Category Archives: Uncategorized

Nuclear Power in Japan

Posted on by

I posted a blog in May titled “Japanese Nuclear Reactor Disaster,” and closed with  comments that we should learn from the disaster to improve safety and not cripple our economic prosperity in decades to come by being the only country that decides not to use nuclear energy. I believe those observations have been reinforced by some recent developments in Japan. That country would seem to have the most incentive to avoid anything nuclear. Their country is the only one that has ever had nuclear weapons unleashed against it at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now a tsunami has crippled and damaged nuclear power plants leaving wide areas considered to be unsafe (at least for now).

The most recent article I’ve read about the future of nuclear energy in Japan is by David Guttenfelder of the Associated Press, and it says the cleanup of the damaged nuclear reactors will take decades. The article mentions that people who had lived near the reactors may never be able to go home, and then interestingly mentions Hiroshima and Nagasaki where nuclear weapons were detonated and are once again thriving cities. The disaster is accurately described as resulting from a tsunami that swamped not only the plant along with large areas of Japan. “Mangled trucks, flipped over by the power of the wave, still clutter its access roads.” The nuclear part of the disaster is that the damaged reactors “…will have to be entombed in a sarcophagus, with metal plates inserted underneath to keep it watertight.”

Another Associated Press article by Yuri Kageyama titled “Six months after disaster, Japan sticking by nuclear power,” gives a different perspective.  A retired mechanic is quoted as saying he would prefer “…life without the nearby nuclear power plant.” However, he then says, “It is also true we all need it.” It is a fact that Japan, just like any developed nation, needs energy.  A recent poll found 55 percent of Japanese want to reduce the number of reactors, but one person interviewed asked, “What is the alternative?” Alternative energy is expensive, and nuclear technology has become a source of pride for the nation. There is no argument that nuclear power has helped fuel the country’s prosperity for decades, and the recent tsunami-related disaster hasn’t completely overcome that legacy. Only three percent of Japanese said they wanted to eliminate nuclear power reactors completely.

Chester Dawson in the Wall Street Journal presents an interesting reason why Japan must remain “nuclear.” The sub headline to the article is “Some say Bombs’ Potential as Deterrent argues for Keeping Power Plants Online.”  The article leads with, “Many of Japan’s political and intellectual leaders remain committed to nuclear power even as Japanese public opinion has turned sharply against it…Japan needs to maintain its technical ability to make nuclear weapons…it’s important to maintain our commercial reactors because it would allow us to produce a nuclear warhead in a short amount of time.” Japan has both the ability to produce nuclear weapons-grade material and also apparently also has the knowledge to build a nuclear warhead. It also has  the missile technology to deliver a nuclear warhead. The Hayabusa test satellite, which successfully landed on an asteroid and then returned to earth, demonstrated the ability to guide ballistic missiles.

The current policy of Japan prevents production of nuclear weapons. Minister of Defense Yasuo Ichikawa was quoted as saying “We have absolutely no plans to change the existing policy based on the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, a 1967 policy banning the production, possession and presence of nuclear weapons in Japan”

There is official support for keeping nuclear power capacity. Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has endorsed keeping nuclear power at least until alternative sources can be developed. That position “…stems from concern about electricity shortages, which could lead to blackouts and stifle economic growth.”   Japan’s largest daily circulation newspaper editorialized that the government should “…stay the course on nuclear power…stressing that the country’s stockpile of plutonium functions diplomatically as a potential nuclear deterrent.”

North Korea wasn’t mentioned in any of the articles, but I’m certain those who mention Japan’s need to keep a nuclear deterrent are thinking of that country.

Election Politics

Posted on by

I nearly typed the title as “Election Year Politics,” but then was sad to realize that the next Presidential election is still about a year away. I don’t think I’ll begin a monthly countdown, because that would make the process to seem to last even longer. As a part-time Libertarian and dedicated Independent I mostly want the Republicans to decide on their nominee as soon as possible. Democrat spokespeople are puzzling whether Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, or some other Republican is the most evil person in America, and it is tedious listening to them trying to paint several people as the most evil while they await the Republican selection. The Republicans have the advantage that they already know that Barrack Obama is the most evil person, although there is some talk of Hillary getting back into the mix.

The arrival of the Tea Party (see the posting dated January 7, 2011 describing the origins), which apparently isn’t a political party at all, has been a further distraction or side show, depending on your view. And now we have the “Occupy” groups in various cities trying to decide what their message is beyond the fact they are enjoying protesting something and are angry about several things.

Much of front page of a recent Denver Post Perspective section was about the Tea Party, and pro and con views were given. A poll of Colorado voters not surprisingly found 79% of Democrats have an unfavorable view of the Tea Party while only 10% of Republicans agreed. The number I found most interesting was that only 36% of Independent/Others were favorable and 51% were unfavorable.

Curtis Hubbard’s article, “Where is the Tea Party taking us?’ lists people who are in the Tea Party as being called “Hostage –Takers, Heroes, Pariahs, Patriots, and Terrorists.”  It seemed to me that Democrats managed to energize enough voters who liked what the Tea Party was saying in the last national election to allow the Republicans to take control of the House of Representatives. (I can’t bring myself to credit the Republicans with being sufficiently clever to do that on their own.) I continue to be baffled by some the current rhetoric, but of course that’s probably because I’m not a skilled politician. As an example, let me give an example of what Robert Gibbs, former White House spokesperson recently said in an interview on NBC’s today show. He repeated what is becoming a Democrat campaign talking point that aims to cast the movement as extreme and divisive. ‘The Republicans are going to have to make a choice. Are they going to swear allegiance to the Tea Party, or are they going to work on behalf of the United States of America?’”  Michelle Bachmann recently explained the Tea Party by saying, “Let me say what the Tea Party stands for:  It stands for the fact that we’re taxed enough already. We shouldn’t spend more money than we’re already taking in. And, third, we should act within the Constitution.” Thinking about Bachmann’s explanation and the Gibbs’ comment, I wondered which of the three points Gibbs would consider un-American. I guess it must go back to that argument that we need to tax rich people more, and anyone who says otherwise is un-American. I posted a blog on the subject of how much we would need to tax rich people to be fair in December 2010, and my guess is that we would have to take all of the rich people’s money for some to consider it to be fair.  At least that is the approach that FDR proposed.

Going back to the polling about the Tea Party, the Denver Post articles recently said 40% of Americans now have a negative view.  I can’t help but wonder whether the media barrage of comments calling the non-existent party members “Terrorists” might have influenced those poll numbers.

For those who think my commentary has been slanted too far toward the Republicans, I will say one of my favorite comments about the differences between the two parties has been that Democrats want to tax and spend and Republicans want to spend and not tax. I believe the primary sin of the Tea Party is that the primary belief that neither approach is wise. A recent letter to the editor to the Idaho Statesman observed that witnessing Republicans and Democrats bicker over the U.S. debt is analogous to watching two drunks argue over a bar bill on the Titanic.

Qaddafi is Dead, What Next?

Posted on by

Several events in the Mideast will have major influence on the reshaping the region. Egyptian Coptic Christians continue to be persecuted with the death of several shot at a recent gathering and the burning of another of their churches. Tunisia elected the assembly that will draft a new constitution and Muammar Gaddafi was captured and executed along with one of his sons. The election in Tunisia perhaps will have the most impact. An article by Charles Levinson in the Online Wall Street Journal leads off with the sentence, “In an election viewed as a template for emerging Mideast democracies, Tunisians appeared poised to offer a new narrative:  an assembly composed largely of an Islamist party promising a moderate platform, and two secular parties that have pledged to work with it.”

The Islamist Nahda Party won 43 of the 101 seats so far assigned of the 217-seat assembly that will rule for one year. The party has said it would not push for Islamist ideals in the new constitution. The Progressive Democratic Party that had campaigned heavily against Islamists won far fewer seats than had been expected. The U.S. government apparently isn’t skeptical about the outcome. Nahda leaders had visited with the State Department in Washington, D.C., and were said to be “…generally well received.” Aid to Tunisia had been increased before the election, and the Peace Corps will be reestablished. Hillary Clinton issued a statement praising the election, but with no mention of Nahda’s apparent victory.

There has been a flood of news reports since the execution of Muammar. I found a site that had a collection of political cartoons, and I appreciated many of them. My favorite was a cartoon that showed “Dozens of dangerous animals were shot dead in Oho this week…and one in Libya.” There was another that showed an oil pump from the Mideast to the U.S., with the captions “What could possibly go wrong.” Perhaps the most interesting was a depiction of President Obama on the Jay Leno show saying, “Jay, and then I personally beat Gaddafi to death with my Nobel Peace Prize.”

There is some pressure mounting for an investigation of Gaddafi’s death. It will be difficult to claim he was dead when discovered, since there is video of him being dragged from a drainage pipe wounded and bloodied, but still alive. He could be heard pleading for mercy for himself and his sons as he is being yanked around by his hair and beaten amidst taunts from his captors. The display of his shirtless corpse in a walk-in freezer was gruesome. I cannot help but cynically think, “Imagine the outrage if they had water boarded him.”

It is difficult to argue with the outcome of Gaddafi’s capture and death, which brought to mind Benito Mussolini’s execution in Italy during World War II. There were thousands of casualties in the bloody battle between the rebels and Gaddafi loyalists, and Gaddafi’s 42-year tyranny generated deserved hatred. He was buried in a secret location in the desert with the son who had been captured with him and his Defense Minister. He had three sons killed during the insurrection, but the one-time heir apparent, Seif al-Islam, is still at large. He is thought to be trying to make it to make it to Niger to join other regime loyalists or perhaps to Algeria to join Gaddafi’s wife, daughter, and two other sons. There is concern that al-Islam might try to mount an insurgency against the new rulers if he succeeds at escaping to a country that won’t turn him over to the International Criminal Court to be tried for war crimes.

I’m more concerned about the speech given by the head of the Libyan National Transitional Council to announce Gaddafi’s death. He said, “…Islamic Sharia law would be the ‘basic source’ of legislation, and that existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified.”

The Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant Plea Bargain

Posted on by

I’ve received comments from knowledgeable people that questioned some of the things I wrote in my book titled “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats, Urban Myths Debunked.” It has been interesting to do additional research in an attempt to better understand the issues questioned. I mentioned in the book I do not consider myself to be a Rocky Flats expert; the plant was far too large and complex for anyone to claim to be an expert. The comments verify that observation.

For those unfamiliar with the story, the government raided the plant in June of 1989 with dozens of federal agents after delivering a search warrant alleging sensational environmental crimes. I was the Manager of Environmental Management, and was frightened because I thought something really terrible must have been happening to justify such a large and highly publicized raid. It wasn’t long before I realized the agents knew very little about Rocky Flats, and they didn’t seem to be on the trail of anything specific. I would later verify they quickly learned they had been duped by tips from uninformed people who disagreed with the mission of the plant. The investigators also had misinterpreted physical evidence that they believed proved some of the allegations. The eventual guilty plea by Rockwell International, the operator of the plant at the time of the raid, was based on trumped-up charges that had nothing to do with the search warrant. The government insistence on a plea bargain was driven, in my opinion, by officials unwilling to admit they had made an embarrassing mistake.

Comments from a former Rocky Flats contractor who is familiar with how corporations balance legal and business risks and a person who was a senior DOE manager both disagree with what I wrote answering why Rockwell agreed to plead guilty. I speculated they agreed to the plea bargain and to pay an 18.5 million dollar fine to save the reputations of Rockwell managers being threatened with indictment. Both of the commenters say it was a business decision. Rockwell had already accumulated significant legal costs, and those costs were continuing to increase by about a million dollars a month. Trials that could have lasted two or three years would not have been good for the corporate reputation regardless of outcome, and the media circus that would have been created would have been a distraction from other business matters.

There is disagreement on one issue. One person thought the government decided to force a plea bargain on Rockwell after they “went nuts” when there were indications the Grand Jury was considering indicting one or more Department of Energy Officials along with several Rockwell people. The DOE official says that isn’t true, because the threat of indictments from the Grand Jury came a year or two after the plea bargain, and that the government “…did not care about the indictment of federal employees.” That person believes the government’s motivation to settle was that they did not want trials “…to disclose the trumped up nature of their search warrant.”   I’m inclined to believe the opinion offered by the DOE official.

Changing subjects to one of the “crimes” included in the guilty plea, the DOE official disagreed with what I wrote regarding Rockwell agreeing to pay $2,000,000 in fines for failure to file a permit application for a waste storage area. Rockwell wrote in the report they provided to the court about the guilty plea that they had delivered the permit application to the DOE office, and had “…no knowledge of what happened thereafter until the application was filed by DOE, apparently six months later.” (United States District Court (Defendants) March 26, 1992, pages 54-55) The DOE official wrote the application submittal was delayed because what Rockwell gave to DOE was “woefully inadequate.” I’ve had several back and forth messages with several people to try to sort this out, and I now believe the commenter was referring to a different permit application that the one that resulted in the fine. What I’ve learned from this is confirmation that the permit application process was complicated and filled with opportunities for disagreement between Rockwell, DOE, and the federal agencies that would make it difficult to prepare a permit application and submit it on schedule.

What I haven’t found is why Rockwell was forced to pay a two million dollar fine for failure to submit the application when, according to the statement submitted by Rockwell to the court, it was DOE that failed to submit the application. The DOE official wrote that both Rockwell and DOE were responsible for filling the application. However, that wouldn’t explain why only Rockwell was held accountable for failure to meet the application submital schedule. I concede I don’t know whether the application was submitted late because what Rockwell provided was inadequate. Who did what or who was most at blame might continue to be in dispute, but it is a fact that this was a paperwork problem and not an environmental problem. No one has yet questioned my continued belief that the plea bargain was too absurd to stand up to any kind of scrutiny. John F. Seymour wrote in an article titled “U.S. v. Rockwell:  GOCO Assessed Criminal Fines for Violations at Rocky Flats,” in the summer 1992 Federal Facilities Environmental Journal, that “…the plea bargain involves relatively mundane and commonplace…violations.” The DOE official said it well, “One of the crazy aspects of our legal system these days is the assignment of felonies to what should be civil matters.”  I think a final comment from that person is a good closing. “I have told people that RFP (Rocky Flats Plant) was never as good or as bad as it was alleged.”