Another nuclear emergency in Japan

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Reuters:

Highly radioactive water seeping into the ocean from Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear plant is creating an "emergency" that the operator is struggling to contain, an official from the country's nuclear watchdog said on Monday.

This contaminated groundwater has breached an underground barrier, is rising toward the surface and is exceeding legal limits of radioactive discharge, Shinji Kinjo, head of a Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) task force, told Reuters.

Countermeasures planned by Tokyo Electric Power Co are only a temporary solution, he said.

Tepco's "sense of crisis is weak," Kinjo said. "This is why you can't just leave it up to Tepco alone" to grapple with the ongoing disaster.

"Right now, we have an emergency," he said.

Well, you know what they say about playing with fire. Or plutonium.

The Iranian nuclear talks, part 2: Back to the negotiating table

By Ali Ezzatyar

(For part 1, see here.)

Iran and the international community (read: U.S.) are set to retake their seats at the negotiation table next week in Baghdad. If these were real chairs, one would hope they were made of a durable mahogany, as they have been frequented for ten years by fidgety, tough-talking diplomats on both sides, and there is still no likelihood that they will be retired soon. The talks are seen by both sets of negotiators as a zero-sum game, where no confidence-inspiring measures have been seriously considered -- the other side's threat of force has been the bottom-line motivator for both. As an important diplomatic window opens again, America and the world need to seek a grand bargain with Iran instead of the same old course of action. Think three factors: Assets, Sanctions, and Enrichment.

I argued previously that Iran's nuclear ambitions, while scary to the West, are understandable. They are reasonable from an energy perspective, as Iran can diversify its energy composition for domestic use and boost sales to the outside world of its most valuable natural resource. The nuclear program also offers Iran, even if it fully abides by the legal requirements of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), dual-use capability that allows it to be a potential acquirer of nuclear arms, and hence to have a deterrent. This nuclear policy is supported by a vast majority of Iranian citizens, who otherwise (mostly) disagree with their government on most things.

So while the fundamental calculation for both sides to push full-steam for their objectives has not changed, the constantly changing threat of force from each respective side has colored the way in which negotiations have gone forward. From the U.S. perspective, Iran's temporary halting of uranium enrichment in 2003 was an exceptional step that was not adequately taken advantage of. In 2003, America's aggressiveness in the region was Iran's primary motivating factor to consider this concession. Later, as the U.S. position in Iraq deteriorated, Iran utilized its proxy groups and resources to drive America into an even more precarious position there; this distracted America's attention from Iran's nuclear program almost totally, and even lead to the U.S. asking Iran for help and cooperation in stabilizing Iraq. That was music to Iran's ears, and the death knell of a genuine nuclear diplomatic process as far as the Iranians were concerned.

Today, there is still no clear existential danger in the view of the Islamic Republic. Threats of attack from Israel fall short of a regime-change scenario; the regime is likely to survive even if sanctions continue or get worse; and the United States is largely viewed as being out of the regime-change game, in particular where such a campaign in Iran would make Iraq and Afghanistan seem almost effortless in hindsight. There is one very important consideration in Tehran, however, that in addition to the aggregate effect of the latter annoyances has convinced the Iranian regime to play peace-seeker again.

The on-and-off tinkering of the Syrian regime, the only true regional ally that the Islamic Republic has ever had, is probably the largest existential threat to the Islamic Republic as well. Iran has sacrificed resources, political capital, and even its revolutionary idealism in supporting Bashar al-Assad with his brutal crackdown. The Saudi regime, Iran's primary rival in the region, is seeking not only to oust Assad due to his faithfully anti-Saudi stance on all issues, but also as a blow to its main rival.

From the moment America began dedicating countless resources to preventing Iraq from spiraling into civil war, and its positions in Afghanistan and the region were similarly weakened, Iran has not had a series of pressures that have convinced it that it needs to negotiate. The current tenuousness of Iran's position presents an opportunity. As a result, both sides (but particularly the U.S.) must take the initiative in proposing solutions -- solutions that will be viewed by both sides as painful concessions at home. The reality is, the necessary compromises have been clear from the beginning.

Iran's billions of dollars in frozen assets residing in the U.S. or in U.S. financial institutions must be back on the table as an incentive. There were early discussions of an offer to unfreeze Iran's assets in 2002, but that was soon replaced by a more hawkish stance on the American side that basically only considered more or fewer sanctions as the two options for going forward. The U.S. needs to acknowledge that it doesn't have a kitchen sink to throw at Iran anymore militarily; it needs to offer to repair Iran's refrigerator instead. The partial unfreezing of sanctions needs to be the ultimate carrot, short of restoration of diplomatic relations, to motivate Iran. Talk of this possibility should be brought up early enough to have a fruitful bearing on the conversation, and the appearance of weakness should not be a preoccupation of the American position. 

Speaking of broken refrigerators, a genuine plan to quantifiably reduce or end sanctions against Iran must also be presented as a prize for Iranian cooperation. The sanctions have always had the wrong effect on Iran, preventing ordinary Iranians from procuring key supplies necessary for important medical research, spare parts for civilian aircraft, and other supplies, while actually strengthening the regime's hold on power. While the sanctions are just recently leading to Iranians holding their government responsible for the consequences of sanctions, the people and not the government continue to be the primary group affected by sanctions in Iran's autocracy. Scaling the sanctions back as good reward is a no-brainer.

Iran must be prepared, in return, to freeze its uranium enrichment once again. More importantly, it has to be willing to abide by one of the various plans that have been proposed historically that allow it to develop its technology unhindered, with checks against production of nuclear arms. Such a process might entail having weapons-grade uranium produced offshore and imported at no extra cost to Iran, and will most certainly necessitate frequent inspections by the IAEA that are to some extent a blow to Iran's sovereignty. But the trade-off could be immense, and could (for better or worse) guarantee survival of the Islamic regime while leading to greater prosperity in Iran.

If the U.S. makes the right promises, Iran should take an active step towards easing American fears of a weapons program. This must be reciprocated by a temporary rolling back of certain sanctions against the Iranian regime, while a final plan is worked out for a functioning Iranian nuclear program in line with the NPT. That is the chronology. Ultimately, a full proof process that is acceptable to the world, guaranteeing that Iran cannot develop nuclear arms in the short term, should be reciprocated with Iran's inclusion in the international community.

Surely, critics will say that such proposals are idealistic, technically incomplete and shabby, and naive. But no matter how these negotiations are analyzed, sanctions, assets, and weapons-grade uranium enrichment are the three main factors. Everything else -- accusations of support for terrorist groups in the region and threats against Israel on one side, regional imperialism and an anti-Muslim crusade on the other, will not derail the negotiations if genuine will exists as to those three points.

Japan after Fukushima

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Actually, there isn't any after Fukushima. Many months after the nuclear disaster, the nightmare continues, as it will for decades to come:

Japan's science ministry says 8 per cent of the country's surface area has been contaminated by radiation from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant.

It says more than 30,000 square kilometres of the country has been blanketed by radioactive cesium.

Yes, radioactive cesium is bad. Really bad. In case you were wondering.

Whatever happened to the Iran project?

Guest post by Ali Ezzatyar 

Ali Ezzatyar is a journalist and American attorney practising in Paris, France. 

(Ed. note: This is Ali's sixth guest post at The Reaction. Last month, he wrote on the Arab Spring. In March, he wrote on Obama's foreign policy and the secular uprisings in the Middle East. In February, he wrote on dictatorship in Tunisia and Egypt and on the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East. In January 2010, he co-wrote a post on Iran with Bryan Tollin. I'm making him a fully-fledged contributor. Look forward to more posts from him soon. -- MJWS) 

**********

His beard is long and grey; he is reputed for living a rather simple life, but Israel's prime minister recently called him the greatest threat to the world. He is the Supreme Leader of Iran. As attention remains focused on Abbottabad, Iran's nuclear program continues nearby. Some are hoping that news from Damascus to Fukushima will influence events in Iran, as it fades from foreign policy's short memory. But the mullahs, and Iran's people for that matter, couldn't care less about what happens elsewhere. Now more than ever, to encourage change in the Islamic Republic, incentivized diplomacy is necessary before it's too late.

It is almost mechanical to group Iran with neighboring Arab countries, what with its share of Islamic extremism and oil. But social behavior in Iran is driven by a totally different mindset, and it won't be seeing revolution soon. For better or worse, Iranians feel a deep-rooted disassociation with the rest of the region.

An extension of its social mindset, Iranian politics is significantly different from that of its neighbors. The Iranian government, while autocratic, has traditionally been more democratic than most of the regimes around it. More importantly, the Islamic Republic is itself the product of revolution, making it more established and deeply rooted than any Arab government in the Middle East. While a week of protests in Tahrir square brought about revolutionary dominos in Egypt, weeks of uprisings in 2009 did not beget a single meaningful policy change in Iran.

And in perhaps the same way the massive protests of 2009 did not register a blip on the Arab world's radar, the Arab Spring has done and will do little to motivate Iranians, people and politicians alike. Iranians simply do not perceive countries like Egypt and Syria as trendsetters.

A proud, isolated country, Iran is stubborn about its policy, often to its own detriment. Years of debilitating sanctions demonstrate how far Iran is willing to go to preserve what it views as its sovereignty. So while much of Iran sits in a notoriously busy earthquake zone, and its nuclear plants are reportedly malfunctioning, it has recently announced that it is not apprehensive after events in Fukushima. Even the world's most established nuclear powers are rethinking their energy strategies. Yet another table for one at the Iranian gala.

The international community has long been worried that Iran would build a nuclear bomb and use it. That was never very likely. Now its neighbors are voicing concern that an earthquake in Bushehr (or elsewhere) could have similar catastrophic effects in the region. That is actually significantly more likely.

Consider that Iran today is a stable regime in a region of turmoil. It pulls strings in Afghanistan and Iraq, is buoyed by high oil prices, and has not been dissuaded from its nuclear program. What does all of this mean?

It means the Islamic Republic will continue to play by its own rules, and will only be influenced by incentives. Regime change is not likely in the short term, so the world needs to engage Iran's current government no matter how unpleasant that is. Given Iran's sensitivity to what it perceives as foreign interference, premising this engagement on an improved human rights record is unfortunately untenable.

President Obama's election platform of speaking to America's enemies, Iran being at the top of that list, was promising. Gradually, however, the crown jewel of foreign policy projects has all but slipped off the agenda.

Progress on Iran's nuclear program can be achieved with more carrots and direct diplomacy (Iran's freezing of uranium enrichment in 2004 demonstrates this is possible). There is an added bonus to such a project as well. Since only conservatives in Iran have the legitimacy to make compromise with Iran's enemies, they are likely to move toward the center of the political spectrum while doing so. The byproduct of diplomacy could be further political liberalization and even democratization. Change in Iran needs a jump start. A rigorous diplomatic project is imperative at this juncture.

When the Japanese nuclear disaster began

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There's some video currently making the rounds, released by Tokyo Electric Power Company, of the tsunami hitting Japan's Fukushima Daiichi power plant. Here's the ITN report:

CNN has more:

The video shows the giant wave generated by the historic March 11 earthquake crashing over the plant's seawall and engulfing the facility, with one sheet of spray rising higher than the buildings that house the plant's six reactors. Tokyo Electric Power, the plant's owner, told reporters the wall of water was likely 14 to 15 meters (45 to 48 feet) higher than normal sea levels -- easily overwhelming the plant's 5-meter seawall.

And of course it's not over yet.

Just how bad are things at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Pretty bad:

Workers' struggle to plug a gush of highly contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station, using sawdust, shredded newspaper and an absorbent powder, appeared to be failing early Monday as the radiation threat from the crippled plant continued to spread.

Water with high amounts of radioactive iodine has been spewing directly into the Pacific Ocean from a large crack discovered Saturday in a six-foot-deep pit at the coastal plant north of Tokyo. The pit is next to the seawater intake pipes at the No. 2 reactor. 

Ummm... sawdust, newspaper, and a powder? Okay, it's a powerful powder that apparently can expand up to 50 times its size (meaning, it can absorb a lot of water), but still, is this really what it's come to? I'm hardly an expert on such matters, but it all seems rather hopeless.

Unblogging

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

I'm sorry there's been nothing new from me the past couple of days. I've had to deal with some other priorities that unfortunately have prevented me from blogging.

Thankfully, there have been, as usual, some great posts from my co-bloggers.

I hope to be back at it later today.

In the meantime, I'll just note that the U.N. has approved military action against Libya. This would obviously be far preferable to, say, unilateral U.S. action. I consider myself something of a liberal interventionist, and I could be persuaded to support such action here, but, needless to say, serious questions remain.

I would also note -- though I'm sure you're paying attention to this -- that the situation in Japan continues to be, well, bad. And apparently getting worse. (I've spent some time the past couple of days reading up on nuclear power. We all think we know something about it, but of course most of us don't really know how it works. For a quick overview, both on how nuclear reactors work and what happens during a meltdown, I'd recommend this slideshow.)

Japan's new nuclear nightmare -- in progress

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As if the earthquake and tsunami weren't bad enough, Japan is facing a worsening situation with regard to its nuclear facilities damaged in last week's disaster. Here's the latest:

Japan's nuclear crisis verged toward catastrophe on Tuesday after an explosion damaged the vessel containing the nuclear core at one reactor and a fire at another spewed large amounts of radioactive material into the air, according to the statements of Japanese government and industry officials. In a brief address to the nation at 11 a.m. Tokyo time, Prime Minister Naoto Kan pleaded for calm, but warned that radiation had already spread from the crippled reactors and there was "a very high risk" of further leakage. Fortunately, the prevailing winds were sweeping most of the plume of radioactivity out into the Pacific Ocean, rather than over populated areas.

The sudden turn of events, after an explosion Monday at one reactor and then an early-morning explosion Tuesday at yet another — the third in four days at the plant — already made the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station the worst nuclear accident since the Chernobyl reactor disaster a quarter century ago. 

I don't really have anything to add. Like so many others, I'm just watching and reading about what's going on, trying to make sense of it all. There was some hope that pumping in sea water would keep the reactors cool, but it's not clear that will work, nor how much radiation has gotten out and will get out in the days ahead:

The critical two questions over the next day or so is how much radioactive material is spewed into the atmosphere, and where the winds carry it. Readings reported on Tuesday showed a spike of radioactivity around the plant that made the leakage categorically worse than in had been, with radiation levels measured at one point as high as 400 millisieverts an hour. Even 7 minutes of exposure at that level will reach the maximum annual dose that a worker at an American nuclear plant is allowed. And exposure for 75 minutes would likely lead to acute radiation sickness.

The extent of the public health risk depends on how long such elevated levels persist — they may have declined after the fire at No. 4 reactor was extinguished — as well as how far and fast the radioactive materials spread, and whether the limited evacuation plan announced by the government proves sufficient. 

We may not be witnessing another Chernobyl, a massive disaster at a facility without adequate safeguards, but it's still way too early to determine just how damaging this will be.

For more, see our recent posts by Distributorcap and Capt. Fogg.

* It's a nightmare, yes, but obviously not another Hiroshima or Nagasaki. That was a different degree of nuclear nightmare altogether.

The other high cost of energy

By Capt. Fogg

"Your Mr. Obama doesn't like nuclear power"

said R___. It was back in '08 during the "drill baby drill," cheap energy at any cost nonsense. He's an engineer, like many of my friends and acquaintances and you would think he'd share a concern with proper design and planning of nuclear facilities but then, as now, if Obama is for it, the Republicans area against it.

Then there was J___, an ex military man with several graduate degrees who told me in robotic tones that "we don't need any more government regulation" when I mentioned that a bit of responsible enforcement of the rules might have prevented the inevitable Gulf blow out disaster.

It really is like arguing with robots, because humans can, at least in theory, learn from experience. Robots need programming and repeat what they are programmed to repeat. It's not quite exclusively American, of course and R___ is Swiss after all. The overall safety of nuclear power is a question subject to debate, preferably between those with a great deal of technical expertise and not unduly influenced by those with a great deal of financial interest in building them. There will always be a danger, of course and there will always be an increasing need for energy pace the neo-Luddites and those who think we can feed and house the world's population using pre-industrial revolution technology, but building a nuclear plan on a coastline and in an earthquake zone seems to this layman a triumph of short sighted greed.

I read with horror this morning of a radiation leak and explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi plant resulting from the emergency backup power system being installed where it could -- and did - flood. Of course the plant is located so as to put a great many people in a danger zone and they've had to be evacuated. Odds are that the current plan to flood the reactor with sea water will succeed, and so far the leak is small, or so they say, but it's not really the kind of risk most people would subject themselves to voluntarily. People other than my Republican friends, that is.

I'm concerned enough that I live just down the coast of Florida from a nuclear facility. I'm part of a group organized to provide emergency communications should all else fail and an 'incident' occur and we have regular drills that are based on frightening scenarios. I'd rather they hadn't built it on the coast and within yards of the sea. Tsunamis aren't common here, but hardly impossible and hurricanes with storm surges happen all too often, but the convenience of having a large labor supply, saving money and cutting corners made the site attractive -- and of course we don't need no more Gummint regulation, do we?

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

The Japan Syndrome

by Distributorcap

I am not a fan of nuclear power. I understand the need for it and I understand why it is necessary. But I also understand the risks of having to have to depend on nuclear energy. New York City and over 20,000,000 people sit 50 miles away from Indian Point, a nuclear plant that has had many problems.

One would also think the Japanese would understand the nightmare of an uncontrolled nuclear power release.

The 8.9 magnitude Sendai Earthquake of March 11 is the 5th strongest quake in recorded history. The stronger quakes are as follows:

1. Chile - 5/22/1960   9.5 magnitude
2. Alaska - 3/27/1964    9.2 magnitude
3. Indonesia - 12/26/2004   9.1 magnitude
4. Russia - 11/4/1952   9.0 magnitude

Japan is located in one of the most seismically active areas of the planet. The Great Tokyo quake of 1923 killed almost 150,000 people and leveled the city of Yokohama. In 1996, Kobe was the center of another power quake that killed 6,500. Neither of those quakes release energy to cause a major tsunami, and neither of those quakes caused an explosion at a nuclear power plant.

Japan is highly dependent on nuclear energy.  The Fukushima power plant sits on the Pacific Ocean, relatively close (in nuclear terms - any reactor is probably too close to earthquake faults) to the epicenter (which was 80 miles off the coast of Japan) of the Sendai quake.  The force of this quake cause the Fukushima plant to suffer severe damage and explode. The potential of a core meltdown at Fukushima is very real.  Core meltdowns are - to say the least - not good things.  They are not good on Star Trek, and they are definitely not good in the non-Gene Roddenberry real world.  25 years ago Europe woke up to the effects of a core meltdown - and it was devastating.

The worst nuclear disaster in history was the Chernobyl meltdown in Ukraine on April 26, 1986. The explosion at the #4 reactor released a toxic cloud that covered much of Eastern Europe. A zone around the plant in Ukraine has been rendered uninhabitable.  Food and livestock had to be destroyed.  Cancer deaths have increased. The US is not immune to a potential nuclear nightmare. Not as environmentally damaging, but perhaps equally as bad from a public relations angle was the Three Mile Island disaster in Pennsylvania on March 28, 1979. TMI released minimal radiation, and brought to the forefront a much needed discussion about nuclear safety. In a stroke of marketing luck - the film The China Syndrome opened 12 days prior to the accident at TMI. In the film, a physicist says that the China Syndrome (which refers to a core meltdown) would render "an area the size of Pennsylvania" permanently uninhabitable.

The term 'China Syndrome' was coined by Dr. Richard Lapp in 1971.  It refers to the most severe meltdown a nuclear reactor could achieve. A reactor would reach its highest level of 'supercriticality' for a sustained period of time, resulting in the melting of its support inginfrastructure. The core (consisting of uranium) could then reach temperatures in excess of 2000°C. These temperatures would melt all materials around it, and theoretically the reactor would sink due to gravity, effectively boring a hole through the reactor compartment's floor - heading straight for China. (of course there is no way the molten core would ever get to China or Japan).

One would think that between the Gulf of Mexico disaster, the political turmoil in the Middle East and now the potential of another meltdown at the Fukushima plant the world would really get serious about alternative energy - no matter the cost.  Then again this is the human race - controlled by the likes of Exxon and the Koch brothers who are much more concerned about profits that preservation.

I guess the Koch boys do live in a Gene Roddenberry world and have their escape pods all ready to shoot them to Romulus or Klingon.

India nuclear deal and coalition tensions

By AviShalom

The US-India nuclear cooperation deal, signed last year, is causing some serious tensions within India's governing alliance, according to the Hindustan Times. The deal is being staunchly opposed by the Left alliance, on whom the minority cabinet of the United Progressive Alliance (Congress Party and numerous pre-electoral allies among state-specific parties) depends to remain in office. The opposition National Democratic Alliance (BJP and its own pre-electoral state allies) is asking for a parliamentary committee to examine the deal.

"This is not a family affair of the UPA and Left. It's an issue that concerns the entire nation and, therefore, the government should put in place some parliamentary mechanism, something like a committee comprising members of both Houses, to study the agreement," senior BJP leader Vijay Kumar Malhotra said after an NDA meeting chaired by Leader of Opposition LK Advani.

Despite the conflict, "The Opposition, however, has no immediate plans to bring a no-confidence motion against the government." At least for now...

Whatever the conflicts between the Left and the UPA, it is not as if the Left wants a new election anytime soon. (A regular election would not be due till 2009.) Nor does it want an alliance with the NDA. In a no-confidence vote, the Left and UPA would be likely either to vote with the UPA or to abstain. Nonetheless, one might expect at some point that the NDA would want to embarrass the Left by making it choose influence in the government over stated principle on the nuclear deal. An article on newindpress.com suggests that the NDA may do just that in September, but agrees that the Left is unlikely to vote to remove the cabinet in such a case.

Will the Left side with the BJP to bring down the government by voting with the BJP-sponsored no-confidence motion? Sources rule out such a possibility, saying that the Left cannot afford to go to polls, if they side with the communal forces. [That is, the BJP and its allies in the NDA.] Instead, they would prefer to abstain.

The UPA strength will then be reduced to 237 MPs, (UPA 219+BSP 18), after the 59-strong Left withdraws its crucial outside support to the government, while the NDA will have 172 MPs on its side.

The status of the government will then be reduced to a minority government, as was the case with the then Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao, when he formed the government in 1991.

In case, the Left decides to take the extreme step of voting with the BJP, even then the general election will be held only in the beginning of 2008, by February-March, given the fact that a lead time of about 45 days is required for preparations by the Election Commission.

While I am certainly no expert on Indian politics, I just don't see the Left alliance being willing to provoke an election over this, no matter how much it would like to show its opposition to the nuclear deal. In fact, I would even be surprised if the Left abstained. We will have a better idea next week, when meetings are expected between the Left and the main governing party, Congress.

The Congress leadership is likely to initiate talks next week with the four Left parties, notably the CPM, on the modalities of the proposed mechanism to allay their concerns on the India-specific Hyde Act of the United States. [...]

In the back-channel discussions between the CPM and the Congress, it has been broadly agreed to have representatives from both sides on the proposed mechanism for talks. The advice of scientists and diplomats will be available to them while they go through various provisions of the Hyde Act and the bearing they have on India's sovereignty and independent foreign policy.

There is going to be some serious diplomacy, and I am not talking about between India and the US government, or any other foreign power. I mean between the highest leaders of the government and its critical support parties, which need each other in parliament.

Cross-posted at Fruits & Votes.

Nuclear power, feel the love

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Let's not get into the usual coal vs. nuclear debate. The solution, ultimately, is neither.

You all know about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. It may not be quite at that level, but you can add Kashiwazaki to the list:

A radioactive leak at a major nuclear plant in Japan damaged by an earthquake on Monday was worse than previously thought, the plant's operators say.

Owner Tokyo Electric Power company said 50% more radiation was discharged into the sea, following the magnitude 6.8 quake, than was earlier reported.

But the firm insisted the leak was still well below danger levels.

The mayor of nearby Kashiwazaki City has ordered the plant to remain closed indefinitely.

Yeah, that might be a good idea. And I'm not about to trust Tokyo Electric Power. Whatever the danger levels, there was still a leak -- and it was still bad.

How to dispose of nuclear waste remains one of the key problems, but consider what else can go wrong. Is it worth it?

(Watch The China Syndrome, a great film with Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon, and Michael Douglas.)