Chicago Boyz

What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?

Recommended Photo Store
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Of the tsunami and Mt. Fuji

    Posted by Charles Cameron on April 1st, 2011 (All posts by )

    I’ve been thinking quite a bit about William Carlos Williams and his observation in Asphodel, That Greeny Flower:

    Our news media blare with (apocalyptic but not revelatory) trumpets…

    while Hokusai, painting circa 1831, conveys the vulnerability of the (Japanese and human) situation with his image of boats in a storm.


    Here’s Dr. Barnett, in my own transcript of his video this week:

    The surprise factor here really shouldn’t exist in our minds. I mean the mega-disaster of a tsunami plus and earthquake plus a nuclear meltdown in Japan – well, those three are already highly linked. Japan highly depends on nuclear power, it’s one of the most seismically active island chains in the world, and tsunami is a Japanese word. So if you are going to put a forty year old very aging early technology nuclear power plant right on the coast in Japan, the only mega-disaster you’re going to get there is an earthquake-triggered, tsunami-delivered nuclear meltdown. So these are not surprising connections, we’re just bumping into the connectivity that’s natural and only becoming more expansive as globalization advances.

    That’s exactly right – and Hokusai should have been an early warning.

    The only thing missing from Barnett’s analysis, and present in Hokusai, is Mt. Fuji – or what TS Eliot (to circle back again to “verbal” poetry) would call “the still point of the turning world”.


    One Response to “Of the tsunami and Mt. Fuji”

    1. PenGun Says:

      As always the good doctor is superficial. The #1 reactor is a 40 year old GE BWR. The #2 and #3 are larger reactors which are a few years younger. The #4 reactor was not running along with #5 and #6.

      There is plenty of evidence of very powerful tsunamis along that coast with several older towns rebuilt on quite high ground after events in previous centuries. They survived well.

      One could make a case for criminal negligence both in the construction and in the response to the events of March 11. That may yet occur.

      The construction of these reactors in that place without adequate sea walls and no good plan to deal with a large tsunami is very short sighted if not criminal. The placing of backup diesel generators unprotected and at sea level is again just stupid.

      There was, because of slow and poor response and and the aforementioned neglect, a 18 – 20 hour period when the reactors were not cooled. This has produced a situation with at least two breached containment vessels, never supposed to happen and one reactor toying on a regular basis with critical reactions. Two have exploded. The #3 reactor with enough force to rip the cladding off, on the explosion side, of a fairly large building a quarter mile away. The #4 reactor which was not running has undergone a moderate explosion and the spent fuel pool which was over loaded is empty. A large part of the water used cools this leaking pool. If it catches fire there is a very large amount, many Chernobyl’s worth, of spent fuel rods which will burn and produce massive radioactive pollution. The explosions have produced areas of ‘red forest’, vegetation killed by radioactive material, all around the plant. No wonder they are going to spray resin over the area to try to contain the material that produced this effect.

      Nothing is going well there and there is no reason for optimism.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.