The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) publishes a refereed journal called “Science”, in which new findings are publicized, duplicated, debated, and verified. Issue 6024 of volume 331, dated 25 March 2011, has some very interesting items. The 1 April 2011 issue (volume 332, issue 6025) has more confirmation of my articles, and more details than anything I have seen (so far) in the public media about the nuclear disaster in Japan.
Relative to “Oil Prices, Recessions, and the War” dated 4 February 2011:
In issue 6024 on page 1510 is a “News Focus” article “Peak Oil Production May Already Be Here”. The “Science” article has a plot of actual production history data which verifies that non-OPEC oil production has already peaked. Closer inspection of the same plot reveals that OPEC oil production is peaking, or has just about peaked.
The article also makes the point that “unconventional oil” (such as the Alberta tar sands), cannot make up the difference between energy demand and a peaking conventional oil supply. These are all points I made in the “exrocketman” article.
It feels very nice to be verified by items published in a refereed scientific journal.
Relative to Pre-Clovis Hunters in Texas on “exrocketman” dated 9 April 2011:
In issue 6024 on page 1512 is a “News Focus” article about the Buttermilk Creek archeological site, in Texas. The actual technical report on those findings is on page 1599 of the same issue. The scientific debate and verification now begins, but it looks like they have made a pretty good case for people in Texas long before the Clovis hunters.
The institutions making up this team include Texas A&M, Baylor University, and the University of Minnesota. We can be very proud of these institutions (especially our two local ones).
It’s mighty nice to see “local folk” make good.
Relative to 3 articles on “exrocketman” about the Japan nuclear plant disaster:
In issue 6024 on pages 1504-1507 are three “News Focus” articles about the Japanese nuclear plant disaster and associated cleanup difficulties.
Issue 6025 on pages 24-25 has a News Analysis article that has more confirmation of my articles, and more details than anything I have seen (so far) in the public media.
These are also closely related to three articles of mine on “exrocketman”: “On the Nuclear Crisis in Japan 3-15-11, “Follow-Up on the Japan Nuclear Crisis” 3-17-11, and “Radiation and Humans” 3-24-11.
These “Science” articles confirm what I have been saying on “exrocketman”: that comparisons to the Chernobyl disaster are overblown. There is no credible risk in the US no matter what happens in Japan, or what tiny amounts of radiation might be detected over here. The risks in Japan are only serious within a few miles of the plant.
The Fukushima Daiichi plant has 6 reactor units, as has been widely reported. It has 7 spent fuel rod pools, one for each reactor unit, and 1 more for the entire plant, which has not been widely reported. None of these spent fuel rod pools had any sort of reactor-like containment, in spite of containing quantities of spent fuel rod assemblies resembling reactor cores. These pools were housed in buildings of ordinary construction that were destroyed by the tsunami, as was all the electrical and cooling water infrastructure for the entire plant.
According to this latest article, it is the spent fuel rod pool for unit 4 that seems to be the true problem, radiologically. The core meltdowns reported earlier seem to have little to do with the spread of radiation beyond the plant. Apparently, this pool went dry and its load of zirconium alloy fuel rod casings overheated and caught fire in the air. The article even mentions “aerosolization” of fuel materials and fission products from burning fuel rod assemblies, exactly as I wrote.
According to the articles, the long half-life and rather dangerous cesium-137 contamination found within a few miles of the plant has to be coming from the unit 4 spent fuel rod pool, because it has to come from older (spent) fuel. The very short (8-day) half-life iodine-131 contamination found as far away as Tokyo’s water supply is far less a threat, and cannot be coming from fuel rod pool 4. The article suggests reactor unit 3 as a possible source.
Finally, the article discusses upgraded design criteria for earthquake and tsunami risks, exactly as I advocated in my third article. This is the first time I have seen this issue raised in any public news forum. It is long overdue, of course. But, at least someone is beginning to look.
Once again, it is nice to be verified by data published in a refereed journal.
This may be a blog, but I always try to tell the truth. To the very best of my ability, I do!