but I am reminded of the dithering and lack of decisiveness that led to crumbling of social ties and order, and death and destruction after Katrina....(incidentally to the sad Pearl Harbor peeps and the fundie trollers or even believers like the extremely sad 'tamtampamela' - RIP, not - Japan contributed aid to Katrina).

Oh and don't get me started on building nuclear power stations on fault lines by the coast...I suppose in Japan everywhere is a fault line, but not having backup power and depending Katrina-like on sea walls = FAIL.

I mean if the government of Japan cannot protect and help those who survive such a catastrophe, it does make you wonder how prepared out governments are too - I'd say not very. Don't want to go very survivalist and libertarian on yo asses but I do think self-sufficiency is going to be the way in future....that social contract is breaking - sometimes in good ways in resistance and revolution a la Egypt, but in other less good ways....nanny state is out drinking with it's rich mates (the ones who can pay to get into the country) and doesn't really care about you or I.

Sadly it means elderly and children suffer, like with Cameron's ConDem pledges, it's always the innocents that get it in the neck. Hmm.

Comments

[fingertrouble.livejournal.com]

Nuclear Power is not cost effective at all...maybe safer until it goes critical.

Try this list and still tell me it's 'safer' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents

[topher-fox.livejournal.com]

And what brilliant new power source should we use to replace it?

I still stand behind nuclear power. My father was the company photographer for Three Mile Island. He went into the buildings after the "Accident" to take photographs of everything. And he still firmly stands behind it as being safe and efficient.

And yes some of those "were classified or hidden" because they were on US military sites. and well, Yea. we dont make our military stuff public knowledge.

[fingertrouble.livejournal.com]

So that makes it OK cos your dad worked for 3 mile Island (which was a minor release compared to Chernobyl - which did affect the UK and Japan?).

I rather want more proof in it's safety than that.

[topher-fox.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying its okay cause he was in there. I'm just saying, you have someone who walked thru a "terrable disaster" and still supports it.

and ffs. Chernobyl Shouldn't be classified a nuclear disaster. That should be its own category of soviet and training massive cockups.

Again. that wikipedia list.... you have processing facility accidents: untrained staff, experimental reactor issues: experimental means untested. And how many actual end in deaths or leaks. these systems are designs to have fail safes and backups so that when skilled human operators run them, the chance of release is near 0. Nothing is perfect. In the end all forms of energy production pollute, kill, and cock up someones life.

[fingertrouble.livejournal.com]

It wasn't a 'terrible disaster' - I don't think anyone died for a start. 8-100 millirems. Not great, but minor?

Chernobyl official estimate 4,000 people have died because of it - and that's really conservative, and didn't count most of the countries. Estimates range from 10,000 to 100,000 to a million. But the NFL still likes to downplay this - and yes I have had experience of the nuclear fuel lobby cos I worked at a consultancy that worked for BNFL - i know some of the propaganda tricks they play that make BAT and Philip Morris look like angels - infiltrating protest groups anyone? Certainly the risk has been very downplayed, and that list actually only covers direct deaths...there have been many more, and cos it's a different sort of radiation/exposure it's longer life and harder to judge than say Hiroshima or Nagasaki which were literal flashes in the pan.

Chernobyl - there are still farms here that cannot sell their sheep for meat TODAY - 370 odd of them, cos Caesium is STILL in the soil. You feel a little different when your country was irradiated - and not a few little millirems either.

[fingertrouble.livejournal.com]

And the Russians weren't alone in that sort of fuckup - Alaska? But you'd have not heard of that one, and fortunately a test reactor in a remote area...