Friday, March 18, 2011
Tepco, Fukushima plant latest efforts to pump seawater
Tepco, the Fukushima plant's operator, has provided these details on the latest efforts to pump seawater into reactor 3's spent fuel pool, which is at risk of overheating: "At 0:45 am (Japan time), March 19th , water discharge by hyper rescue troop has started with the cooperation of Tokyo Fire Department. At 1:10 am, March 19th , they had finished water discharge."
UN nuclear watchdog handy pyramid diagram to a raised Level 5 on a scale of 1-7
The nuclear crisis at Fukushima had been raised to Level 5 on a scale of 1-7, same as Three Mile Island, not as bad as Chernobyl. For an explanation of what that means, the UN nuclear watchdog has a handy pyramid diagram.
The term half-life
The comment explaining the term half-life is slightly confusing. It sounds like the substance is disappearing, and that is not what happens. Radioactive materials are by definition unstable, and will decay into non-radioactive materials. In doing so, they radiate the extra particles that make them radioactive. For example, radioactive iodine, such as we have heard about from Fukushima nuclear plant, will decay into regular ordinary iodine. So if you had 100 grams of the radioisotope of iodine, if its half-life is 8 days then at that point you would have 50 grams of the radioisotope ANDalmost 50 grams of ordinary iodine. It's not 50 grams of regular iodine, because some material was emitted as radiation during the 8 days of decay.
When fuel elements are taken out of the reactor right after they shutdown, they are dispersed in container postitions in the canal so that they are not all together from one fresh core. Each element is still thermally hot and have very high radition levels which is why they cool them so long and shield them from workers. the green crane you see in one of the photos is the gantry crane that goes over the cana and is used to transfer the elements from the reactor to the canal area. they also have over head cranes which are used to lift the fuel elements that are ready to ship into a shielded cask and then off to another facility.
When fuel elements are taken out of the reactor right after they shutdown, they are dispersed in container postitions in the canal so that they are not all together from one fresh core. Each element is still thermally hot and have very high radition levels which is why they cool them so long and shield them from workers. the green crane you see in one of the photos is the gantry crane that goes over the cana and is used to transfer the elements from the reactor to the canal area. they also have over head cranes which are used to lift the fuel elements that are ready to ship into a shielded cask and then off to another facility.
TEPCO external power line to reactor 2
Tokyo Electric Power Co, which operates Fukushima Daiichi, says it has now connected an external power line to its stricken plant and would first supply reactor 2 because it is less damaged, Reuters reports. The power is needed to operate the plant's badly-needed cooling systems, which were damaged last Friday.
400,000 people are spending another night in shelters
It's 0400 in Japan and the temperature is just below zero in Fukushima. Nearly 400,000 people are spending another night in shelters in the north-east, where supplies of food, water, medicine and heating fuel are low.
TEPCO statement deep apologies
The power company, Tepco, has issued a statement today containing the following: "We would like to make our deep apologies for concern and nuisance about the incident of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station and the leakage of radioactive substances to the people living in the surrounding area of the power station".
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Protecting Traditional Marriage
President Obama recently announced that he considers the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be an unconstitutional law, and he therefore will no longer allow the Department of Justice to defend the law in the courts. Since that decision, we have received a flurry of inquiries about whether the President has the constitutional authority to declare a law unconstitutional. The answer is, "Yes; he does have that power" – a point frequently reaffirmed by the Founders.
Granted, most Americans believe that the President's decision about the constitutionality of DOMA was wrong (and certainly, from an original intent standpoint it definitely was), but that is a completely different issue from whether he has the constitutional authority to declare the law unconstitutional. However, history and the constitution make clear that the President does not have the final say on what is constitutional (nor does any other single branch, whether Judicial or Legislative). The other two branches still have recourses if they disagree with the President.
For example, Congress can intervene to appoint legal counsel to defend the law in Court. And the upper courts can still find the law to be completely constitutional (as they have in previous challenges to the law), regardless of whether the Executive Branch chooses to enforce the law or defend it in court.
The Founders affirmed that any of the three branches could review a law for constitutionality. For example, James Wilson (Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Constitution) declared that the President can "refuse to carry into effect an act that violates the Constitution." An excellent example of this surrounds the four Alien and Sedition laws passed in 1798 by a Federalist Congress and signed by Federalist President John Adams. Under those laws, twenty-five individuals were arrested, and ten convicted.
The law was never declared unconstitutional by the courts, but when Anti-Federalist Thomas Jefferson became President, he believed the law was unconstitutional. He therefore promptly freed all of those imprisoned under it, without regard to the specifics of their particular offense. Jefferson was criticized for nullifying this law, yet notice his response to one critic:
You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment because the power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, were bound to remit the execution of it because that power has been confided to them by the Constitution.
Similarly, when President Andrew Jackson was told to take certain actions by the Supreme Court, he ignored the Court's order, explaining:
Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. . . . The opinion of the judges has no more authority over the Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.
Later, when the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott that the other branches could not prohibit slavery, the other two branches ignored the ruling. On June 9, 1862, Congress prohibited the extension of slavery into the free territories; and the following year, President Lincoln issued the "Emancipation Proclamation" – both acts were a direct affront to the Court's decision. Because Congress and President Lincoln were guided by their own understanding of the Constitution rather than by the Judiciary's opinion, both declared freedom for slaves.
In short, the Founders held that any of the three branches had the constitutional authority to expound the constitutionality of laws. As Thomas Jefferson explained:
Each of the three departments has equally the right to decide for itself what is its duty under the Constitution without any regard to what the others may have decided for themselves under a similar question.
Very simply, the separation of powers wisely permitted each branch to determine within its own sphere what was and was not constitutional.
Write, phone, email, text your Congressman and Senator to let them know how you feel and that they can still do something about protecting traditional marriage.
Granted, most Americans believe that the President's decision about the constitutionality of DOMA was wrong (and certainly, from an original intent standpoint it definitely was), but that is a completely different issue from whether he has the constitutional authority to declare the law unconstitutional. However, history and the constitution make clear that the President does not have the final say on what is constitutional (nor does any other single branch, whether Judicial or Legislative). The other two branches still have recourses if they disagree with the President.
For example, Congress can intervene to appoint legal counsel to defend the law in Court. And the upper courts can still find the law to be completely constitutional (as they have in previous challenges to the law), regardless of whether the Executive Branch chooses to enforce the law or defend it in court.
The Founders affirmed that any of the three branches could review a law for constitutionality. For example, James Wilson (Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Constitution) declared that the President can "refuse to carry into effect an act that violates the Constitution." An excellent example of this surrounds the four Alien and Sedition laws passed in 1798 by a Federalist Congress and signed by Federalist President John Adams. Under those laws, twenty-five individuals were arrested, and ten convicted.
The law was never declared unconstitutional by the courts, but when Anti-Federalist Thomas Jefferson became President, he believed the law was unconstitutional. He therefore promptly freed all of those imprisoned under it, without regard to the specifics of their particular offense. Jefferson was criticized for nullifying this law, yet notice his response to one critic:
You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment because the power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, were bound to remit the execution of it because that power has been confided to them by the Constitution.
Similarly, when President Andrew Jackson was told to take certain actions by the Supreme Court, he ignored the Court's order, explaining:
Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. . . . The opinion of the judges has no more authority over the Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.
Later, when the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott that the other branches could not prohibit slavery, the other two branches ignored the ruling. On June 9, 1862, Congress prohibited the extension of slavery into the free territories; and the following year, President Lincoln issued the "Emancipation Proclamation" – both acts were a direct affront to the Court's decision. Because Congress and President Lincoln were guided by their own understanding of the Constitution rather than by the Judiciary's opinion, both declared freedom for slaves.
In short, the Founders held that any of the three branches had the constitutional authority to expound the constitutionality of laws. As Thomas Jefferson explained:
Each of the three departments has equally the right to decide for itself what is its duty under the Constitution without any regard to what the others may have decided for themselves under a similar question.
Very simply, the separation of powers wisely permitted each branch to determine within its own sphere what was and was not constitutional.
Write, phone, email, text your Congressman and Senator to let them know how you feel and that they can still do something about protecting traditional marriage.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)