Japanese Nuclear Coverups- Can We Believe What They Say at Fukushima?

The nuclear power industry has a habit of soft peddling their problems, and nowhere is this tendency more vexing than in the country where the latest nuclear disaster is unfolding. Many of these "cover ups" in Japan have been documented by a film documentary by Tony Barrel

In 2003, the same company that runs the Fukushima plant that was threatened by the Tsunami, had a PR problem. Reactors across Japan were forced to shut down when the company was found to be falsifying data to cover up problems. These were less serious but still life threatening problems, so in this more serious problem, with much more at stake, can we believe the current PR team for the same company. They say that what is being released into the atmosphere is a manageable small amount of radiation, as much as we would exposed to in a regular month Our own fleet however did not find it comfortable to sit down wind, and moved. Now we here it is as much as we are exposed to in a year, so their revision claims....
What will they do with the sea water they are using to cool down the reactors? Currently it is supposed to be safe, but with the explosion at the 3rd reactor, which apparently did more damage, the containment system has apparently been breached, which likely means that the seawater can now seep inside and seep out again. I wish they could funnel it all to the company swimming pool and gold fish pond (glow fish?)

In an entirely different historical incident, a Japanese firm actually doctored a video in order to make an incident look better. Jeesh.

And now we have the second worst nuclear disaster in the world's history.  This latest explosion led to release into the environment, and this means that it is worse than three mile island. We are now in unchartered territory, with about as much openness as we had for the worst disaster, in Russia, with Chernobyl.  Can they mitigate that damage. I can bet they will try to mitigate the PR damage. They may not be able to avoid a more complete meltdown of either the reactors or of their PR effort.

Arizona Congresswoman Giffords Left Brain Injury

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords brain injury and bullet wound was not fatal, because the doctor's got to it in time to treat it aggressively. This congresswoman was active on foreign affiars-related committees and had visited Iraq, where she saw first hand what was happening to our troops, with so many truamatic brain injuries from roadside explosions. Doctor's have learned, as a result of this wartime experience, to respond rapidly and aggressively to severe head trauma. Their rapid and aggressive response likely meant the difference between life and death. Swelling of the brain untreated could have shoved her brain down and cut off basic life functions.

In Ms. Giffords case, the bullet wound entered and exited on the left side of the brain, and much of the injury was to the left tempral lobe, although some reports have suggested that there was some left frontal damage as well. The left side of the brain is called the dominant hemisphere, and it is responsible for many of the things we do in civilized society, including speech and sequnetial tasks and processing of information in a linear fashion. It is the more logical part of the brain, although decision making is usually done at the frontal areas. The temoral lobe, on the left side, where most of the damage was done, is very much an area that is responsible for speeech and language.

The right hemisphere, in contrast, is the side of the brain that deals with the connections between things, and is often referred to as the side of the brain that is tasked with creativity, music and art. It is also tasked in general with more of the nonverbal aspects of thinking, and it controls motor function on the left side of the body, whereas the left side of the brain, wheren she was injuted typically handles movements on the right side of the body.

Reports that Congresswoman Giffords can respond to simple verbal directions by squeezing the doctors hand (both before and after surgery) are encouraging. Not only does that suggest that she retains control of willfull motor functions (on at least one side of her body), but also that she understands at least simple speech commands. The damage to the left temporal lobe is most likely to effect speech, because the Wernicke's area of the temporal lobe is most responsible for speech.

So the question remains will she be able to speak? The absence of the ability to produce speech is one type of speech aphasia, and mostly it is governed in a more frontal part of the left side known as Broca's area. If she is not able to speak, that would  not not mean that she could not communicate. If she has some initial damage in the temporal area, as reports suggest, she may well have some difficulty that goes beyond giving  speeches, indeed she may have trouble with simple things like naming a coffee pot or a person (anomia) or fluency problems where such conditions lead to nonsense and made up words, lengthy speaking that makes even less sense than the typical speech of a politician.

Aphasia, if there is some in congresswoman Giffords, can be worked on in rehabilitation, and there are alternative ways to communicate while you get your speech back, if she has to do that. Of course I have not seen or evaluated Ms Gifford and I am relying on news accounts from interviews with her doctors, and I have not got any special diagnostic information. I am simply providing education about the kinds of problems we expect to see with traumatic brain injuries from wounds.

Realize that the brain has a great deal of plasticity, meaning it can adapt. One girl who had half of her brain removed surgically eventually managed to have nearly all of her brain functions handled by the other, remaining side. This plasticity is most evident when the brain injury or wound occurs in a young healthy person like the congresswoman. Congresswoman Gifford from Arizona is still quite young and healthy, and this increases the odds or a rapid recovery, which would still take in a good scenario several months.  A full recovery is possible, but more would need to be known of how extensive the damage was to her brain, and whether or not she will have much aphasia.