The Jimmy Dore Show march 24, 2011

No Mortgage Lenders in Jail, but a Borrower Lands There – NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html

I can’t believe I’m writing this, but Bill Orielley was somewhat correct about the overly-hyped nuclear story in Japan. I don’t normally defend him, and still consider him a huge ass, and he’s ususally very wrong about everything. Not this time though. First, please read this article from a reputable, non-American source. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

I guess my biggest problem is how you constantly trash cable news for their fear mongering, mis-or-under-reporting of the facts, and lack of depth or scope in their reporting. Then, when you want to back up your fallout paranoia with some “credible” sources, you turn to cable news clips to try and convince your audience. Well, which is it? Is cable news worthless, just filling up time and fear-mongering to increase viewership, or is what they’re saying about Fukushima actually %100 true? I have sought out my own sources, and my conclusions are much different from yours. It bothers me that you talk about “speaking truth to power,” yet you have no problem swallowing the stories that are more truthiness than truth. If you can read the above article and still be freaking out about Fukushima next week, then I guess I have failed to influence you.

Thanks for your time, and as always, I’ll be back next week.
Ned Robinson

P.S. What was with that Chakra video post on Facebook? Please don’t tell me you’re into that. New age energy, chakras, all that shit is just another type of religion, and I know how you feel about religion.

It’s hard to debate you when instead of addressing the points I bring up, you insist on attacking the credibility of “my guy” (a scientist from Oxford university) and assert that ony you have access to a real scientist. I won’t try to re-iterate my position, as it has fallen of deaf ears, but instead ask why you have a comment section only to ignore your listeners save for snarky, poorly cited responses with little to do with the actual argument.

While I am glad that your source this time is Michio Kaku and not Bill Nye, what about the questions I raised about trashing tv news, then using their clips to back up your point of view? Whether or not ” my guy” fudges numbers on Chernobyl ( and please don’t tell me your numbers are from Greenpeace) is immaterial. There are a multitude of reasons that Fukushima is not Chernobyl, nor will it be. I know you don’t trust my sources, even though they are MIT at mitnse.com and the article from Oxrord, but they contradict your above post. Dr. Kaku is brilliant there is not question, but his understanding of string theory is also immaterial. I am a master chef and my sister is an astrophysicist, both requiring intelligence, but neither one of us in any closer to understanding Fukushima. Dr. Kaku’s statement seems directly at odds with what the nuclear scientists at MIT are saying, so at the very least you must admit that it is hard to find concensus. Also, the statement is predicated on what MAY happen with a lot of “if’s,” and some of its syntax appears to have been lost in translation.

I suppose we could continue to trade jabs and websites each backing up our own point of view, but that won’t accomplish anything. I am willing to bend towards your side a little, but would also love to see some flexibility in your position. Please address my points from this and March 17 th’s forum, as I am qualified to debate those topics, somethinng I can’t say for nuclear power.

Thanks, and as always, I’ll be back next week.
Ned Robinson

Michio Kaku has no background in nuclear power plants so far as I am aware. String theory – which has pretty much been dismissed in the past ten years or so – was interesting in the 1970s and 1980s but does not confer upon Kaku any special insight into reactors. If he is saying that the Gen II systems at Fukushima have the potential to exceed what happened at the Gen 0 plant at Chernobyl, then he is betraying his new specialty, which is to be the mass media’s go-to person for a sensational perspective on anything that sounds sciencey. Most of my colleagues consider him to be the Oprah Winfrey of science.

Chernobyl was an atomic pile (remember that term?), an explosive massive block of graphite, which can and did explode and burned for days, blanketing the countryside in radioactive graphite and sending plumes into the upper atmosphere. There are no mechanisms at Fukushima that have the ability to do any of those things.

Nevertheless, Fukushima has proven itself to be unacceptably fragile, a trait shared by most other Gen II systems worldwide. Current Gen III and III+ reactors share none of the Achilles Heels that brought down Fukushima, i.e., the need to have electricity to keep a core from melting.

Is it my imagination, or does your Barack sound a lot like Jackie Mason? I don’t think I’ll ever hear the prez the same way again!