From: ems@gallant.apple.com (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Another NUKE bites the dust ...
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:56:03 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <nbfp49f@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>From the Oct 1 San Jose Murkey News, page 14A, dateline TOKYO (AP)
>>*** BEGIN EXCERPTED QUOTE ***  (elipsis ... denote deletions)
>>JAPANESE PLANT BARELY AVERTS CORE MELTDOWN
>>*** END QUOTED MATERIAL ***		(thankfully)
>
>>There you have it.  All the things that cause one pause about
>>a nuclear plant in the back yard.
>
>>One guy makes a mistake, and per the article, the plant is one system
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>away from a meltdown.  Then the folks who are in charge don't bother
>>to tell the public for the better part of a day...
>
>>The article may be wrong, but that type of article is why the non-nukers
      ^^^^^^^        ^^^^^           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>take a bit of a circumspect view of a nuke in every village ...
>
>Funny reaction, Mike.  

How so?  I see an article that I think is a bit simplistic, but
where I'm in no position to evaluate it fairly, and post it for 
others to comment on.  I flag that the article may, in my oppinion,
be wrong, but also note that even if it is wrong, it is a good 
example of how wrong journalism can cause problems for the nuclear
industry (the implication being that a way needs to be found to 
reduce or counter such wrong articles).  Seems reasonable to me.

I'm just trying not to particularly take sides on this one while
hoping to see the article ripped to shreds so that I can learn
a bit more from observing the process ;-)

>Based on what you've heard from us on the net,
>your instinct SHOULD have been to wonder just how inaccurate the news
>report was.  

And my instinct DID, which is why I posted it!  If I thought it was
exactly right, I wouldn't have bothered, since it would not have 
gained me any new information that I would have believed ...  (BTW,
most of that instinct comes from my personal interaction with the
media which has UNIVERSALLY shown them to be most interested in 
creating a 'story' and only interested in reporting the facts to
the extent that they fit the {preconcieved} story line...)

>Frankly I've not seen worse reporting since TMI.

So rip it to shreds and show us where it is bogus!

>I really have no idea what happened.  The "facts" presented fit nothing
>I know about a nuclear plant.  Japan is a big fan of Westinghouse so 
>it almost surely was a Big W unit.  I'll call a friend at INPO 
>tomorrow and see what I can find out.

Great!

>I don't even know where to start taking this one apart.  Let's see.  

{... great ripping to shreds job deleted! ...}

>My best guess is the operator did something to trip the feedwater pumps
>which caused a semi-routine ECCS activation.  They determined what
>caused it and secured it.  What we'd have called a "Green Book Event"
>at Sequoyah.  (named because of the succession from white (normal),
>green (not normal), yellow (serious), and red (head for the hills))

So it IS a case of reporting 'not much happend'.  

>[Editorial mode on]
>
>Mike, I know you like to post ridiculous stuff just to stir
>shit.  

I prefer the phrase 'stir the pot' ...  In this case, though, it
was more motivated by a desire to find out more about what REALLY
happened (since the odor detectors had been tripped by the article
title ...) and a desire to point out that such articles existed and
that they do, right or wrong, shape the public perceptions.  (Which
implies that there is some specific PR stuff that could be identified as
important to deal with in future plans...)

>Is this one of those occasions?  

Not really.  I was aware that it would start alot of discussion, but
hoped that some good info would be found among the obligatory slams...
Your article, BTW, I count among the 'good info' in that it provided
a nice synopsis of what REALLY happens (and it has been archived ...).

>I hope you're not stupid
>enough to take seriously what you posted, as indicated in your
>trailer.  

Re-read the trailer.  Notice that I say nothing like 'I believe this
really happened' or 'what can be done to shut down such lousy nukes?'.
Notice that it says 'The article says {foo} and this causes the 
anti-nukers to get worried.  This is a PR problem for the nukers,
even if the article is wrong.' and says so without endorsement.
This is as close to a non-biased non-commital stance as I can take!

>Whatever, I've had enough.  I've typed my last
>multipage treatise to try to counter this ignorance.  It's
>futile.  

Illegitimus non carborundum!

Hey, just 'cause I show you what your up against is no reason
to throw in the towel...  

Think of it as an opportunity to show how bogus the media are...

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has