WHY JAPAN CHOSE IT’S NUCLEAR GODZILLA
April 08, 2011
Japan’s nuclear calamity has shown once again the remarkable courage, patience, and stoicism of that nation’s people.
As a visitor to Japan for the past 36 years and former columnist for one of its leading newspapers, “Mainichi Daily News,” the giant earthquake and ensuing tsunami that savaged northern Japan filled me with anguish and sorrow.  
 
I watched at first fifty, then a hundred nuclear technicians and firefighters know as the “kamikaze brigade” risk their lives in a miasma of lethal radiation to fight the fires and explosions at Fukushima’s ravaged nuclear plant.   Many knew they were facing death or grave future illness, yet the charged forward in the heroic Japanese tradition.
 
In Japan’s samurai code, an act of supreme bravery occurs when a fighter confronts impossible odds, or knows his death in battle is inevitable, yet still decides to fight for honor’s sake.  In samurai lore, this is know as “the nobility of failure.” 
 
Japanese history and, of course, World war II, are replete with examples of self-sacrifice and boundless valor in the face of certain defeat.
 
Brave and resolute as Japanese are, the question remains, why did Japan decide to build nuclear power plants they knew could be potentially dangerous only 15 years or so after the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  
 
The answer has to do with World War II. Japan has no resources, other than rock, wood, water and its industrious people. All raw material to this island nation must be imported by sea.
 
Japan entered World War II to seize more land in Manchuria and China, and to gain vital resources in South Asia.   In 1940, most of Japan’s heavy oil, and all its aviation fuel, came from the world’s largest oil producer, the United States. Interestingly, the US was also Germany’s leading oil supplier.     
 
When in late 1941,  US President Franklin Roosevelt sought (my view) to push Japan into the war by imposing an embargo of oil and scrap metal on Japan, Tokyo had a two-year stockpile of oil. 
 
Tokyo’s military-dominated government faced a stark choice: go immediately to war in hopes of a quick victory while there was still oil, or watch its oil stores dwindle way and thus face military impotence. War was the choice.
 
Japan’s leading military officer, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, warned Japan was going to war for oil, and would be defeated because of lack of oil.
 
In 1941, Japan’s economy was only 10% of the size of the US economy in what was to become history’s first industrialized war.
 
Japanese strategists had seen how Britain’s total naval blockade of the Central Powers in World War I brought about the final defeat of Germany and Austria-Hungary by starvation, not battlefield defeat.
 
Yamamoto’s warning was prophetic. Japan could not sustain its maritime supply lines to South Asia and the oilfields of Indonesia and Malaysia, both former European colonies.
 
By mid-1944, a brilliant, audacious campaign by US submarines had cut off nearly all of Japan’s imports of raw material and oil.   The winter of 1944-45 was the coldest in 20 years. Japanese, facing starvation, subsisted on roots and grass. As in the current Fukushima disaster, there was no fuel to cremate huge numbers of bodies.
 
Japan did not import a single barrel of oil in 1945. Without oil, its navy could not leave port, its aircraft could not fly.   Pathetic attempts were made to make aviation fuel by boiling and distilling pine roots.  
 
The powerful US Fifth Fleet that was nearing Japan alone used more fuel in a year than all of Japan. Without fuel, Japan could not fight. Modern mechanized warfare runs on oil. Adolf Hitler also failed to understand this critical strategic point.
 
While Japan starved, its cities were laid waste by the  most lethal bombing raids in history   Nearly half of Japan’s cities, 66 in all, sustained 40% or more total damage from a rain of fire bombs dropped by Gen. Curtiss LeMay’s US B-29’s.
 
Thirty percent of Japan’s urban population was killed, wounded or left homeless; 2.5 million buildings were destroyed. Most Japanese cities were built of wood and paper – as many still were around Fukushima – perfect targets for LeMay’s fire bombs.
 
On 9 March, 1945, US B-29’s dropped 1,667 tons of fire bombs on Tokyo. Fifteen square miles of downtown Tokyo were burned to the ground in a gigantic holocaust.   An estimated 185,000 civilians died and another 100,000 were severely wounded – nearly all by burns. 
 
The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki inflicted an immediate total of 200,000 dead and wounded, with many more in ensuring years and decades. 
 
After the war, Japan’s leadership concluded their nation had to have energy independence, even if it meant from potentially dangerous nuclear power. Japan must never again be left helpless. Oil was too precious to use for power generation. It had to be stockpiled for strategic use and transportation.
 
So Japan took a calculated risk. 
________

To our Readers and Commentators:  As of April 14, 2011, all comments have been erased.  Open discussions on column topic and related topics are welcome, but personal attacks, racial slurs, etc.  will not be tolerated.  We look forward to your continued feedback.
Site Administrator.
janna
Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:23 PM
did someone say something nasty or what
J Hoell
Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:43 PM
Back to the topic on Japan.Everyone is this world should be concerned and make a strong effort to help them out.The first week of the nuclear disaster,I remember telling my wife...this will equal Chernobyl,or worse.Unfortunately the worse is still yet to come as far as irradiated water,food and even... people.Obviously,the government of Japan will not come out with the true story and that is not to panic people.Instead of spending money on wars maybe countries can come together,work together, and try the best to contain this radiation...after all the ENTIRE world could and will be affected by this nuclear catastrophy.My heart goes out to the Japanese people...they have suffered a nuclear holocaust just 66 years ago.
Diamondsam
Thursday, April 14, 2011 5:44 PM
It is the general consensus of experts that the Nuclear crisis in Japan has come no where near the destruction of Chernobyl. Keep it real Hoell
I will bet you a donut at Tim Hortons that the level of radiation where I live will be so small that i will get more from the x ray I had or from the frequent flights I take. In comparison, in Europe it was a much different story.

Fifty emergency rescue workers died from acute radiation syndrome and related illnesses, 4,000 children and adolescents contracted thyroid cancer, nine of whom died. More than 100,000 people were immediately evacuated, and the total number of evacuees from contaminated areas eventually reached 350,000. The explosions that destroyed the unit four reactor core released a cloud of radionuclides, which contaminated large areas of Europe and, in particular, Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and affected livestock as far away as Scandinavia and Britain. Hundreds of thousands of people were exposed to substantial radiation doses, including workers who took part in efforts to mitigate the consequences of the accident. The IAEA said the situation had been made worse by conflicting information, exaggeration in press coverage and pseudoscientific accounts of the accident reporting, for example, fatalities in the tens or hundreds of thousands.

The death toll from the tsunami is more than 13,000, but no radiation-linked deaths have been reported and only 21 plant workers have been affected by minor radiation sickness, according to Japanese officials. About 70,000 people living within a 12-mile radius of the plant have been evacuated, while 130,000 living between 12 and 20 miles from the plant have been told to leave voluntarily or stay indoors. The government's chief spokesman, Yukio Edano, said the current evacuation zone would be extended to five other communities, including the village of Iitate, which lies 25 miles from the plant. Some experts have criticised the raising of the severity level. "I think raising it to the level of Chernobyl is excessive," said Murray Jennex, associate professor at San Diego state university. "It's nowhere near that level. Chernobyl was terrible – it blew and they had no containment and they were stuck. Their [Fukushima] containment has been holding, the only thing that hasn't is the fuel pool that caught fire."
J Hoell
Thursday, April 14, 2011 5:57 PM
It has been raised to level 7 at Fukushima....that was the level Chernobyl was at.Even today 25 years after Chernobyl, irradiated,unedible wild growing mushrooms have been discovered growing in the forests of Bavaria,Germany and no doubt other countries as well.I AM being realistic...I use to work at a nuclear facility.
Diamondsam
Thursday, April 14, 2011 6:21 PM
It has been raised to level 7 however, it comes no where near the disaster as Chernobyl. to do so in the same breath is comparing pinapples and hand gernades. Two totally different circumstances. There are dissenters to this illogical comparison.
Your statement "after all the ENTIRE world could and will be affected by this nuclear catastrophy."
Since you worked at a nuclear facility in the construction phase. Please expalin your nuclear expertise in relation to how this situation could affect the entire world.
J Hoell
Thursday, April 14, 2011 8:40 PM
I was involved in the construction of the automatic fueling machine located below each calandria of each reactor.For this I had to qualify for the "Orange Badge" which permits working NEAR the critical reactor but not inside,where you need to wear a spacesuit along with a fresh air breathing hose .To qualify for this required intensive training about nuclear theory.I left the plant after unit #2 went critical (started up).Sadly ALL my colleagues remained there and worked....until they all died of cancer directly related to working "near" a supposedly safe zone.A 3 metre thick concrete wall,in addition around the sealed reactor does not totally contain radioactivity....the employees are "told" don't worry you're safe.Too bad my deceased colleagues stayed around and paid the ultimate price.Everyone living within a prescribed zone around a nuclear plant have iodine tablets stored in their home in case of a "major catastrophy".The iodine pills are taken to protect the thyroid gland....but does not protect any other organs.There is always radiation around a supposedly sealed reactor.An employee is only allowed so many REMS of radiation exposure per year by doing a urine test and if he/she exceeds the limit (even after only a few months)...you're out of there.When Chernobyl occured, radiation was detected in Ottawa Canada.Now at Fukushima, you have at least three heavily damaged reactor buildings exposed and they have to be hosed down 24/7 to keep from a total meltdown.A partial meltdown has already occured.Now workers are dumping radioactive water into the ocean....which affects fish and what else humans eat from the sea... and this will be consumed by people in different countries worldwide.Any readers convinced yet of this potential time bomb?
Also Just because this incident has been raised to level 7.... like Chernobyl....means that the potential for disasterous effects is equal to that of Chernobyl.Let's not sugar coat this.Fukushima has the potential to do more harm than Chernobyl,which was hushed up for days until the authorities started coming up with pertinent information.
Diamondsam
Friday, April 15, 2011 1:51 PM
Once again. Comparisons between Fukishima and Chernobyl are way off.

The reason why radiation was disseminated so widely from Chernobyl with such devastating effects was a carbon fire. Some 1,200 tonnes of carbon were in the reactor at Chernobyl and this caused the fire which projected radioactive material up into the upper atmosphere causing it to be carried across most of Europe.

There is no carbon in the reactors at Fukushima, and this means that even if a large amount of radioactive material were to leak from the plant, it would only affect the local area.

The Japanese authorities acted swiftly and decisively in evacuating people living within 20km of the plant, and ensuring people living within 30km of the plant remained in their homes, with windows and doors closed. The radiation measured so far at Fukushima is 100,000 times less than that at Chernobyl.

Nuclear engineer Alexander Sich, who worked with the Chernobyl Complex Expedition, comments on the differences between Fukushima and Chernobyl:

“There is no way the Japanese plant will even closely compare to what happened in Chernobyl,” he said. “First off, Chernobyl-type reactors have no proper containment building, but they do have confinement boundaries – a big difference. The Soviets compromised on safety believing they could control their reactors and avoid major accidents. … In contrast, the Japanese unit has an inner concrete containment vessel (the Mark I) that functions like a less robust containment building to mitigate the effects of potential accidents.

“The second difference is that the Japanese reactor, like all western light-water reactors, is primarily metal and the fuel contained within a very strong 6- to 8-inch-thick steel reactor pressure vessel. In contrast, the Chernobyl reactor design, of which at least 11 are still in operation to this day, has no such vessel. Instead, a thin 3/4-inch steel ’skin’ surrounds 1,700 high-pressure coolant channels containing nuclear fuel. …

“The third difference is the size and operational stability of the reactor,” he continued. “Chernobyl-type reactors are huge: 11.8 by 7 meters, while the Japanese reactor is significantly smaller at 2.5 by 3.7 meters. What this means is that operators have to pay constant close operational attention to a reactor because one part of the core cannot easily communicate with the other, neutronically speaking.”

Professor Aidan Byrne, director of the College of Mathematical and Physical Sciences at the Australian National University in Canberra, says the situation is not like Chernobyl:

Some reports are comparing the situation at Fukushima with the Chernobyl disaster of 1986.

In that accident, nuclear fission ran unchecked and the reactor lacked the multi-barrier containment strategy that exists in the 40-year-old Fukushima plant. Byrne says, unlike Chernobyl, Fukushima’s nuclear reactors have been shut down, and control rods have been inserted stopping the fission chain reaction.

The main concern is if the reactor is not cooled down, the radioisotopes in the fuel rods and decay-heat will heat up the container.

According to Japanese authorities, seawater mixed with boric acid is being used to cool the reactor down, which should reduce the risk of a fission reaction restarting.

As for the INES scale that you reffer to. Yes Fukishima is now level 7. The same as Chernobyl. However this scale is misleading in the fact that it uses the amount radiation released. Fukishima is 1/10th that of Chernobyl. A big difference I would say. That in no way should diminish the severity of Fukishima however fear mongoring is uncalled for.
I am guessing that you worked on a Candu reactor no? By using supplied air was ment to protect you from breathing in radioactive particles however, your statement about your coworkers were told they were safe and yet they died of cancer. Did they not in fact wear their radiation monitors? How long after their alleged exposure did they die? When did this happen? Where did this happen? As a proffesional accident investigator I find your comments interesting to say the lest.
Diamondsam
Friday, April 15, 2011 3:26 PM
Hoell. Your statement
"I was involved in the construction of the automatic fueling machine located below each calandria of each reactor.For this I had to qualify for the "Orange Badge" which permits working NEAR the critical reactor but not inside,where you need to wear a spacesuit along with a fresh air breathing hose .To qualify for this required intensive training about nuclear theory."
I kind of take exception to your statement you posted here. Particularly your last sentence regarding "intensive training about nuclear theory."
As someone who has knowledge regarding Construction I know about training, orientation etc. I highly doubt you were classed in Nuclear Theory. I believe you are being disingenuous. I have no doubt you were given rudimentary basics regarding nuclear energy and theory but the main focus for you and your co-workers would have been entirly based on the safe aspects of your task(s). In the event of emergencies what to do, where to go. What to look for regarding contamination. Preventative measures. Job Safety Analysis. Communication. Specialized PPE for your tasks and the proper use of them. I could go on and on suffice to say that Nuclear Theory was not any where near the focus of your orientation.
J Hoell
Friday, April 15, 2011 4:02 PM
Along with the knowledge acquired at the plant,I took the initiative to educate myself,on my own time as I always had this distrust for the nuclear industry.All of my colleagues were 8-10 my senior and had actually made it to retirement (age 60) at the time.They "enjoyed" 2 maybe 3 years of retirement.It was mandatory to wear protective equipment,but it didn't help them much.Yes it was a CANDU reactor....probably the safest in the world as far as design is concerned.Another thing worthy of mention is the radiation leaks that are quite frequent in the nuclear industry....only few and minor incidences are ever reported and that is because it could not be hushed up.The public relations are fully prepared to deal with this when the public or media finds out....."it is only a minor incident and/or leak and nothing to worry about".Another thing with the CANDU and that is nuclear plants were built in the 60's and achieve a life span of 25 years.The "newer" plants built in the 80's had a longer life...up to 40 years.Fukushima's life span was at it's end.It should have been decommissioned years ago,in my opinion,but this was stretched out because these plants are very expensive to build.Take for example Darlington (in Ontario)....it was going to cost 2 billion before construction began in the late 70's and by the time all 4 reactors were on line that figure had ballooned to 14 billion.Each reactor was capable of producing 985 megawatts of power to add to the grid.Also worthy of mention is that Darlington took about 25 years to build.
So again when I worked at the nuclear facility, I educated myself about nuclear power.Absolutely nothing to toy with...to say the least.
Diamondsam
Friday, April 15, 2011 5:07 PM
So you have admitted you are self taught regarding Nuclear Theory. Thanks for the honesty. Finally.
Darlington Nuclear Generating Station is a Canadian nuclear power station located on the north shore of Lake Ontario in Clarington, Ontario. The facility derives its name from the Township of Darlington, the former name of the municipality in which it is located. The Darlington station is a large nuclear facility and comprises 4 CANDU nuclear reactors located on the northern shore of Lake Ontario, having a total output of 3,512 MWe (capacity net) when all units are online. It provides about 20 percent of Ontario's electricity needs, enough to serve a city of two million people.[1] It is arguably one of the most advanced nuclear generating stations in the world.

As an independent accident investigator, in particular concerning fatalities I could find no mention of these so called fatalities. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction.
Again, I deal in factual accounts. Not rumours or rumours of rumours. What factual evidence can you bring forth? I seek the truth however damning it may be or not be. What you are saying and let me get this right is that there was an incident and people were exposed resulting in the cause of their death.
If this is true and for sake of argument I was one of the individuals exposed, how was this covered up as you say? What stopped me from talking? Was I threatened with immediate death? Was I paid a high sum of money to keep my silence? Was everyone working at the plant that day bought off or threatened? To what extent does this conspiracy reach?
Second point. If there was exposure then the people who were involved would have known due to their radiation badges. A proper investigation would have ensued.
Third point. If they were exposed they would have been given medical treatment, thus a record would be there. Hard to cover up that.
Fourth point. If long term exposure was the cause, then there would also be medical records as well and the surviving families would be screaming from the rooftops. Was there a lawsuit? Is there scientific evidence?
Most of the exposure risks for occupational cancer are preventable. About 125 million people in the world are exposed to asbestos at the workplace. According to WHO estimates, more than 107 000 people die each year from asbestos-related lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis resulting from occupational exposures. One in three deaths from occupational cancer is caused by asbestos.

External environmental causes of cancer are factors in the environment such as pollutants that increase risk for cancer. For example, indoor radon exposure was estimated to cause between 3-14 % of all lung cancers in 2004, the second most important cause of lung cancer in many countries.

Air pollution caused 165 000 lung cancer deaths globally in 2004 of which:

108 000 were caused by outdoor air pollution
36 000 were due to solid fuels used for cooking and heating
21 000 were due to second-hand smoke.

Afterall, it could very well be possible that their deaths were caused by natural instances of cancer. If we all live long enough cancer will most likly be the cause of our demise.
Unless you can you can prove your statement I will remain curiously skeptical of your assertions.

J Hoell
Friday, April 15, 2011 8:33 PM
That is your choice and I respect it...but unless you actually spent 5 1/2 years at a nuclear facility,then you really have no idea what involves working at such a facility.Again,authorities are NOT going to come clean with prospective employees....otherwise they would be understandibly short staffed.Radioactive contamination only rears it's ugly head,and lingering effects, years and years after exposure.Strangely,I had asked a lot of people working their about their health concerns and the most common answer I received was "I don't look too far into the future".You can remain skeptical all you like...that is your choice....but I miss all my former colleagues.
Diamondsam
Saturday, April 16, 2011 1:46 PM
Keep in mind Hoell I no doubt feel badly for your former collegues and their families and I do not wish to make light of their tragedy.
Keep in mind that Agent Orange was once used on military bases and several decades later former military people were compensated. All I can say is if no one acts then nothing shall be done. documentation, documentation documentation!!!
J Hoell
Sunday, April 17, 2011 10:19 AM
Unfortunately,the nuclear industry has one of the best,if not THE best,public relations department in any industry and never forget that there are MORE unwritten rules than there are written ones....so it is an uphill battle against this industry and their secrecy.
dogfishead
Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:52 PM
it's about time someone moderated this site. I have been reluctant to comment here and be associated with such bigots and racists, when clearly such is not what Mr Margolis wants to promote.
Diamondsam
Thursday, April 14, 2011 5:47 PM
Dodfished. There were a lot of them posting here before the board got wiped. Much more than usual.
DoDaCanaDa
Thursday, April 14, 2011 7:24 PM
Good for the Site Administrator for posting Guidelines for discussion. The personal attacks were getting beyond civil and reasonable.

LORD, who shall abide in your tabernacle? who shall dwell in your holy hill?
He that walks uprightly, and works righteousness, and speaks the truth in his heart.
He that does not backbite with his tongue, nor does evil to his neighbour, nor takes up a reproach against his neighbour. Psalm 15

These six things the LORD hates: yea, seven are an abominationto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaks lies, and he that sows discord among brethren.
Proverbs 6:16-19

The problem is once Eric writes a column and posts it with his unique insights, it is dissected and analyzed to the point of nothing else left to discuss and once Freedom of Speech is introduced, it is inevitable it will expand into many different branches on the tree of Life.

The solution is for Eric to write a new column on a different topic or at least a different angle on a previously posted article. He has written 6 articles on Libya. I want to read what he has to say about Iran, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, the Sunni-Shia divide, and what it portends for our Future world.

The Sunni-Shia enmity stems from an ancient power struggle over the human successor to the Prophet continuing to this very Day. In Christendom we saw the same power struggles over the Papacy, with Popes and anti-Popes and the Protestant-Catholic divide in Ireland. It has nothing to do with the Greater Glory of God who is above the earthly power struggles of men.
Mayor Quimby
Thursday, April 14, 2011 7:50 PM
"The personal attacks were getting beyond civil and reasonable. "
Says who, jerk? :)

Mayor Quimby
Thursday, April 14, 2011 7:52 PM
Someone should bar this Quimby clown .....
DoDaCanaDa
Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:01 PM
How you frame your comments to becky and others is up to you. The Biblical references I cited here are intended to support the site Administrators notice and are related.
Mayor Quimby
Thursday, April 14, 2011 7:48 PM
What the heck have I wrought?
;)

Gosh, Japan, stop building nuclear
sites next to a fault line.

Not too clever.

Although, as Eric says, rather
understandable.

DoDaCanaDa
Thursday, April 14, 2011 7:53 PM
I agree to a degree, Len. We should learn to discern and identify in the words of the Administrator "personal attacks, racial slurs, etc" and use the Flag as Inappropriate function and the Administrator could delete only those comments rather than the whole discussion.
Mayor Quimby
Thursday, April 14, 2011 8:12 PM
Shut up Ray, you clown!
;)

LOL. But seriously, did you
other posters actually take
yourselves seriously?

I was thinking of planning a
pub night. Certainly, most must
be in Toronto.

Any takers?
Mayor Quimby
Friday, April 15, 2011 1:19 PM
You haven't seen me bevvie, Len. One may regret that offer! LOL
Mayor Quimby
Thursday, April 14, 2011 8:06 PM
HEY:
For those pining for the good olde days of bigotry,
insolence and just general hatred; the comments
are still posted to the previous blogs.

Yeah. A bucolic spring afternoon without a personal
attack or pro-Hitler comment may still be averted with
a trip down memory lane on one of Eric's previos blogs.

For the romantics amongst us, I highly recommend such
classics as: "Gadaffi: Hang 'Em High" and "Syria Tensions
Rising Fast".

Oh, to relive those warmer days of hatred, vitriol and just
a wee bit of je ne sais quoi.
simpleraven
Thursday, April 14, 2011 8:33 PM
WWWRRRRRRRAAQU?
DoDaCanaDa
Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:50 PM
Well whadda ya know? The Administrator of the Jews for Jesus site that excommunicated me just invited me back posting the comment I made the day I was booted, but just posted Today. He wants me to repent, though, and I don't know from what?

http://ivarfjeld.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/israel-army-told-not-to-remove-hamas-leadership-in-gaza/#comments
Robert Moses
Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:53 PM
Becky, which Jews/Israelites/Zionists are responsible for the Japanese Nuclear Crises?
DoDaCanaDa
Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:00 PM
Now why do you want to incite discord again with that baiting comment?
C Goyim Wake
Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:01 PM
(Yes, I realize this article is about Japan's recent nuclear disaster, but Eric has stirred a hornet's nest with his writing of past wars.)
Geez, what are they going to blame all the wars on after the oil has long since been used up?

I remember when I was a kid, I asked my father why they were fighting in Vietnam. His answer made no sense to me as a 10 year old but, it makes perfect sense now.

It has never added up for me why civilians are always the source of the vast majority of casualties in war. If the REAL reasons for war were as advertised I suspect that the civilian casualty rates would fall somewhere in the range of about 3%, especially now that they boast of possessing "smart bombs" (an oxymoron if ever there were one). Look at WW2 for an excellent example, every nation involved in that war is guilty of war-crimes, the bombing of non-military targets. They explained this away by saying that the purpose was to demoralize the civilian population - referring to it as "Terror-Bombing" - to make them lose their enthusiasm for the war and cease their support of the leaders involved. C'mon!

I recently watched a video on the web, called "The Most Important Video You Will Ever See", I highly recommend you watch this series of short videos, it will open your eyes to a frightening reality facing humanity today. It is presented in the format of a professor lecturing a class of students.

In the video, the professor explains the formula for acquiring the "doubling time" of anything possessing a given growth rate. This formula allows us to see that at the current rate of deaths vs births and the earth's current available (inhabitable) land mass, by 2050 the population will have grown to an extent that leaves each human-being just one square meter of land on which to stand without encroaching upon another person's one square meter.

In case you are still wondering, my Father's answer to my innocent question was, "Population control". Guffaw, if you will, but that answer makes a hell of a lot more logical sense than "Terror-Bombing".
DoDaCanaDa
Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:05 PM
There seems to be no concern or mention of the civilians killed by the rebels attacking cities and towns held by Gadaffi forces.
Mike MacDonald
Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:29 PM
C Goyim Wake:

Your father was perhaps a visionary or had gifted insight, but I agree totally. Look at the casualty figures for North Viet Nam compared with the South and the US combined. The North lost close to three million killed and wounded; the vast majority civilians. In the Congo: two million, Angola and Rwanda together; two million, Iran-Iraq: one and a half million. The list goes on.

The last large scale war that did not see a grossly disproportionate ratio between military and civilian deaths, even though the military losses amounted to over 11 million, was the First World War which was the last war fought chiefly between immense opposing armies. Africa is rife with further examples of seemingly minor bush wars causing massive loss of life out of all proportion to their size.

The next big conflicts will be waged over food, water and land. I shudder to think of the numbers those wars will produce. Population control your father said?

Sounds plausible to me.
janna
Friday, April 15, 2011 8:20 AM
that first big conflict will be on the subcontinent as the glaciers melt away in the himalayas
that threat is bigger than the one over kashmir
Mike MacDonald
Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:11 PM
I firmly believe the reason Fukushima has been raised to a level 7 nuclear event is because of relentless, overwhelming media coverage; especially by that 28 hour per day clearing house of worthless information, CNN. The screaming headlines around the Western world on every paper, TV channel and website are intended to generate advertising dollars, not to inform the public.

With Chernobyl, news of the disaster was so tightly controlled by the Soviet police state that it was weeks before any foreign reporters got close to Pripyat or talked to anyone affected by the blast. The West only discovered the plant had blown up from the radioactive cloud drifting over Northern Europe. The Soviets didn't even bother telling us about it for three days.

Diamondsam is quite correct in pointing out the fact that only a handful of workers at the Fukushima plant were killed in the initial explosions and radiation release while at Chernobyl it was 50 or more plus thousands of cancer cases and radiation victims. If one exercises a little honest perspective one finds that the two disasters, while severe, are hardly comparable.

CNN would have us believe that clouds of deadly radiation are wafting over our cities, killing and maiming while frightening 24 hour news channel viewers for no good reason. But then, if they told the real story, that Fukushima is quite probably not dangerous outside of a fifty kilometer radius of the plant, how many Chevrolets would that sell? The purveyors of sensationalism, the yellow journalists whose stock in trade is blowing things out of all rational proportion are stoking this story for all it's worth so they can get that bonus check, or make it to the networks, not out of any sense of responsibility to the thinking public.

Again, a little perspective please. One wonders what Blinky might say...
becky
Friday, April 15, 2011 10:08 AM
http://21stcenturywire.com/2011/04/12/2577/
WEST vs CHINA: A NEW COLD WAR BEGINS ON LIBYAN SOIL
simpleraven
Friday, April 15, 2011 10:40 AM
In the erased comments a few days ago JX made a comment about what is driving the price of oil. This is related to ANY disaster in the world that seemingly brings about the rise of energy prices.The energy prices automatically contribute to the enslaving of the brainless "'we the People" named in the US constitution. Observe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKunHXtQYuo&NR=1
Mike MacDonald
Friday, April 15, 2011 4:08 PM
Len:

I suspect the administrator already regrets his decision to moderate posts because of the number of off topic entries made since the last bunch were wiped out. I think he is re-evaluating his desire to have a sanitized and PC blog that merely looks like all the rest. This one was developing into something interesting what with all the fakes and phonies being called out.

Speaking for myself, I never launched a personal attack on anyone who didn't have it coming to them.
warrenf
Friday, April 15, 2011 4:00 PM
there is a massive conspiracy to control energy. any type of energy is denigrated by the media whether it be oil, nucler, or coal, i think this is obvious to anyone who pays attention.

why did it take a week to get power to run the nuclear station pumps? a generator could have been dropped off by helicopter in a few hours, a generator to run pumps is not very big.

please don't gas me!
Some Canadian
Friday, April 15, 2011 4:43 PM
The Western media sure love to praise Japan's samurai code and selfless sacrifices (and yadda yadda). A few things I find noteworthy but widely omitted are that:
- Japan's government was rude to other Asian nations who have sent aid team to help out
- Some disaster struck regions were totally abandoned (i.e. the youtube video with a Japanese mayor pleaing for help)
- There are in fact looting going on (contrary to what the Japanese media claimed). If pressed about these issues, Japanese media and officials claimed the perpetrators are foreigners
- 10000 tonnes of radioactive water was dumped into the Pacific without consultation with neighbour nations such as China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Russia. Instead they asked USA for permission (which of course the Americans approved because they are thousands of miles away).

Finally, the nuclear incident is man-made and it's already shown to be due to severe mismanagement that is done in collaboration with the Japanese government.

If this occurred in China, I am pretty sure the media would've been much more willing to criticize.
warrenf
Friday, April 15, 2011 5:15 PM
and the premier of alberta is another political slime. after all the good work done by the former premier to balance many budgets is being undone in a matter of years. i can't believe any albertan voted for him after his first term of spending.

much like chretien balancing the budget for eight years being undone by the so called conservative harper.
Some Canadian
Friday, April 15, 2011 5:45 PM
I also can't believe more than 40% of Canadians still want to vote for Harper. Even if people detest Ignatieff, Jack Layton's still a good alternative.
Diamondsam
Friday, April 15, 2011 6:06 PM
40%+ people believe in having a paycheck in which the taxes do not exceed your gross income. Some Canadian. Look at Bob Ray in Ontario as a perfect example of the NDP spending and political philosophy. They are still trying to dig out of that massive hole. In Sask after years of NDP rule, the province is now on the economic upswing and will rival Alberta soon in GDP. Jobs, jobs and jobs!!! Money in your pocket and economic freedom. I don't believe in the sense of government influencing my life in every aspect. Although I am far from happy with Harper and the obsene spending of the G20, I will vote for my Conservative Canadate in my riding. It is about the economy and keeping it strong.
My wife was just granted her citizenship and her vote will not go to Layton. She does not trust him and has said he is like a rat. Her words. Not mine! She has not told me if she will vote Liberal or Conservative. I have never influenced her thinking but encouraged her to follow our democratic process and make up her own mind.
Some Canadian
Friday, April 15, 2011 11:52 PM
I am not exactly sure if our economy actually improved after Harper kicked Martin off the stage. Was Canada actually worse off in the Chretien days?

I think Harper's problems are more complicated than that. G20's just a symptom. There's also the issue with Sun Media and the various episodes with him using public money in an improper way to advertise himself and the Conservative party. While I don't like the liberals as well, I feel there's good reasons to believe that Harper's quite openly corrupted and actively wants to reduce civil liberty (given the verified controversies that he is/was involved in).

By the way, Saskatchewan and Alberta are rich because of oil money.
warrenf
Saturday, April 16, 2011 6:42 AM
i think it is more about heading in the right direction. as it stands now none of the political parties seem to want to head n the right direction.

take the conservative jet deal. that is against canada's best interests but it sure helps the us and israel.

the money would be much better spent on several ice breakers and a fleet of minesweepers all made in canada.

russia can claim the north as part of russia.
Diamondsam
Saturday, April 16, 2011 2:40 PM
I don't buy into the shrill voices of the opposition parties decrying the present government as a bunch of corrupt people lining their pockets for their net gain. While they are mostly minor and far less serious then under the past Liberal government. Adscam comes to mind. What I think is that the real issue here is the Harper government has pledged to cut the current funding of political parties under the current votes for dollars.
The current economic prosperity that we currently enjoy was started under Mulrooney and continued with Chretian and Harper.
I would like to know how my current civil liberty is being undermined by Harper.
Alberta and Sackatchewan are rich because of natural resources yes. however it must be noted that Saskatchewan is richer than Alberta when it comes to resources but have always been a have not province under the former NDP government. Now that they changed political parties, SASK is now enjoying economic prosperity and are now a have province.
Alberta is the economic engine that drives the Canadian economy and to kill the golden goose as Layton and Iggy propose is not only stupid but would plunge the country into another recession. One must make it profitable for corporations to do business. After all that is what they are in it for. It has worked well in Alberta thanks to Ralph Klien. Create the enviroment for business to grow. Hire more people who pay taxes= a robust economy to pay for social programs. Alberta already pays more into health care per capita than any other province. Funny how people still aren't happy.

warrenf
Saturday, April 16, 2011 9:29 AM
deficit budgets are a mechanism to take money away from the people with less money and give it to people with loads of money.

it is easy to have a social safety net without deficits and much more affordable.
Diamondsam
Saturday, April 16, 2011 7:38 PM
I believe budget deficits are the other way around. Taking money away from those who have it while giving it to those who don't. One only needs to look at Canada's Social Safety Net.
warrenf
Saturday, April 16, 2011 8:42 PM
with deficits the government has to borrow money. it has, no doubt, preferred creditors who probably are in first and get the best interest rates. this money off the top is payed thru our taxes which the very rich do not pay.
warrenf
Saturday, April 16, 2011 8:48 PM
it is a far more affordable to have social safety nets without deficits. all of that money to pay interest could be used for other purposes.... like lowering taxes so people can earn a decent living.
Diamondsam
Friday, April 15, 2011 5:53 PM
I can possibly offer some insight for you Some Canadian on a few of the questions you posed.
As someone who has spent a large portion of my adult life in Asia, notably Japan, China and Viet Nam. My wife is Asian and a wonderful teacher.
the mindset of Asians is fundamently different than Western cultures of which "Saving Face" is huge. Accepting help from other countries is admitting weakness. Being rude was not the intent. As for the blaming of foreigners, that fits right into the saving face. I am not saying it is right but I understand why. No Japanese would dare do that. Japanese are very proud and even though they are highly influenced by Western culture, they are very much traditional in their culture.
I would not say that the regions were abandoned. Rather it was the enormity of the disaster that struck and the lack of resources to deal with it.
As for Ocean currents, you only need to look at the projected flow of the tsunami debris to see that it goes no where near the countries you mentioned but towards North America.
JX
Friday, April 15, 2011 7:55 PM
The Japanese have complicated feelings vis-a-vis their Asian neighbours. For the last several decades, they have looked down on the Asian continent. But now they feel squeezed internationally by the growing economic prowess of China and South Korea, and at the same time are uneasy about the large number of Chinese and Koreans living in Japan. Consequently, accepting help from these countries is something the Japanese leadership would rather not do.
Some Canadian
Friday, April 15, 2011 11:59 PM
For good reasons too... Japan, for whatever reason, is still quite deeply suspicious towards China (despite Japan being the one who launched genocidal campaigns in Chinese soil). Just days ago, the Japanese government somehow decided to reiterate the "threat" that China poses to Japan (a diversionary tactic to distract civilians from the impotence of the self-defense forces during the disaster relief?) and re-asserted territorial claims lands contested with Korea and China. Not something a grateful country would do (especially after receiving the majority of its humanitarian aids from Asian neighbours).
Diamondsam
Saturday, April 16, 2011 7:31 PM
JX. You forgot to mention that Japan has yet to apologize to China regarding its wartime occupation. This by and large has complicated relations between the two countries.
JX
Saturday, April 16, 2011 8:00 PM
The historical issue between China and Japan is inseparable from geopolitics and is rather complicated.

In the 1970s the Chinese government did not ask for an apology or reparations since it was more interested in Japanese investment and the common front against the Soviets. But the Chinese people remembered the atrocities committed by the Japanese Army and consequently once the geopolitical situation changed in the 1990s with the evaporation of the Soviet threat and Japan's alignment with the US against China, all the pent up anger against Japan came bubbling to the fore, this time with a certain degree of governmental approval. Allowing the Chinese people to vent nationalist frustration against Japan is less dangerous for the CCP than having them do so against the US.

On the Japanese side, the Japanese elites have never been agreed among themselves about whether to acknowledge the atrocities. The cycle goes like this: China demands an apology, the Japanese PM gives an apology that goes maybe 60 percent of the way to meeting what China expects, then a few months later several dozen Japanese legislators call a press conference denying that the Rape of Nanjing ever took place....and so the cycle continues. This denial is implicitly supported by the US which needs to keep Japan alienated from China in order to keep its "unsinkable aircraft carrier" in the Western Pacific.
Some Canadian
Friday, April 15, 2011 11:42 PM
I am not sure if saving face is such an "Asian" attribute. Do Europeans or Americans care any less about it?

While I do have a feeling that the Japanese has a culture built around pride, I don't believe the same holds as true for other Asian cultures.

As for ocean current, it's just standard etiquette to inform neighbours even if the major oceanography models suggest the radioactive particles will go to the Americas first.
JX
Saturday, April 16, 2011 1:07 AM
About saving face: There is a difference between "face" and pride. Modern Westerners tend to take pride first and foremost in the satisfaction of individual goals. If they accomplish these goals, then they will show off in front of their peers.

"Face" is a little different. East Asians still have individual goals, but they are very conscious of group expectations. They are more likely to take pride in satisfying the expectations of the group.

One might make the rejoinder: "But aren't contemporary Westerners extremely conformistic in their behaviour as well?". Yes they are, but they are typically unconscious of it. They seek individual gratification first and foremost, without realizing that their goals have been largely set by corporate media, and so consequently many of them end up pursuing the same thing and being rather conformist as a result. However, if one points out to them that they are doing the same thing as everyone else, they become extremely defensive (especially if they are women...).

On the contrary, for East Asians, conformity to social expectations based on one's place in that society is a good to be consciously pursued. If you point out to an East Asian that he is doing the same thing as his peers, he will not find it unusual at all.

ps. the other members of the "Confucian club" (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese) all take pride and face extremely seriously, though each have their own national specificities.

simpleraven
Saturday, April 16, 2011 1:51 AM
JX. If you can direct me to a book, written in your style, that deal with the above subject, I will be grateful.
JX
Saturday, April 16, 2011 2:28 AM
I came to these conclusions through a combination of book learning and experience. I do not know if there is such a book that treats the subject in its entirety, though I am sure there are many that deal with it to some extent. Try checking out some of the discussion at the Chinese History Forum.

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/

There are some people there who are very knowledgeable about the subject.

Mike MacDonald
Saturday, April 16, 2011 2:22 AM
The Confucians all look the same to me.
Diamondsam
Saturday, April 16, 2011 3:19 PM
You are very wrong in your statement. Saving face is very much an Asian attribute. What happens in Western societies is very much different.
Some Canadian
Saturday, April 16, 2011 8:14 PM
I don't find that to be an unique stereotype for Asians or that it is not common in Caucasian societies.
Diamondsam
Saturday, April 16, 2011 7:35 PM
SC I do believe under the circumstances that Japan was undergoing, Notification would no doubt be the last thing they were worried about. I have heard no protests from the countries you mentioned.
Some Canadian
Saturday, April 16, 2011 8:12 PM
Well, then you should Google some news?
becky
Saturday, April 16, 2011 6:56 AM
Diamondsam
Saturday, April 16, 2011 7:28 PM
Funny article becky. Thanks for the comic relief. I liked this one sentence.
"Despite occupying Japan for 66 years, the Wall Street Journal cites "language barriers" as one such obstacle to the US response."
Imagine my shock to learn that Japan is still under occupation!
There are currently 64 comments
Comments Commentaries
Currently Ordered By:
Commentaries by Category