"When philosophy paints its grey in grey then has a shape of life grown old. By philosophy's grey in grey it cannot be rejuvenated but only understood. The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of dusk." -- G.W.F. Hegel, 'Preface', Philosophy of Right.
"Philosophical self-reflection assures itself of the non-conceptual in the concept. Otherwise this latter would be, after Kant?s dictum, null, ultimately no longer the concept of something and thereby void. The philosophy which recognizes this, which cancels out the autarky of the concept, strikes the blinders from the eyes.."
"No theory escapes the market anymore: each one is offered as a possibility among competing opinions, all are made available, all snapped up. Thought need no more put blinders on itself, in the self-justifying conviction that one?s own theory is exempt from this fate, which degenerates into narcissistic self-promotion, than dialectics need fall silent before such a reproach and the one linked to it, concerning its superfluity and randomness as a slapdash method. Its name says to begin with nothing more than that objects do not vanish into their concept, that these end up in contradiction with the received norm of the adaequatio."
-"Philosophy has, at this historical moment, its true interest in what Hegel, in accordance with tradition, proclaimed his disinterest: in the non-conceptual, the individual and the particular; in what, ever since Plato, has been dismissed as transient and inconsequential and which Hegel stamped with the label of lazy existence.
"In sharp contrast to the usual scientific ideal, the objectivity of dialectical cognition needs more subject, not less. Otherwise philosophical experience shrivels. But the positivistic spirit of the epoch is allergic to this."
"Rationality itself is to an increasing extent equated more mathematico [Latin: in mathematical terms] with the capability of quantification. As much as this took into account the primacy of the triumphant natural sciences, so little does it lie in the concept of the ratio in itself. It is blinded not the least because it blocks itself off from qualitative moments as something which is for its part to be rationally thought."
"One can no longer paddle along in the mainstream, even the word sounds dreadful of modern philosophy. The recent kind, dominant until today, would like to expel the traditional moments of thought, dehistoricizing it according to its own content, assigning history to a particular branch of an established fact-collecting science. Ever since the fundament of all cognition was sought in the presumed immediacy of the subjectively given, there have been attempts, in thrall to the idol of the pure presence, as it were, to drive out the historical dimension of thought. The fictitious one-dimensional Now becomes the cognitive ground of inner meaning."
'Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainity and agitation distinquish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones ... All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned.' Marx
The Nuclear Emergency in Japan: An Overview
« Previous |
|Next »
March 16, 2011
This overview of the nuclear emergency at Fukushima Daiichi plant in northeastern Japan is from Professor Gary Was, from the department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences at Michigan University. Recall that at the level of philosophy of science, all the greatest excesses of western science are embodied in nuclear physics: true representations of nature, an ignorant and/or irrational public that must be disciplined; in short, epistemology where "just the facts" must first be known, then people can form a rational opinion about the topic.
The situation at Fukushima Daiichi is that there not being enough power to run the cooling systems to keep the reactor cool because the tsunami took them out. However, the situation is under control because the company, Tokyo Electric Power, is able to pump water into several reactors to keep them cool and the containment vessel is still intact. So things are fine.
I find this interpretation optimistic in the light of a containment vessel in a second reactor unit having ruptured; and that is the second vessel to be compromised in two days. It is not clear how serious the possible breach might be, or how low the water is in the pools of water that cover the rods.
This optimism is standard amongst the professional nuclear engineering and research community--in this post at brave new climate one says:
It is expected that enough coolant and power will be found to avoid meltdown. In which case it could be argued that this is a reasonable result for 50 year old Gen I Reactors exposed to the worst earthquake and tsunami for 100+ years!
That expectation is what is questionable. Why would you expect that when the tsunami knocked at the backup pumps for the cooling system and there is no power.
What I find problematic about some of the nuclear academics --eg., brave new climate run by Prof Barry Book at Adelaide University---is that they stand for the facts and rationality (the enlightenment) versus the fear, ignorance and hysteria (irrationality) of the mass media. In between lies public ignorance. Yet their interpretations of the facts are very optimistic---the situation at Fukushima Daiichi plant is stable and under control.
We do need facts and rationality to have a debate about nuclear power in the context of global warming as this education of the public leads to an informed citizenry, which is crucial to a deliberative democracy. Brook is a defender of nuclear power (fourth generation or integral fast reactor). He says:
For too long Australia been an energy production backwater, satisfied with old-style technology based on burning cheap coal and natural gas. But as societal concerns over pollution, climate change, price of electricity and future energy security rise, nuclear energy – the only proven and most cost-effective baseload low-carbon energy source – is now looking like a really sensible option. And rightly so. If we are really serious about addressing Australia’s future clean energy needs, we need to rationally consider all the alternatives, nuclear and renewable.
The assumption here is that climate change is real and likely to be catastrophic, and we therefore need to transition to a carbon-free economy – as soon as possible. Brook's pro-nuclear argument is very much about the possibilities of nuclear power.
The problem here is that Brook views green groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, are not actually interested in climate change mitigation or clean energy supply; all they care about is being anti-nuclear. So they are, by implication, not rational. Yet though the green groups are opposed to nuclear power, they are interested in climate change mitigation clean energy supply----they support renewable solar, wind and geothermal energy.
Update
Barry Brook's has changed his interpretation of what is happening. He now says:
In sum, this accident is now significantly more severe than Three Mile Island in 1979. It resulted from a unique combination of failures to plant systems caused by the tsunami, and the broad destruction of infrastructure for water and electricity supply which would normally be reestablished within a day or two following a reactor accident. My initial estimates of the extent of the problem, on March 12, did not anticipate the cascading problems that arose from the extended loss of externally sourced AC power to the site, and my prediction that ‘there is no credible risk of a serious accident‘ has been proven quite wrong as a result.
| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 6:35 PM | Permalink
