This propensity by humans to so often self-delude, in the form of corporate "decision making", is really an attempt, highly rewarded in modern times, to save money by implementing the "science" of risk analysis to justify less-costly design safety features, even when potential loss of life is factored in. Risk analysis in many cases these days is nothing more than using statistics to rationalize away the potential for grand scales of destruction of property and loss of life to occur, in that order.
Keep in mind that an unexpected or historically rare grand scaleharmful and property-destroying event or action can be judged ignorable, a riskable bet, if it is calculated by committee agreement or single-person (expert) consultation that northeast coast Japanese earthquakes and tsunamis are not related; i.e, they occur independent of each other and occur together no more than a certain few times in a hundred or even thousand normal events of one kind or the other. In other words, the expert belief/committee line is that tsunamis are not caused by earthquakes, nor vice versa. The key here is independent occurrence which statistically allows the company risk analyzer-statistician to multiply the two small probability percentages of each type of catastrophe rather than add them: for example, in 2011, if they are deemed independent, a 1/10 earthquake occurrence probability plus let's say, 1/8 probability of tsunami occurrence would yield a 1/80 (1.25 %) chance of both occurring at the same time; but if the two catastrophes are deemed related by cause and effect, their chances of occurring together is 22% (1/10 + 1/8; 10% + 12%). Obviously, statistical independence of tsunami and earthquake is better for lowering insurance premiums and building less costly reactors (fewer/weaker safety design features). This is why corporate committees will argue against unbiased analysts on behalf of independence of failure modes: independent-judged events will appear to have an ultra-small chance of occurring together and, furthermore, they will appear to be unrelated, i.e., not be linked as in cause and effect. (Which in this case is BS).
This blogger suspects in the recent March 11, Japan earthquake-tsunami case, the probability of an earthquake above 7.9 occurring together with a monster tsunami was probably game-matrixed to exec committees, supposedly including one of Toshiba's, as small enough so that the joint occurence could be virtually ignored. In statistical terms, the joint probability of earthquake and tsunami was, incorrectly, presented to be beyond estimated 2-3 sigma, or perhaps it could have been played with to appear to be even in the 6 sigma category which in modern corporate lingo is very convincing. This is how risk boundaries are set: smaller scale harm, etc. is something to plan for, i.e., within reasonable cost; large scale is something to statistically argued away and put aside...to let governments and taxpayers deal with while "to big to fail...", enough of this. Sometimes loss of life is the least costly risk: tho abominable, such a risk policy might not be an intentional crime but arguably non-existant statistics wise, until it occurs. Regardless of statistics that says a 3 sigma rule or even a 6 sigma rule. "6 sigma" would have an "impossibly" low chance of occurrence, history shows statistical improbability is not fact and statistical numbers don't walk around and prevent stuff from happening.
What does this analysis mean for the northeast coast of Japan? One of the most earthquake-prone, tsunami witnessed areas on the planet? Well, at the least it means reactor design should have had double or triple the safety features of a reactor intended to be located, say, in Iowa or in the Rhone Valley. Secondly, who in their right mind would locate a reactor close to the coast in that region of Japan. In less endangered, less historically earthquake-tsunami prone areas, one might suspect trade-offs of gain/reduced cost for reactor location, or mis-location. But in Japan? On the northeast coast? Enough. Let's say this blogger hopes all parties are in the final summations found to be pure and guiltless, tho perhaps not faultless, in their decisions. It seems better in the long run to be found to have made a sincere tho faulty decision than be found guilty of deliberate collusion to misrepresent.
In a former life chapter this blogger served as a NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) liaison and emergency administrator for a large academic research institution. So, this blogger has some background to speak about nuclear radiation safety, and especially about human foibles and self-delusions when it comes to playing around with radiation. Nuclear power, despite it's champions, is like juggling cyanide pills with gloves on and wearing a clown suit. "Stuff" does happen, believe it. And predictably, more stuff happens when we humans, behind committee curtains, manage to convince ourselves that because radiation can't be seen, heard, smelled, or tasted or felt we can relax and engage in distanced, impersonal risk analysis where consequences (human injury, disease, inconvenience and death) of systems failure/damage are weighed against safety costs.
Moreover, quite often the costs of failure consequences are least in cases of death; so it goes in the land of RA (risk analysis) and MBA Follies. The follies of risk analyses and consequences are already surfacing in this Japan earthquake: a Japanese engineer is quoted in BBC web site reporting March 14 as having made reference to cutting of corners in reactor design so that design safety factors to protect against earthquake and tsunami were not considered:
1422: Japanese engineer Masashi Goto, who helped design the containment vessel for Fukushima's reactor core, says the design was not enough to withstand earthquakes or tsunamis and the plant's builders, Toshiba, knew this. (BBC News- March 14, 2011)First, note that engineer Goto uses the phrase, "against earthquake or tsunami" which "or" confirms this blogger's suspicion that an independent-model statistics were used to game out risk analysis, i.e, to justify the least costly design safety scenario.
Further, sadly but predictably, Engineer Goto's comments to the BBC should immediately raise expectations of near-future questions and investigations at several levels. And also predictably, by this blogger's opinion in the above paragraphs, there will be found at the bottom another case of MBA Follies - a risk decision based on a boardroom committee consensus that a major earthquake and earthquake-generated tsunami occurring together, though it might be strong enough to trash a just enough safety design, just will not happen.. or will be, based on mis-applied statistics, acceptably not likely so as to certainly not happen on our watch". Well, it did happen on somebody's watch and there will, or should, likely be consequences.
And as a final sub-thought in the above vein of Stuff is Still Coming, there is this headline from the March 14, HuffingtonPost web site:
LIVE UPDATES: 17 U.S. Military Personnel Test Positive For Radiation.. Recovery Efforts May Face Temperatures Below Freezing.. More Video..One suspects, sadly, these headlines, which are quoted from sources, might not turn out to be exaggerations.
Japan Asks U.S. For Help.. Costs To Hit $35 Billion.. Volcano Erupts.. Germany, Switzerland Suspend Nuclear Plant Approvals.. PHOTOS.. Robots Deployed To Aid Recovery Efforts.. HOW YOU CAN HELP
But to the point: the reactors in Japan are rupturing, exploding and leaking radiation. Radiation is impacting emergency workers, surrounding populations (despite ever-widening evacuation zones) and spreading with help from atmospheric winds to ships at sea... and eventually will spread in perhaps more than just detectable levels to west coast America (Alaska, Canada, United States, Mexico, South America) and Russia. And let's not overlook radiation spread to other parts of Asia.
And let's give a few prayers that, so far, the earth quake region is apparently confined to the north east coast; although recent volcano activity in the south Japan area is raising questions.
This blogger chooses, as a privilege of speaking one's mind in a blog, to reduce the Japan earthquake and results to two major points: we can't overestimate the power of Mother Nature and her ability to exceed our imagination of what surprises She might bring to the table, and we should have long ago been committing a large amount of resources - tax incentives, research and money - to develop solar, wind, tidal, wave power, etc ... GREEN POWER. Nuclear power is, to repeat an often made point, a controlled, hopefully slowed down atomic bomb. And remember, it doesn't take but a small few reactor mishaps to screw things up locally and drift area wise for many years.
As to the WHY haven't we (humans and nations in general) been massively involved in developing and perfecting the use of green, passive power, Why haven't we been committing major resources to develop room temperature superconductivity, microwave energy beaming from space-situated fusion cells, etc.? This blogger proposes it hasn't happened because of an economic-ism malaise and paralysis that seem to have us locked in a petro-prison (this blogger's term).
This blogger has no miracle agenda since there are presumably far more capable technologists and politicians able to negotiate technical problems as well as negotiate the intricacies of "modern" political-industrial systems. But the need to move forward seems to shine briliantly in our eyes - it's past time to get off the pot and solve The Energy Problem with safe as well as reliable power.
Posts
