Why a profit first philosophy is bad for the world

[martybegan]

Personally, I think Suze Orman has it right:

People FIRST,

then MONEY,

then THINGS.

But money and things all belong to people. What the OP is postulating is that they should have just flushed the reactor with seawater, thus ruining it, if there was even a chance of a problem with the other systems.

What about the substantial lack of power now in Japan's grid? Doesnt that affect people? Granted they had to go with the seawater option eventually, but if they didnt need to, using it would have ruined perfectly functional reactors in the desire for "doing it just in case"

 

[emilynghiem]

Why a profit first "mentality" is bad for the world

Dear TM:
Yes and no.

I agree that you cannot put short term profit before responsibility for consequences in the long term. However, there is another side to business that is good for even charitable/nonprofits to learn and follow; and that is the concept that you have to have more income coming in to support your operations than you are spending. The problem with a lot of nonprofits depending on handouts or grants to subsist, is that they do not have a system in place to invest in business to become self-sustaining. There are good examples of charitable outreach that DOES set up long term viability, from microlending programs that train new business owners, to charitable businesses like Paul Newman's line of food products, or Goodwill industries, where this creates jobs and work to generate income.

As for the negative side of putting profits first to cause extreme irreponsible damages:

The Buddhists have a term for this principle about practicing the "right profession" -- not profiting off the suffering of any living thing, whether people animals or plants.
The Christians call it not putting Mammon/greed/material coveting about God, including God's creation for which we are called to be responsible stewards. There are even religious coalitions for the environment calling for corporate responsibility based on that premise.

Unfortunately under Constitutional freedoms, corporations have gained the right to personhood without the same checks and balances that prevents govt from abusing collective resources and power; thus corporations claim equal rights and freedoms as "individuals" while also wielding collective influence, resources and representation that exceeds the individual capacity. This has caused the imbalance of power and upset of checks and balances allowing govt corruption due to corporate influences on all levels.

Such abuses can be checked if corporations or large organizations are required to follow the same Constitutional laws and ethics as required of government, including the responsibility for due process, petitions and redressing grievances by people affected.
ethics-commission.net
Anyone anywhere can adopt, practice and enforce these standards.
The more citizens do this and demand this standard, it can become the social norm.

 

[blastoff]

This is exactly what you will get with any privatization of the peoples needs.

Amen!

I say we take our nuclear facilities out of the private sector pronto. Get our government involved instead, sort of a quasi-Amtrak operation for the nuclear industry. That's a recipe for sleeping tight at night, huh?

 

[Truthmatters]

Why a profit first "mentality" is bad for the world

Dear TM:
Yes and no.

I agree that you cannot put short term profit before responsibility for consequences in the long term. However, there is another side to business that is good for even charitable/nonprofits to learn and follow; and that is the concept that you have to have more income coming in to support your operations than you are spending. The problem with a lot of nonprofits depending on handouts or grants to subsist, is that they do not have a system in place to invest in business to become self-sustaining. There are good examples of charitable outreach that DOES set up long term viability, from microlending programs that train new business owners, to charitable businesses like Paul Newman's line of food products, or Goodwill industries, where this creates jobs and work to generate income.

As for the negative side of putting profits first to cause extreme irreponsible damages:

The Buddhists have a term for this principle about practicing the "right profession" -- not profiting off the suffering of any living thing, whether people animals or plants.
The Christians call it not putting Mammon/greed/material coveting about God, including God's creation for which we are called to be responsible stewards. There are even religious coalitions for the environment calling for corporate responsibility based on that premise.

Unfortunately under Constitutional freedoms, corporations have gained the right to personhood without the same checks and balances that prevents govt from abusing collective resources and power; thus corporations claim equal rights and freedoms as "individuals" while also wielding collective influence, resources and representation that exceeds the individual capacity. This has caused the imbalance of power and upset of checks and balances allowing govt corruption due to corporate influences on all levels.

Such abuses can be checked if corporations or large organizations are required to follow the same Constitutional laws and ethics as required of government, including the responsibility for due process, petitions and redressing grievances by people affected.
ethics-commission.net
Anyone anywhere can adopt, practice and enforce these standards.
The more citizens do this and demand this standard, it can become the social norm.

Great post and I agree with you whole heartedly.

If the government could place and inforce decent regulation on any industry to protect the people from greed without the right constantly screaming that they are killing caplitalism we could have a great system.

The problem is the right has become nothing but a tool for the corporate interests to reach for more and more power over the peoples government.

If Profit is the ONLY responsibility of any business it will eventually fail because it will at some point place profit over long term health of our economy and even our governments interests.

The right is hell bent on killing the current government of our country so they can control it and continue to place profits first at the detriment of the vast majority of Americans.

 

[syrenn]

What part of the initial actions were designed to save the reators instead of securing the safety of the people do you not understand?

IDIOT! You are such a ******* idiot.

What part of someone has to stay and deal with disasters don't YOU understand. You dont all cut and run like pussies. You dont tell everyone to get the hell out and save their own sorry asses.

If you want to keep everyone safe,THAT may mean giving up your life to save a very bad situation from getting worse. If you want to save peoples lives you SAVE THE ******* REACTOR!

 

[Truthmatters]

What part of the initial actions were designed to save the reators instead of securing the safety of the people do you not understand?

IDIOT! You are such a ******* idiot.

What part of someone has to stay and deal with disasters don't YOU understand. You dont all cut and run like pussies. You dont tell everyone to get the hell out and save their own sorry asses.

If you want to keep everyone safe,THAT may mean giving up your life to save a very bad situation from getting worse. If you want to save peoples lives you SAVE THE ******* REACTOR!

Why are you pretending that someone suggested cutting and running?

This thread is about NOT defering to the health of the reactors future use over the lives of the people in Japan.


Maybe you should read the article before you puke up your partisan hackery automatically.

 

[Care4all]

I personally think that procedures should be put in place, to save the people first. I would bet that these people allowed the nuclear plants to be put near them, with that understanding....

On something like this, when in doubt, saving the people and the farm lands and water, should come first.

I may not agree with TM's delivery of this message, but I do understand the message.

I'd also bet my bottom dollar, Nuke plants in the future, will have stronger and better emergency plans that would cover this...

 

[martybegan]

I personally think that procedures should be put in place, to save the people first. I would bet that these people allowed the nuclear plants to be put near them, with that understanding....

On something like this, when in doubt, saving the people and the farm lands and water, should come first.

I may not agree with TM's delivery of this message, but I do understand the message.

I'd also bet my bottom dollar, Nuke plants in the future, will have stronger and better emergency plans that would cover this...

Nuke plants already have some of the most comprehensive and stringent emergency plans, regulated in every way that matters. The emergency plan was followed. What porked it all up was probably the tsunami either wrecking the emergency generators, or the resulting water to be used being contaminated, and thus easily able to plug/block the reactor.

its not like making sure the reactor didnt leak was 157 on the list of things to do. The plan called for escalating methods of control as each one failed.

You also have to remember what the ocean water contained after the tsunami. Silt, building debris, dead bodies. Trying to pump that liquid into the reactor could have been even worse than letting the existing water stay in, as those debris could clog the cooling channels.

Seawater was one of the last options, to be used only when nothing else could work. to use it beforehand would be idiotic.

 

[Truthmatters]

Did you even read the article?


Why guess when the facts are there?

 

[Truthmatters]

Bid to 'Protect Assets' Slowed Reactor Fight - WSJ.com

Read it

 

[martybegan]

Bid to 'Protect Assets' Slowed Reactor Fight - WSJ.com

Read it

i read it.

It gives no numbers or hard information, just a rehashing of the same stuff we have been hearing about for a week now. The only named source is the inspector, and nothing about the guesses the writer is making in the article is directly attributable to him.

 

[Truthmatters]

Tepco was reluctant to use seawater because it worried about hurting its long-term investment in the complex, say people involved with the efforts. Seawater, which can render a nuclear reactor permanently inoperable, now is at the center of efforts to keep the plant under control.

Tepco "hesitated because it tried to protect its assets," said Akira Omoto, a former Tepco executive and a member of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, an official advisory body involved in the effort to tame the plant. Both Tepco and government officials had good reason not to use saltwater, Mr. Omoto added. Early on, nuclear fuel rods were still under cooling water and undamaged, he said, adding, "it's understandable because injecting seawater into the fuel vessel renders it unusable."

 

[martybegan]

Tepco was reluctant to use seawater because it worried about hurting its long-term investment in the complex, say people involved with the efforts. Seawater, which can render a nuclear reactor permanently inoperable, now is at the center of efforts to keep the plant under control.

Tepco "hesitated because it tried to protect its assets," said Akira Omoto, a former Tepco executive and a member of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, an official advisory body involved in the effort to tame the plant. Both Tepco and government officials had good reason not to use saltwater, Mr. Omoto added. Early on, nuclear fuel rods were still under cooling water and undamaged, he said, adding, "it's understandable because injecting seawater into the fuel vessel renders it unusable."

Your first statement is the one with protecting long term investment, the second, mentions protecting its assets.

Let me say this slowly, with simple words. You WANT to protect the reactor to be able to use it again, IF YOU CAN. That was the procedure they used. In any event you are talking a delay of less than a day between THINKING about using seawater, and actually using it.

it is in your head that this equates with profits, because it lines up with your poltical philosophy. Bolding words doesnt make them mean what you want them to mean.

Also note the part about the rods STILL BEING UNDER COOLING WATER AT THE TIME THE DECSION TO NOT GO WITH SEAWATER WAS MADE.

 

[syrenn]

What part of the initial actions were designed to save the reators instead of securing the safety of the people do you not understand?

IDIOT! You are such a ******* idiot.

What part of someone has to stay and deal with disasters don't YOU understand. You dont all cut and run like pussies. You dont tell everyone to get the hell out and save their own sorry asses.

If you want to keep everyone safe,THAT may mean giving up your life to save a very bad situation from getting worse. If you want to save peoples lives you SAVE THE ******* REACTOR!

Why are you pretending that someone suggested cutting and running?

This thread is about NOT defering to the health of the reactors future use over the lives of the people in Japan.


Maybe you should read the article before you puke up your partisan hackery automatically.

I read the article idiot.

I don't give a shit about the health of the reactors. You follow the steps to shut things down. Seawater is the last resort. Did they use seawater to cool the reactors and kill the plants? Yes they did idiot. If they were only out for saving the plant for MONEY they would not have used the sea water and still be there waiting for a meltdown. Its sorta hard to fight a problem when you have no power, including getting the seawater on it. Or do you suggest a 50 man bucket brigade?

Blame the government if you are going to blame anyone for not stepping in and taking control if you don't think it was handled quickly enough. 50 men in radiation suits spread between one problem after another, can only do so much.

 

[syrenn]

Tepco was reluctant to use seawater because it worried about hurting its long-term investment in the complex, say people involved with the efforts. Seawater, which can render a nuclear reactor permanently inoperable, now is at the center of efforts to keep the plant under control.

Tepco "hesitated because it tried to protect its assets," said Akira Omoto, a former Tepco executive and a member of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, an official advisory body involved in the effort to tame the plant. Both Tepco and government officials had good reason not to use saltwater, Mr. Omoto added. Early on, nuclear fuel rods were still under cooling water and undamaged, he said, adding, "it's understandable because injecting seawater into the fuel vessel renders it unusable."

Did they kill the plant? Did they use the seawater. YES they did.

Idiot.... hesitation sometimes is the best thing. That way you don't make mistakes or a bad situation worse.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why dont you understand that protecting lives first would have been the wiser move.

it would have even saved money in the end.

The on the scene judgement at the time was that lives were not in danger, and that they could contain the problem without destroying property. It turns out that they were right about there being no danger to lives, but were wrong about containing the damage without destroying property. It is always easy to come in after the fact and see where someone was wrong, try doing it under the pressure of unfolding events sometime. That is the main reason we have after action reports, to learn from the mistakes, and plan to avoid them in the future. They do not exist so that we can pretend to be smarter than the people there on the scene.

 

[boedicca]

Bid to 'Protect Assets' Slowed Reactor Fight - WSJ.com



TOKYO—Crucial efforts to tame Japan's crippled nuclear plant were delayed by concerns over damaging valuable power assets and by initial passivity on the part of the government, people familiar with the situation said, offering new insight into the management of the crisis.

Meanwhile, a regulator who was inspecting the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear-power complex when the quake hit offered The Wall Street Journal one of the first eyewitness accounts of the havoc at the site, describing how the temblor took down all communications in the area, greatly complicating the response.

You would have preferred an expensive knee jerk reaction ?

TMN would rather have a business completely destroy itself as a first option - which is so compassionate to the people who lose their jobs as as result.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What part of the initial actions were designed to save the reators instead of securing the safety of the people do you not understand?

The part where it was an even/or choice. The choice was between destroying a single reactor in a bid to save the rest, or saving them all. If they had not devoted as much of the limited resources they had after the quake to saving the single reactor they might have been able to keep the rest of the functional, which is the actual point of the article you linked to which you apparently failed to read.

 

[Truthmatters]

I am getting really sick of you people pretending you were not given the facts right from the start.

Tepco was reluctant to use seawater because it worried about hurting its long-term investment in the complex, say people involved with the efforts. Seawater, which can render a nuclear reactor permanently inoperable, now is at the center of efforts to keep the plant under control.

Tepco "hesitated because it tried to protect its assets," said Akira Omoto, a former Tepco executive and a member of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, an official advisory body involved in the effort to tame the plant. Both Tepco and government officials had good reason not to use saltwater, Mr. Omoto added. Early on, nuclear fuel rods were still under cooling water and undamaged, he said, adding, "it's understandable because injecting seawater into the fuel vessel renders it unusable."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

workers who were there when the disastors first took place.

If they were concerned first with lives instead of perserving the reactors they would have been shut down without as much mess as we are seeing.

Do you even understand how a nuclear reactor works? You just dont shut one down instantly, its physically impossible. its not like there is an off switch for the thing.

Actually, as soon as you drop the rods in a reactor it is shut down. The problem is that it is still hot, both with radiation and heat. It is, however, completely shut down, which is why they were forced to rely on backup power to run critical systems. That should have been provided by electricity from the other reactors, then the grid, then the backup generators, and finally the batteries. They went straight to the batteries, and were forced to prioritize their use of that meager power supply based on the fact that they knew two reactors had no fuel rods at all, and the fact that the 3 of the others were indicating that they were cooling properly.