Tsunami Repercussions and the Court Trials Begin (part two)

In yesterday's post I blogged about some parents who were suing a school for sending the children home by bus only to have those children die in the tsunami as their homes were on the coastline. In Tsunami Repercussions and the Court Trials Begin (part 1) I wrote that I think the parent's are trying to placate their own guilt and ignore their own responsibility for their children's deaths:

Had the earthquake hit an hour later or at dinner time or at night or early morning or some other time of the year, where would these kids have been? At home. At their parent's home that those parent's bought along the coastline... A coastline that was engulfed by a tsunami and destroyed... And not for the first time either.

The parents suing the school will not bring those children back... Nor will it placate their guilt and responsibility in this matter. 

School's need to stick by the book and not allow parent's to shirk their responsibility. Parents need to take a more holistic view on their children's safety.

In fact, today's parents depend on school for far too much so this is why we have so many problems with the family and complaint's about "today's youth".

The parent's might win this court case, but they won't win any money. They can't. Japanese law does not allow for "damages." If they did, it's one more step towards Japan becoming screwed up like the USA with court cases like this popping up everywhere. What I mean by that is people make bad decisions on life and do irresponsible things (like driving with a hot cup of coffee on their lap) and then suing someone else for their lack of common sense.

In the case above, the school does hold some responsibility... But I think the vast majority of the children's health and welfare responsibility is held by the parents. In fact, I think that this is painfully obvious an just plain common sense. 

It is a tragedy that so many children and parents have suffered, but to place blame and try to take money seems shallow to me. According to charities in Japan over 100,000 children have been displaced by this disaster. Who can blame another human for this story of suffering? 

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." - John 8:7

Here is an experience that another parent told me about concerning their child's school. In that case, the school wasn't about to allow the children to leave even though the parent had arrived to take that child home!


In our first case, the school is being sued by the parents. The school may have shirked its duties. In the case I will relate to you from now, the school may have way overstepping its authority. Here's the details as told to me. What do you, dear reader, think?


Here's the story related to me by my friend:


"Thirty minutes or so after the big shock ended, I drove the car to pick up our child from school. The children had been evacuated to the school sports field  and the school wasn't allowing any of the children to leave until the "all clear" was issued.

Upon coming to the school gate, a guard man stopped me. He said that the children were not being allowed to leave just yet. 

Even as the guard tried to explain, I smiled at him and politely - but firmly - said that I was there to pickup my child and I walked forward in spite of his protestations. He waved to a young woman who worked in the school office. She quickly approached me and told me that the children weren’t being allowed to leave because the “all clear” has not been given yet. Once again, I firmly told her that I am the child’s father and that I have the right and responsibility to decide if it is all clear for my child or not.

She protested. “Where do you have to go that’s so important?” she asked.

It was none of her business but I replied anyway, “My child has after school lessons.”

She was shocked and insisted that the children must stay where they were. I didn’t get angry at her but responded, “Alright then, who then has the authority to give the permission for children to leave?”

She said that the headmaster of the school did. I then approached him. I said, “Mr. Smith (not his real name) I appreciate everything that you do and I appreciate that you are protecting the children. But now I am here and there is no one who has more responsibility for my child’s safety than I do. Now I must take my child home.”

He politely countered, “But the all clear has not been issued!”

“Who issues the all clear?” I asked.

I didn’t get a straight answer from him. I gathered that it was possible that this had not been well thought-out before and even he didn't have a clear answer to that question. They were "playing it by ear". 

All the while we were having this conversation, there were dozens of parents standing around awaiting directions as to what to do. Another teacher then approached and he and the headmaster explained to me that they couldn’t let the children leave because, if they did let some children leave, they would have no way of knowing which kids were gone and which kids were still under their care. 

I said it wasn’t my problem if they had an accounting system in place for this problem or not.

For one, whether the school has a system to account for these kids or not, is their problem, not mine. And to extrapolate from that then, because they don’t have said system, why are we being held hostage for lack of this sort of paperwork problem? It is the school’s responsibility to hold drills and to make arrangements like this. Not mine. I have made my arrangements at home. 

I thought that this situation was absurd. I am the father. I am there. I am responsible for my child’s safety. I have the right to decide everything. My authority exceeds theirs in every sense of the word.


Of course if the parent’s are not present to take the children home, the school must take responsibility. But once the parent arrives, the school must completely relinquish control over the child to the parent. The school's responsibility to the child can never override the parent's. If necessary, the school needs to prepare some sort of paperwork and chain of responsibility as to who has the right to remove the child from school premises such as grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc. They also need to implement the system so that proof of identity is required to take a child home in an emergency. If the school does not, the parent must arrange such with the school. 

As it was, the school quickly relented for me to take my child out of the school grounds. Upon going to the gate to leave, a young woman stopped me once again and asked for my child's name and class number so she could check a list and let us leave. Embarrassingly for her my child’s name was not listed on the computer print out she had. I told her the name. She wrote it down - incorrectly, I might add. 


Then she failed to ask for my name and ID and we walked out the gate. 

So much for not allowing children to leave because they "can’t keep track of which students have left and which have stayed."  

I explained the entire situation to my wife and child told them that if there ever was a very serious life-threatening situation that I would go to school and even if the school did not allow us to leave, we would find a way to escape. 


We were in Tokyo. The earthquake was nearly 250 kilometers away. We were most definitely not in a life-threatening situation in spite of how much people and the news sensationalize this crisis."


That's what this irate father told me about how his child's school handled the situation. 


Now, my take on this...


In the court case where the school allegedly shirked responsibility by sending children home too quickly and those children died in the tsunami: The children's homes were near the ocean. Is the school guilty of incompetence by sending the children home too soon? Yes. True, perhaps. But it is quite understandable in such a situation that the school would want to get the children back to their parent's custody as soon as possible.


For the school, this seems a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.


In the second example: The school over stepped its authority and wasn't going to release a child into parental custody. In this second case, where the school wasn't going to surrender the child to the parent, had that child died or been injured, then I think the parent would have every right to sue the school and win. The school's reasoning that they are responsible for the child's well-being even after the parent arrives to receive the child is confused policy and out and out wrong in every possible sense.


Seth Godin had a good comment about this on a recent blog. He wrote:

Of course, the hard-working folks doing the detaining feel like they're doing their job. It's easy to measure. It's in the manual. It feels like progress. It's actually a cargo cult, though, the sort of thing an organization does to simulate progress when it's actually distracting itself from the mission at hand.

Fear can be used as a tactic, but it's almost never the end goal of marketing. The problem with using it as a tactic is that it's so easy to do, organizations almost always forget the real point of the exercise.

Absolutely right; "...organizations almost always forget the real point of the exercise." 


The question is: "What is the real point of the exercise?" "What is the point of taking the children to an evacuation area while at school?"


The answer is: "To protect them until they can be delivered into the safety of the parent's custody."

School's should never forget the ultimate purpose of their emergency drills and services. The parent's right are always top priority. Following the rules until the parents relieve the school's of the responsibility of caring for the children is the goal. 


That should never be forgotten. Any other result opens the schools up for being sued in court. Any smart administrator would be wise to consider these cases.

Tsunami Repercussions and the Court Trials Begin

I see where some parents are now suing a school for sending children home by bus, despite tsunami warnings, right after the March 11 earthquake hit northern Japan. I have some thoughts about this entire episode and wonder where and how to place the blame for this mess. Is suing the school the right thing to do? Perhaps. Perhaps not. 


Who would have known that the biggest tsunami in 1000 years was going to hit Japan?


Here's the information about the court case. Of course, as always, I will comment along the way. 


Japan Times reports:

Sendai — Parents of four children killed when their kindergarten bus was engulfed by the March 11 tsunami filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the school in Ishinomaki, Miyagi Prefecture, seeking compensation for its failure to ensure the children's safety.

The suit is likely the first of its kind questioning the responsibility of schools with respect to evacuation guidance after the twin disasters, the plaintiffs' lawyer said. The parents are demanding ¥260 million in total compensation from Hiyori kindergarten and its principal at the time.

The complaint filed with the Sendai District Court said the school bus carrying 12 children left the kindergarten, which was located on high ground, about 15 minutes after the massive earthquake on March 11 for their homes along the coastline — despite a tsunami warning having already been issued.

Here we get into the meat of the problem. The bus left the school for homes along the coastline? I understand that the school would want to get the kids to their home and into their parent's care ASAP after a big quake. That's a given. The sooner the kids are at home, the sooner the school responsibility for their safety ends. But driving them to homes along the coastline after a tsunami warning? Irresponsible? Yes. But is there more to this than meets the eye? I think so.

After dropping off seven of the 12 children along the way, the bus was swallowed by tsunami that killed the five children still on board. The plaintiffs are the parents of four of them.

They accuse the kindergarten of failing to gather appropriate emergency and safety information via the radio and other sources, and for not adhering to agreed safety guidelines under which the children were to stay at the kindergarten, to be picked up by their parents and guardians in the event of an earthquake.

Ah! This is important. The agreed safety guidelines. If we are to understand what this means, it says clearly that the school is accused of failing to follow agreed guidelines. Those guidelines state: "the children were to stay at the kindergarten, to be picked up by their parents and guardians in the event of an earthquake."

Seems simple enough, but I have some serious reservations about this. On the one hand, if we are to be completely strict on this interpretation, then the school is 100% absolutely in the wrong. Perhaps they should be sued.

But there are two sides to every story. What about the parent's responsibility? I think we have to look at the past to make a better judgement on this case. 

Bear with me for a moment here... 

Japan is a country of earthquakes. We have them often. Take one of these poor unfortunate children from that kindergarten who were killed in this tragic incident, let's call that child, "A-san". Were there past earthquakes when A-san was at school? If so, how was A-san taken care of after those earthquakes? Did A-san's parents pick A-san up from school, strictly according to the agreement, every time? Or did A-san's parent's allow the school to bus A-san home before?

If past experience is any indicator of future actions, then, it is irresponsible for the parents to expect that the school make a judgement call each time. If the earthquake was a small one, say a 3 on the richter scale, then did the school judge that it was safe to bus the kids home, or did the school consult with the parent's each time? Or did the parent's, strictly according to the agreement, pick up the child each and every time, after any earthquake, large or small? What were the rules? Or did we have "fuzzy" rules?

Do you see what I am getting at here? The parent's cannot have their cake and eat it too. Of course, the school would want to get the kids home ASAP. That's a given. What about past events?

Now, say, while A-san was a student at that school, there never was an earthquake of any mention to be concerned with, what then? Then I am of the thinking that the bulk of responsibility for this event lies with the parents. Why? Who decided that A-san would attend that school? Is it not the responsibility of the parents to investigate a school and decided to enroll their child in that school or not?

Who picked that school? Who was supposed to be diligent in choosing a good school with responsible leadership? The parent's did. Sure, the school may be messed up, but the child is the parent's responsibility.

When the school's responsibility trumps that of the parent's then we open an entire huge can of worms. There can never be any case where the school's responsibility trumps that of the parent.

And if I am going to be really hard assed about this, those areas hit by the tsunami are historical tsunami stricken areas. There's even ancient stones still standing there warning about building homes on low lying areas. It's happened before, it will happen again. Who bought those houses on the shoreline? The parent's did.

I am so sorry for those parents and those poor children who died in this tragic accident. I understand who painful life must be for those parents... But suing the school isn't going to bring those kids back and I think it will only increase their pain because I think they can't win in court.

After all, this was a so-called "Act-of-God" that is a rare occurance. The kids died while in a bus on the way home to their houses which are situated on the coastline. Folks, I think I see some angry, hurt parents trying to shift blame here for this incident. 

I can't understand how it is that the parent's think that the school holds more responsibility than the parents do in this disaster. No! The parent's hold much more responsibility for the kids than the school ever could.

I understand about "the agreement." I suspect that both the school and the parents were lackadaisical about it. 

Kindergarten children are in school for only a few hours a day. The vast majority of their time is spent around home. These kids, bless their souls, were in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

Had the earthquake hit an hour later or at dinner time or at night or early morning or some other time of the year, where would these kids have been? At home. At their parent's home that those parent's bought along the coastline... A coastline that was engulfed by a tsunami and destroyed... And not for the first time either.

The parents suing the school will not bring those children back... Nor will it placate their guilt and responsibility in this matter. 

School's need to stick by the book and not allow parent's to shirk their responsibility. Parents need to take a more holistic view on their children's safety.

In fact, today's parents depend on school for far too much so this is why we have so many problems with the family and complaint's about "today's youth".


The parent's might win this court case, but they won't win any money. They can't. Japanese law does not allow for "damages." If they did, it's one more step towards Japan becoming screwed up like the USA with court cases like this popping up everywhere. What I mean by that is people make bad decisions on life and do irresponsible things (like driving with a hot cup of coffee on their lap) and then suing someone else for their lack of common sense.


This case in Japan reeks of some jerkoff lawyer convincing these poor suffering parents to sue when they can't possibly win.

I will have a post tomorrow on this subject from a different aspect on how a school might have set itself up for being sued in court by defying a parent's demands. This parent was at the school to pick up a child yet the school would not allow that child to leave! Had that child gotten hurt, then that parent probably could sue the school!

The situation is similar to above but while the impetus of responsibility always lies with the parent, the school defied a parent's demands.

Japan Announces New Evacuation Area - What Does it Mean?

I'm sure the western press is going to have a field day with this new announcement so, before people get all tied up in their undies, I thought a bit of inspection and observation was in order.


This article comes from Jiji Press News. Jiji has been very fair and level-headed about reporting just the facts concerning the disaster and subsequent nuclear accident. Yes. They've done an excellent job of factual reporting and that's probably why you've never heard of them: They don't do End-of-the-World too well.

The Jiji Press News announces

Tokyo, April 22 (Jiji Press)--Japan has set a new evacuation area outside the no-entry zone around the crippled nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture, northeastern Japan, its top government spokesman said Friday. 

   Prime Minister Naoto Kan instructed Fukushima Governor Yuhei Sato and heads of municipalities concerned to have residents leave the new evacuation area by the end of May, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said at a press conference.

   The new evacuation zone covers Iitate, Katsurao and Namie as well as parts of Minamisoma and Kawamata with the combined population of some 10,000 people.

   The zone is where cumulative radiation levels will likely top 20 millisieverts within a year after the nuclear crisis that erupted after the March 11 quake and tsunami.

   The government announced a plan on April 11 to create a new evacuation zone out of the 20-kilometer radius of Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s <9501> Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant.

Like I mentioned, the western press and some other people in hysterics are going to latch onto this as proof that the world is coming to an end.


Well, if you are one of those people living in the evacuation area, you can be excused for thinking that your life has come to an end or that the world has gone upside down. You could be excused for wanting to run away. It would be quite understandable if you were angry and feared for your lives and loved ones.


But for the rest of us living far away - that is not the case. Now, I am specifically speaking about Tokyo, once again, and want to show you how this extended evacuation line does not compose a heightened risk to us at all.


First, here's a map of the new evacuation area (Here is a Google Maps link with a marker showing the new evacuation area. If that link doesn't work, try this one: http://bit.ly/egTtiU):

DOUBLE CLICK ON IMAGE FOR LARGER VIEW

You can see that I have inserted three arrows for your ease in viewing. The arrow at the middle - top is Minami Soma. The middle arrow is Namie.  The arrow at the bottom is the crippled Fukushima Power Plant Reactor #1. Notice at the bottom left-hand side of the screen that there is a scale marker. 


The distance between Namie to the crippled Fukushima reactors is about 12 kilometers (about 7 miles). The distance between Minami Soma and the Fukushima reactors seems to be about 40 kilometers (about 24 miles). So, yes it is outside of the original evacuation areas.


The next image shows the relative distance between Fukushima and Tokyo. 

DOUBLE CLICK ON IMAGE FOR LARGER VIEW

At the top right, the new evacuation area and Fukushima are so close together that they are denoted by a red A marker. Tokyo is at the left bottom of the image and is circled in red for your convenience. Once again, there is a distance scale at the lower left. The distance between the crippled Fukushima reactors - and the new evacuation areas - are about 236 kilometers (about 150 miles) from Tokyo. 


In summation, the new evacuation zones announced by the Japanese government are all areas that are within 12 ~ 40 kilometers of the Fukushima power plants? I thought most of these areas already were evacuated. I thought they had evacuated a 30 kilometer radius.


This announcement is, though, a disaster for those poor people who are going to lose their families homes and be separated from the places they love. But for the rest of us, living far away, it doesn't affect our lives at all.


For those who will latch onto this "news" and use it as an excuse and rationale for their panic and leaving Tokyo, may I simply request that they at least show some respect for those unfortunate men, women and children - those quite unlucky families - who were in the wrong place at the wrong time? May I ask that, instead of screaming like Chicken Little's that the sky is falling, how about doing something positive like helping out charity and doing something to make things a bit better for these unfortunate souls whose lives have been ripped upside down?... 


Instead of these people always thinking of themselves first (Me! Me! Me!) and whining all the time, how about, instead, doing something positive to help the situation? It is, after all, a situation that, as I said many times before is a disaster for those directly affected, but for those of us in Tokyo or far away, it has merely been an inconvenience.


How about doing something positive and helping these poor folks out? Do it yourself efforts with local churches are the best... Or, if you simply don't have time and just want to help, thanks. There's a link at the top of this page to charities.

Japan Nuclear Disaster Update & Strong Criticism of Western Media Sensationalism

The western media is having a field day with the nuclear accident in Japan. If you believe them, you'd think all of Japan were underwater and that we are all about to die. This sort of crass sensationalism is a damned disgrace and you should be very skeptical of what these idiots are telling you. The guys working in the news are wishing for big stories. If they can't get them, they make them.

THE PLATTERS - THE GREAT PRETENDER

Remember my Golden Rule about TV: "90% of everything you see on TV is bullshit; the other 10% are commercials."


Actually, it astounds me that people do accept what what the media says as gospel truth. Don't forget that this is the very same media that told us 3 years ago that Swine Flu was going to kill more than 50 million people worldwide. This was the same media that told us that the USA had to invade Iraq because of Saddam's nooklar weapons. This was the same media that told us that SARS also was a killer virus that was going to wipe out entire populations. This was the same media that told us that Bird Flu was going to do the same.


As of today, worldwide deaths from Swine Flu: 82. No nuclear weapons for Saddam (if he had any, do you really think we would have invaded Iraq?). Worldwide deaths from SARS: 100. Worldwide deaths from Bird Flu: 80. Don't even get me started on Man Made Global Warming!


Fact of the matter is that this is the same media who constantly exaggerates stories in order to sell advertising space to an extremely gullible public. When will people ever learn? If history is any example then the answer is: Never. They'll never learn.


Just wait a year or three for the next killer disease and we can start all over again. 


Now, I want to dissect and destroy one clown in particular who has been spreading wild misinformation about the nuclear accident in Fukushima. Mr. Gregory Jaczko head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Mr. Jaczko should resign his post immediately for incredibly irresponsible rumor mongering concerning a very serious situation. If anyone should be refraining from making wild , unfounded remarks, you'd think it would be the head of the NRC. But, no, I guess this guy is a good example of how people first got the idea of a stark raving mad scientist. I will print for you some of his comments then I will take them apart and show you what balderdash this is. You decide for yourself if this guy is rational or not.


Here are some of Mr. Jaczko's remarks from the NY Daily News:

"So much radiation may have leaked at the Fukushima Daiichi plant that workers may not be able to get close enough to fix it, said Gregory Jaczko, head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NCR)."

Are you kidding me? "So much radiation may have leaked?" Well, so much radiation may not have leaked. "Workers may not be able to get close enough to fix it." Well, workers may be able to get close enough to fix it... Hell, I may win the lottery one day if I keep buying lottery tickets. Ahem, don't look now but, if workers couldn't get close to the reactor, then why is it that two days ago there were only 50 workers at the plant, today there are 180?

"We believe that radiation levels are extremely high, which could possibly impact the ability to take corrective measures," Jaczko said.

Here again he says something stupid again, "We believe that radiation levels are extremely high..." We believe? Really, Mr. Jaczko? You are the head of the NCR and you "believe"? Are you telling me that you are shooting off your mouth and you don't have any facts? How about facts? Here are the facts for you, sir.

He said all water had apparently boiled away from the cooling pool at Reactor No. 4, where 1,097 tons of spent fuel rods are stored.

Apparently!? Here he is completely talking out of his hat. When I first read this I searched the Japanese language news for this story. Couldn't find any verification of it at all. Now where did this dummy get this info? Obviously it's what he wants to believe. Well, I want to believe in the Easter Bunny too but he ain't turning into reality except in little children's minds.

"I hope my information is wrong. It's a terrible tragedy for Japan," Jaczko said.

Great. Just great Mr. Jaczko. You go and freak out a hundred thousand people and cause the US government and Japan millions of dollars in expenses and damages shooting off your mouth and you "hope your information is wrong"!? Well, I hope the Dodgers win the pennant this year. But, in my case, if they don't, at least the US taxpayer won't be on the hook. The only thing you've said so far that isn't stupid is "It's a terrible tragedy for Japan." Yes it is and there's a bunch of people without food and shelter. You blabbing this sensationalist crap is taking people's eyes off the real crisis on the ground. Those people need help.

Jaczko: "I believe the sky may be falling."

This guy just doesn't stop. Mr. Drama Queen, er, excuse me... Mr. Jaczko, please go on.

The L.A. Times Reports:

Gregory Jaczko, head of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, says the crisis is worse than Japanese officials appear to be letting on. 'This is a situation where people may be called in to sacrifice their lives,' he says of the crew working there.

"...people may be called in to sacrifice their lives"? This guy has never worked as a fireman or a cop or in the military, has he? Nope. Just a politician whose never had a real job in his life.

-- As the crisis continues to unfold at the Fukushima No. 1 (Daiichi) nuclear power plant, a growing disparity between Japanese and U.S. attitudes toward the problem is becoming apparent.

Whereas Japanese authorities have generally been restrained in their pronouncements about the risks, American officials are becoming increasingly vocal.


Yes. After the first two days of the Japanese government screwing things up with pronouncements  and then changing their story every two hours, they got smart and decided that, before they do make any announcements, they better have their facts straight and their act together. As opposed to the sensationalist western media that will print any old thing that fools like Gregory Jaczko "believe" or "believe may happen."

Japanese officials, for example, have consistently said the amount of radiation escaping from the damaged power plant remains relatively small. But on Wednesday, Gregory Jaczko, head of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said that he believes the spent fuel cooling pond atop reactor no. 4 at the facility about 150 miles north of Tokyo has boiled dry and that it is now spewing large amounts of radiation into the air.

Hell, I don't need to b-slap this guy here. I'll let the Associated Press do it. AP completely contradicts him:

A senior official with the U.N.'s nuclear safety agency said there had been "no significant worsening" at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant but that the situation remained "very serious." Graham Andrew told reporters in Vienna that nuclear fuel rods in two reactors were only about half covered with water, and in a third they were also not completely submerged.

Low levels of radiation have been detected well beyond Tokyo, which is 140 miles (220 kilometers) south of the plant, but hazardous levels have been limited to the plant itself. Still, the crisis triggered by last week's earthquake and tsunami has forced thousands to evacuate and drained Tokyo's normally vibrant streets of life, its residents either leaving town or holing up in their homes. 


Thanks AP... What the...What a minute! Now AP gets into the act of sensationalism too (just couldn't control yourselves, could you?) You guys make it sound like Tokyo is a ghost town; "...forced thousands to evacuate and drained Tokyo's normally vibrant streets of life, its residents either leaving town or holing up in their homes"? Where do you guys get this stuff? Yes. Some people have left. But even the Japanese elementary schools are open in Tokyo and the stores are pretty well stocked up with most foods. Life goes on in Tokyo pretty much the same. 


Finally, now, we can see the reason for Mr. Jazcko's increasingly wild and sensationalist claims. He is catching flak and needs to cover his ass: 


Once again, the AP reports:


It could take days and "possibly weeks" to get the complex under control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jazcko said. He defended the U.S. decision to recommend a 50-mile evacuation zone for its citizens, a much stronger measure than Japan has taken.


Aha! Now we see the motivation for Mr. Jaczko to exaggerate and tell fibs. He is the one responsible for the US evacutating a 50 mile radius around the accident site. You can see that - from reading in between the lines - he is now taking criticism (deservedly so) for recommending a 50 mile evacuation zone. I'm sure there are other experts with much cooler heads who aren't panicking like the little girl Mr. Jaczko seems to be.


Japan's announced a few days ago that the evacuation zone would be 12 miles. Mr. Jaczko, on the other hand, should announce that he is evacuating his post immediately.


-------


Finally, last but definitely not least, here is some great information from Professor Barry Brook. Brook is director of Climate Science at the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute. The UK Register reported.

Some of my favourite quotes:

"The situation with respect to the actual reactor cores at Fukushima
no longer appears to be causing huge concern."

"there is no sign of massive damage to the cores or release of
long-lived radioisotopes in significant quantities"

"The radiation near the reactors is mainly emitted by fast-decaying
isotopes in the steam which decay away within seconds or minutes of
being created. TEPCO admits that portions of fuel rod continue to be
uncovered at times, but residual heating levels in the fuel are now
hugely lower than they were in the days immediately after the quake
and the rods' heat-conducting alloy cladding helps transfer heat from
the exposed portions to the water."

"If someone can explain to me how those heavy particles, the heavy
metals and even the non-gaseous fission products can be carried over a
wide area, I'd like to hear it because I don't know a mechanism where
that could happen in these sort of reactors."

An especially enthusiastic thank you to Victor Vorski for this!