PDA

View Full Version : Poop Nuclear emergency declared at quake-damaged reactor


Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2011, 08:45 PM
There was a guy who used to be the head of the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas, which was the plant where all of our nuclear weapons were assembled. I forget his name, but when asked what he thought about handling a material as powerful as plutonium, he said, "To me, it's no different than picking up a box of Silly Putty at the dime store."

I'm starting to wonder if that was alnorth.

mikeyis4dcats.
03-16-2011, 08:45 PM
I say we send alnorth. He seems to have a handle on all of this.

alnorth to the rescue!

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/quiz/70588_1223076596859_250_220.jpg

Dylan
03-16-2011, 08:45 PM
Besides Japan throwing U.S. under the bus -- It's hard to believe that we don't have unmanned planes that could be used to do this.

orange
03-16-2011, 08:48 PM
Besides Japan throwing U.S. under the bus -- It's hard to believe that we don't have unmanned planes that could be used to do this.

Radiation is hard on microcircuitry, too.

Chocolate Hog
03-16-2011, 08:49 PM
There was a guy who used to be the head of the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas, which was the plant where all of our nuclear weapons were assembled. I forget his name, but when asked what he thought about handling a material as powerful as plutonium, he said, "To me, it's no different than picking up a box of Silly Putty at the dime store."

I'm starting to wonder if that was alnorth.

You know it's not very conservative for conservatives to talk about the whole eco system but between this nuke disaster and the oil spill from last year things have to be really fucked. Nobody wants to acknowledge this though.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2011, 08:53 PM
Radiation is hard on microcircuitry, too.

Signed,

The scores of bulldozers that were fucked when building the Chernobyl sarcophagus.

alnorth
03-16-2011, 08:55 PM
Judging by your responses here and the thread about the military won't be exposed to radiation I have no choice but to call you a flat earther.

Don't take my word for it, look up any credible scientific research on the subject.

The absolute, absolute max max exposure measured anywhere was 400 mSv/hr. Mind you, that is 400 mSv per freaking hour. This isn't that indiana jones scene where your face just instantaneously melts off.

There were a few dozen verified death from chernobyl, the worst nuclear disaster in history, where workers who died spent days on the site, and where that kind of disaster is almost literally impossible today and absolutely not present right now. The worst that can happen from hovering for 5 minutes is a half percent or a full percent increased risk of cancer over the next few years. If you disagree with that, then you disagree out of simple-minded stupid ignorance.

alnorth
03-16-2011, 08:57 PM
This is also why the rate of thyroid cancer went up 30 fold in Belarus in four years among children, three times the rate of birth defects in children in the Ukraine, and heart disease so common that the quadrupling of cases led to the term "Chernobyl" heart.

I'm not going to turn this into an anti-nuclear power rant, because I don't see the competent use of it as a problem, but the way you have attempted to minimalize the risk of radioactive exposure throughout this entire thread is making you look like Baghdad Bob.

You have no credibility on this issue, none. Studies funded by our own government showed demonstrable negative health effects from even brief exposures, and the amount of radiation being released there is currently 10,000 times normal background levels.

You seem to be completely unable to understand the dichotomy between an LD50 dose that will cause instant death and a dose that will cause death down the line as a result of cellular and genetic damage incurred by the exposure.

You are talking out of your ass. At least I have the weight of scientific research and careful study behind me, you basically have unproven hysteria.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2011, 08:59 PM
The IAEA, hardly an anti-nuclear group, attributed 4,000 deaths directly due to the radiation from the Chernobyl disaster.

Studies done by Belarus point to a combined cancer death rate (and this is just cancer) of 140,000 between Belarus and the Ukraine in the first 15 years after the accident, with another 60,000 deaths in Russia.

This is also ignoring the spike in Down's syndrome and numerous other birth defects that happened in the three years immediately after Chernobyl.

400mSV an hour.

We'll take that at face value. That's 22 CT scans per hour.

kcpasco
03-16-2011, 09:02 PM
Alnorth, have you ever worked around high levels of contamination or high levels of dose?
You do know there is a difference between dose and contamination don't you?

I currently work at a facility that used to manufacture plutonium and the very fucking last thing I want to do is ingest that shit.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2011, 09:07 PM
You are talking out of your ass. At least I have the weight of scientific research and careful study behind me, you basically have unproven hysteria.

al,

I have published scholarship on the effects of nuclear weapons, enrichment and nuclear disasters.

Kindly, shut the fuck up.

Again, I have mentioned the following people in this thread, please, refute them.

Karl Z. Morgan. He's so hysterical that he was the chief of Health Physics in the Manhattan Project

Thomas Mancuso, a man chosen by the DOE to run a 300,000 person study on the long term effects of radiation exposure.

Dr. Alice Stewart, who did the Oxford Childood survey that determined that if a pregnant woman received an X-Ray, her child's risk of cancer increased 500%.

If you'd like, I can provide you with the testimony of William Lawless, who was in charge of waste cleanup at the Savannah River plant.

These are not cooks with blogs, these are preeminent physicists, physicians and experts in the field.

Chocolate Hog
03-16-2011, 09:07 PM
Don't take my word for it, look up any credible scientific research on the subject.

The absolute, absolute max max exposure measured anywhere was 400 mSv/hr. Mind you, that is 400 mSv per freaking hour. This isn't that indiana jones scene where your face just instantaneously melts off.

There were a few dozen verified death from chernobyl, the worst nuclear disaster in history, where workers who died spent days on the site, and where that kind of disaster is almost literally impossible today and absolutely not present right now. The worst that can happen from hovering for 5 minutes is a half percent or a full percent increased risk of cancer over the next few years. If you disagree with that, then you disagree out of simple-minded stupid ignorance.

The cute thing about science is the results change down the road. I'd hate to be one of those people who spent time around the radiation only to get some kind of horrible cancer and an apology from some scientist saying "whoops we fucked up".

kcpasco
03-16-2011, 09:11 PM
Hey Hamas they are currently giving tours of the B reactor if you like that kind of stuff.

alnorth
03-16-2011, 09:11 PM
alnorth to the rescue!

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/quiz/70588_1223076596859_250_220.jpg

Just to be clear, because some of you think I want to build nuclear reactors on every block.

If I were emperor of america, I would shut down every single nuclear reactor and build nothing but gas and coal-fired plants. You want to build nuclear? Fine, good luck to you, but I'm giving you no tax breaks. Go ahead and try to compete with my cheap coal power, you'll probably fail.

I would shut down every single nuclear power plant in our country if I could, and spew out tons and tons of carbon into our atmosphere without limit.

Wait, what? After everything I posted defending nuclear power? How does that make sense? I have little patience for stupidity. Really, thats it. I don't like an argument that is ostensibly on "my side" but is stupid. I'd rather denounce a retarded argument even if that hurts my position, than put up with a stupid ally.

Being panicked when it is not warranted over the danger of nuclear, when coal plants put more radiation into the atmosphere and expose nearby inhabitants to more radiation (yes its true, freaking look it up) is stupid. Damning nuclear for safety issues while giving coal a free pass on safety is stupid.

But, preferring coal because of economics, and saying "nuclear power is nice, but I cant afford it, give me coal", that gets my attention.

I'm not concerned about this so-called global warming situation we allegedly have. I'm not overly concerned about dead coal miners, since they chose that dangerous profession. I'm not overly concerned about air pollution. I prefer cheap power, and I'm willing to accept slight environmental damage for cheap power, so go right ahead and close down every nuclear reactor and start burning dirty radioactive polluting coal, because my electric bill will be cheaper!

That is my motive, I have an inherent bias AGAINST nuclear power. I'd rather we not build nuclear plants. But I also have no patience for stupid unfounded chicken little fears, and I believe in science. If you want to oppose nuclear, do it for the right reasons. Do it because you don't buy into the environmental damage fear-mongering. Do it (like me) because it is cheaper. But do NOT oppose nuclear because you think its safer than coal, because you'd be dead wrong.

Coal is not safer than nuclear, it is more dangerous and adversely impacts our health more. More safety comes at a price that I'd rather not pay.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2011, 09:12 PM
Alnorth, have you ever worked around high levels of contamination or high levels of dose?
You do know there is a difference between dose and contamination don't you?

I currently work at a facility that used to manufacture plutonium and the very fucking last thing I want to do is ingest that shit.

If you split one gram of Pu-239 into 3.5 billion pieces, it would be detrimental enough to give each person who ingested that the maximum allowable dose that nuclear workers are allowed to receive for the rest of their lives.

Dylan
03-16-2011, 09:14 PM
Radiation is hard on microcircuitry, too.


Worded "Helicopter Plan" really does not inspire confidence http://gbxforums.gearboxsoftware.com/images/smilies/crazy.gif

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2011, 09:15 PM
Hey Hamas they are currently giving tours of the B reactor if you like that kind of stuff.

That would be interesting, along with going to SRP, Oak Ridge, and Rocky Flats.

Of course, those in the KC area could visit the Bendix Plant, now known as the Kansas City Plant, operated by Honeywell.

It produced all non-nuclear parts of the bomb, including the Permissive Action Link security system.

Chocolate Hog
03-16-2011, 09:17 PM
That would be interesting, along with going to SRP, Oak Ridge, and Rocky Flats.

Of course, those in the KC area could visit the Bendix Plant, now known as the Kansas City Plant, operated by Honeywell.

It produced all non-nuclear parts of the bomb, including the Permissive Action Link security system.

I'm sure you know theres a lot of controversy about that whole area.

orange
03-16-2011, 09:21 PM
The Japanese government's radiation report for the country's 47 prefectures Wednesday had a notable omission — Fukushima, ground zero in Japan's nuclear crisis. Measurements from Ibaraki, just south of Fukushima, were also blanked out.

Radiation experts in the USA say that the lack of information about radioactivity released from the smoldering reactors makes it impossible to gauge the current danger, project how bad a potential meltdown might be or calculate how much fallout might reach the USA.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-17-japanradiate17_ST_N.htm

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2011, 09:24 PM
Just so we have a handle on how "non-serious" this is, according to alnorth.

Our nuclear workers were limited by the EPA a maximum exposure of 5,000 millirems per year

A millirem is equivalent to 10 micro sieverts

There are 100,000 millirems in a single sievert.

400 millisieverts per hour is equivalent to 40,000 millirems. 40,000.

Eight times yearly allowable exposure in one hour. Eight.

Now, this information does not mention the fact that many within the field of Health Physics believe that even this threshold is orders of magnitude too high.

alnorth
03-16-2011, 09:24 PM
al,

I have published scholarship on the effects of nuclear weapons, enrichment and nuclear disasters.

Kindly, shut the **** up.

Again, I have mentioned the following people in this thread, please, refute them.

Karl Z. Morgan. He's so hysterical that he was the chief of Health Physics in the Manhattan Project

Thomas Mancuso, a man chosen by the DOE to run a 300,000 person study on the long term effects of radiation exposure.

Dr. Alice Stewart, who did the Oxford Childood survey that determined that if a pregnant woman received an X-Ray, her child's risk of cancer increased 500%.

If you'd like, I can provide you with the testimony of William Lawless, who was in charge of waste cleanup at the Savannah River plant.

These are not cooks with blogs, these are preeminent physicists, physicians and experts in the field.

Give me a body count. If its not a retarded greenpeace-invented several-million dead body count, I bet I can trump that with dead coal miners alone. Forget the impact of dirty air, just dead coal miners.

It is intellectually dishonest for you to nit-pick nuclear while ignoring the fact that we don't have a safer option.

(And, as I mentioned just now, I'm fine with the more dangerous coal option, and I'd oppose the building of nuclear reactors based on simple economics. I'm probably perversely on your side in opposing nuclear, but only because I don't think we face a global warming nightmare and I want cheap dirty coal power)

Dylan
03-16-2011, 09:25 PM
The New York Times

Scientists Project Path of Radiation Plume

By WILLIAM J. BROAD

20 minutes ago

A United Nations forecast of the possible movement of the radioactive plume coming from crippled Japanese reactors shows it churning across the Pacific and touching the Aleutian Islands on Thursday before hitting Southern California late Friday.

Health and nuclear experts emphasize that radiation in the plume will be diluted as it travels and, at worst, would have extremely minor health consequences in the United States, even if hints of it are ultimately detectable.

The story: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/science/17plume.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.racinground.com/forums/images/smilies/candle.gif

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2011, 09:28 PM
Give me a body count. If its not a retarded greenpeace-invented several-million dead body count, I bet I can trump that with dead coal miners alone. Forget the impact of dirty air, just dead coal miners.

It is intellectually dishonest for you to nit-pick nuclear while ignoring the fact that we don't have a safer option.

(And, as I mentioned just now, I'm fine with the more dangerous coal option, and I'd oppose the building of nuclear reactors based on simple economics. I'm probably perversely on your side in opposing nuclear, but only because I don't think we face a global warming nightmare and I want cheap dirty coal power)

I'm not saying anything about the merits of nuclear power or lack thereof. You are claiming that I'm saying that as a red herring to distract from the substance of the debate which was supposed to be about the deleterious effects of radiation exposure.

I haven't said a single thing about coal in this thread. Not one.

Again, I'm not pointing out Greenpeace studies, there were never any done. I'm mentioning studies done by the Belarussian Government and a UN Charitable Organization aimed at helping those effected by the Chernobyl disaster.

You seem to be either unable or unwilling to understand the difference between deaths due to acute radiation sickness and deaths due to malignancy caused by accumulated radiation dosage.

alnorth
03-16-2011, 09:28 PM
Just so we have a handle on how "non-serious" this is, according to alnorth.

Our nuclear workers were limited by the EPA a maximum exposure of 5,000 millirems per year

A millirem is equivalent to 10 micro sieverts

There are 100,000 millirems in a single sievert.

400 millisieverts per hour is equivalent to 40,000 millirems. 40,000.

Eight times yearly allowable exposure in one hour. Eight.

Now, this information does not mention the fact that many within the field of Health Physics believe that even this threshold is orders of magnitude too high.

You are being silly. This was posted before, so I'll repost to give context to your scary-sounding ignorant "8 times higher than allowable" *ominous lightning crash*.

2 hazards from radiation.

#1) acute exposure. This generally happens at 6 full Sv. not 400 milli Sv, but 6 full freaking Sv.

ok, so thats out, what else?

#2) cancer, 5% increase risk per 1Sv, per year. You were exposed to 400 mSv? OK, what does that mean? It means 2% extra risk of cancer.

Again, I'm on your side, again, I oppose nuclear power because I'm not afraid of dirty coal plants. Hopefully you are not an environmentalist.


The above is not my opinion, it is cold, hard science.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2011, 09:31 PM
It actually doesn't mean an extra 2%. It's higher than that.

There is a thing called the supralinear hypothesis. You are working off of a linear data plot, assuming that you get X number of cancers for every sievert of exposure. That's not true.

In fact, the damage per unit dose is far greater at lower levels, and you will get more cancers per unit dose at lower levels than you will at higher levels. The curve flattens off as the dose increases.

This has been known in Health Physics for over thirty years.

orange
03-16-2011, 09:32 PM
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-hHMepQKJIO8/TX8LVQ9bqxI/AAAAAAAAKt0/qGVBcJTWM_I/s1600/radiationchart.png

alnorth
03-16-2011, 09:35 PM
I haven't said a single thing about coal in this thread. Not one.

Fine, but we need context, don't you think?

Don't you think its a little odd that we highlight a few dozen dead provable people in a freak nuclear disaster that almost certainly would not happen today, but we don't give a rat's ass about hundreds of thousands of dead west virginia and chinese coal miners? (not to mention the untold millions exposed to coal emissions)

Don't you think the coverage in the media has been just a LITTLE blatantly unfair to nuclear power? Now, this unfair anti-nuclear hysteria works to my benefit because I also oppose expensive nuclear power due to economics, but I still don't like this silly "we demand utter perfection from nuclear, but we'll shrug if another 10,000 coal miners die next year" silliness.

alnorth
03-16-2011, 09:37 PM
It actually doesn't mean an extra 2%. It's higher than that.

There is a thing called the supralinear hypothesis. You are working off of a linear data plot, assuming that you get X number of cancers for every sievert of exposure. That's not true.

Blame the media, thats where I got it.

I think we know for a fact that 400 mSv doesn't lead to a quick death from acute radiation exposure. As for increased cancer risk, what would you suggest?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2011, 09:39 PM
I'm not talking about coal, that's a needless deflection. Regardless of how coal is treated by media is immaterial to the discussion of what a safe radiation dose is. There's no correlation between the two at all.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2011, 09:44 PM
Blame the media, thats where I got it.

I think we know for a fact that 400 mSv doesn't lead to a quick death from acute radiation exposure. As for increased cancer risk, what would you suggest?

1) Not one person has said it will lead to death through radiation sickness.

2) As far as an increase in cancer risk, I can't give you an exact figure. What I can tell you is that the rate of cancer among workers in the US Nuclear Industry, who were NEVER exposed to doses even approaching this were drastically higher than the public's rate, and that the rates determined safe were still found to be ten-twenty times too high.

3) I said it earlier, there is no safe dose of radiation. It does not exist. Instead, the question was always, "what is an acceptable risk?"

alnorth
03-16-2011, 09:51 PM
I'm not talking about coal, that's a needless deflection. Regardless of how coal is treated by media is immaterial to the discussion of what a safe radiation dose is. There's no correlation between the two at all.

There are very few options for steady robust baseline power. Wind is not it, neither is solar or geothermal.

All of those "clean" power options can help supplement your needs and help you ramp up to meet new production requirements, but for the big steady huge reliable robust baseline need for power you have coal, gas, and nuclear. Thats it, just those 3, unless you are in a weird situation like the arizona desert or iceland, those are your options.

If you are unfairly tarring and feathering nuclear while giving a blind eye and a shrug of your shoulder to the danger of coal, you cant later claim you had no part in choosing coal over nuclear. By unfairly criticizing nuclear and not going out of your way to giving a full fair and balanced picture of coal you are actively choosing coal over nuclear.

Power isn't free. Whether its gas, nuclear, or coal, people will die to get that power. Arguably, nuclear is the safest option of the 3. More people will die for coal than for nuclear, but nuclear is more expensive. (Thus, I support coal over nuclear, I want the cheapest option) If you are not giving that full fair picture, then you are unwittingly spreading propaganda for coal because "clean" options are not an option for big robust base power.

Dylan
03-16-2011, 09:51 PM
Fine, but we need context, don't you think?

Don't you think its a little odd that we highlight a few dozen dead provable people in a freak nuclear disaster that almost certainly would not happen today, but we don't give a rat's ass about hundreds of thousands of dead west virginia and chinese coal miners? (not to mention the untold millions exposed to coal emissions)

Don't you think the coverage in the media has been just a LITTLE blatantly unfair to nuclear power? Now, this unfair anti-nuclear hysteria works to my benefit because I also oppose expensive nuclear power due to economics, but I still don't like this silly "we demand utter perfection from nuclear, but we'll shrug if another 10,000 coal miners die next year" silliness.

Fair point, thanks for adding this comment to the thread.

FWIW: The idea that any news organization is fair and balanced in reporting is laughable at best. Slanted journalism is alive and well.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-16-2011, 09:54 PM
There are very few options for steady robust baseline power. Wind is not it, neither is solar or geothermal.

All of those "clean" power options can help supplement your needs and help you ramp up to meet new production requirements, but for the big steady huge reliable robust baseline need for power you have coal, gas, and nuclear. Thats it, just those 3, unless you are in a weird situation like the arizona desert or iceland, those are your options.

If you are unfairly tarring and feathering nuclear while giving a blind eye and a shrug of your shoulder to the danger of coal, you cant later claim you had no part in choosing coal over nuclear. By unfairly criticizing nuclear and not going out of your way to giving a full fair and balanced picture of coal you are actively choosing coal over nuclear.

Power isn't free. Whether its gas, nuclear, or coal, people will die to get that power. Arguably, nuclear is the safest option of the 3. More people will die for coal than for nuclear, but nuclear is more expensive. (Thus, I support coal over nuclear, I want the cheapest option) If you are not giving that full fair picture, then you are unwittingly spreading propaganda for coal because "clean" options are not an option for big robust base power.

That's an incredibly long justification for something unrelated to the topic of "how dangerous are doses of radiation?"

googlegoogle
03-16-2011, 09:57 PM
Korea sending 52 tons of boron.

http://www.koreaherald.com/business/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20110316000734

(Reuters) - South Korea said on Wednesday it would send some of its reserve boron to Japan (http://www.reuters.com/places/japan) after a request from Tokyo for the metalloid, which being is mixed with seawater to limit damage to Japan's crippled nuclear reactors.
An economy ministry official said South Korea (http://www.reuters.com/places/south-korea) would send 52.6 tons of boron to Japan from its reserves of 310 tons.
Tokyo has requested supplies of the key material, vital for stopping fission nuclear reactions, after its own stockpile has been largely used up at the Fukushima nuclear power plant.
Boron is the main material that goes into control rods used to halt or slow down fission reactions at nuclear reactors. Japan has mixed large amounts of boron with seawater and poured them into the reactors as an emergency measure.
A sample of the metalloid would be sent to Japan immediately for assessment, the ministry official said.
(Reporting Cho Meeyoung, Writing by Jeremy Laurence; Editing by Jonathan Hopfner)

Brock
03-16-2011, 09:57 PM
That's an incredibly long justification for something unrelated to the topic of "how dangerous are doses of radiation?"

Honestly, I don't get how we got here from the guy talking about how chickenshit these pilots are for not wanting to, or not being allowed to, hover over this mess.

Just Passin' By
03-16-2011, 10:00 PM
Honestly, I don't get how we got here from the guy talking about how chickenshit these pilots are for not wanting to, or not being allowed to, hover over this mess.

Because 18 coal miners died in the U.S. in 2009, or something like that.

alnorth
03-16-2011, 10:02 PM
That's an incredibly long justification for something unrelated to the topic of "how dangerous are doses of radiation?"

I'll give you that. But, how often do we get stories about how coal is dangerous, thus giving people like you a platform to talk about coal? Those stories are rarely written.

That aside, people also seem to be inherently biased to close their eyes to how dangerous coal is, and inherently biased to fear the voodoo magic of nuclear, so if you just take each story on its face as they come, it'll just inevitable lead to more coal. Which is fine by me.

alnorth
03-16-2011, 10:04 PM
Honestly, I don't get how we got here from the guy talking about how chickenshit these pilots are for not wanting to, or not being allowed to, hover over this mess.

Yeah, lets just completely ignore science. There's radiation down there, we don't understand it, we fear what we don't understand, so obviously it has to be indiana jones-style "this is the cup of kings" face-melting danger.

Brock
03-16-2011, 10:07 PM
Yeah, lets just completely ignore science. There's radiation down there, we don't understand it, we fear what we don't understand, so obviously it has to be indiana jones-style "this is the cup of kings" face-melting danger.

For somebody accusing everybody else of ignorance, you really haven't brought any substantial facts to the table, and you also don't know the situation over there. I know this because nobody here knows what the situation really is over there. You're coming across like we're cavemen afraid of fire, when you don't know any more about it than anyone else does.

alnorth
03-16-2011, 10:14 PM
For somebody accusing everybody else of ignorance, you really haven't brought any substantial facts to the table

bullcrap. I posted this three times already, maybe you didn't notice it, so here's number 4.

Quick reality check, after some quick research. I'm not a nuclear expert, but this info is readily available through reliable sources.

First, radiation is usually measured in Sieverts (Sv) 1 full Sv = 1,000 mSv = 1 million microSv. Radiation exposure is also often measured in Sieverts per hour, or Sv/h, mSv/h, microSv/h

There are generally two hazards to radiation exposure. 1) Dying quickly due to acute radiation exposure 2) Dying within 5-30 years due to cancer caused by radiation.

Fatal acute radiation exposure (resulting in death within days or weeks) = roughly 1 full Sv/h for 5 hours, or more than 6 Sv/day. (Apparently the threshold for having any immediate symptoms at all is about 0.25 Sv/day. If you get less than 0.25 Sv/day, you wont even feel nausea, but might have some increased cancer risk)

Estimated cancer risk from radiation = about an extra 5% per full Sv per year, but if you pick up less than 100 mSv in a year, the research seems to indicate that doesn't increase your chances. (So, at 100 mSv in a year, you have about a half percent chance of getting cancer from that radiation exposure)

Exposure examples

Eating a banana = 0.1 microSv
chest CT scan = 6-18 mSv
background radiation most people experience just walking around = 3 mSv/year
Total exposure by the average American = about 6 mSv/year = 6,000 microSv/year

Total additional exposure that could be expected by people on the west coast if the reactors in Japan all dramatically explode in a firey ball of death (which is extremely unlikely): maybe another 1 or 2 microSv

Exposure faced by the workers currently risking their lives in the Japanese facility: well, the absolute peak was briefly about 400 mSv/h, but it seems to mostly be about 8 or 9 mSv/hr. Of course, if it melts down and if the concrete container also fails, those workers could get a fatal acute dose within minutes depending on where they are.

Current exposure at the gate to the facility at the Japanese reactors = 0.6 mSv/hr

Exposure in Tokyo = seems to be about 2 microSv/hr

Total exposure if you lived within the 30 km evacuation radius of Chernobyl when it blew up and didn't leave for a few weeks = varies depending on where in that radius you mostly lived, but the accumulated dose for people who were near but weren't at the disaster usually seemed to max out at about 150 mSv.

There's context for radiation exposure. As far as the danger of coal goes, just google it. Over the last 40 years, hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of coal miners dead around the world, and who knows how many dead from emissions.

If you live next to a coal plant or mine, you are exposed to more radiation than from a nuclear plant, lots of papers and evidence that nuclear is safer than coal, etc.

But, coal is cheaper than nuclear. I don't buy into global warming and I'm fine with the loss of life and environmental damage, so lower my electric bills. Coal all the way, and shut every nuclear reactor down.

But, I say that for economic reasons, not because of safety. If you think coal is safer than nuclear, you are very wrong.

Reaper16
03-16-2011, 11:11 PM
Yeah, lets just completely ignore science. There's radiation down there, we don't understand it, we fear what we don't understand, so obviously it has to be indiana jones-style "this is the cup of kings" face-melting danger.
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e57/Thereaper16/madreb.gif

Pioli Zombie
03-17-2011, 05:12 AM
Serves them right for what they did to the Jews during world war 2

JASONSAUTO
03-17-2011, 06:50 AM
For somebody accusing everybody else of ignorance, you really haven't brought any substantial facts to the table, and you also don't know the situation over there. I know this because nobody here knows what the situation really is over there. You're coming across like we're cavemen afraid of fire, when you don't know any more about it than anyone else does.

can we please use this post about the labor negotiations also?

Donger
03-17-2011, 08:35 AM
Temperature of Spent Fuel Pools at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

Spent fuel that has been removed from a nuclear reactor generates intense heat and is typically stored in a water-filled spent fuel pool to cool it and provide protection from its radioactivity. Water in a spent fuel pool is continuously cooled to remove heat produced by spent fuel assemblies. According to IAEA experts, a typical spent fuel pool temperature is kept below 25 ˚C under normal operating conditions. The temperature of a spent fuel pool is maintained by constant cooling, which requires a constant power source.

Given the intense heat and radiation that spent fuel assemblies can generate, spent fuel pools must be constantly checked for water level and temperature. If fuel is no longer covered by water or temperatures reach a boiling point, fuel can become exposed and create a risk of radioactive release. The concern about the spent fuel pools at Fukushima Daiichi is that sources of power to cool the pools may have been compromised.

The IAEA can confirm the following information regarding the temperatures of the spent nuclear fuel pools at Units 4, 5 and 6 at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant:

Unit 4

14 March, 10:08 UTC: 84 ˚C
15 March, 10:00 UTC: 84 ˚C
16 March, 05:00 UTC: no data

Unit 5

14 March, 10:08 UTC: 59.7 ˚C
15 March, 10:00 UTC: 60.4 ˚C
16 March, 05:00 UTC: 62.7 ˚C

Unit 6

14 March, 10:08 UTC: 58.0 ˚C
15 March, 10:00 UTC: 58.5 ˚C
16 March, 05:00 UTC: 60.0 ˚C

The IAEA is continuing to seek further information about the water levels, temperature and condition of all spent fuel pool facilities at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

BigMeatballDave
03-17-2011, 08:59 AM
Serves them right for what they did to the Jews during world war 2:spock:

loochy
03-17-2011, 09:04 AM
Temperature of Spent Fuel Pools at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

Spent fuel that has been removed from a nuclear reactor generates intense heat and is typically stored in a water-filled spent fuel pool to cool it and provide protection from its radioactivity. Water in a spent fuel pool is continuously cooled to remove heat produced by spent fuel assemblies. According to IAEA experts, a typical spent fuel pool temperature is kept below 25 ˚C under normal operating conditions. The temperature of a spent fuel pool is maintained by constant cooling, which requires a constant power source.

Given the intense heat and radiation that spent fuel assemblies can generate, spent fuel pools must be constantly checked for water level and temperature. If fuel is no longer covered by water or temperatures reach a boiling point, fuel can become exposed and create a risk of radioactive release. The concern about the spent fuel pools at Fukushima Daiichi is that sources of power to cool the pools may have been compromised.

The IAEA can confirm the following information regarding the temperatures of the spent nuclear fuel pools at Units 4, 5 and 6 at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant:

Unit 4

14 March, 10:08 UTC: 84 ˚C
15 March, 10:00 UTC: 84 ˚C
16 March, 05:00 UTC: no data

Unit 5

14 March, 10:08 UTC: 59.7 ˚C
15 March, 10:00 UTC: 60.4 ˚C
16 March, 05:00 UTC: 62.7 ˚C

Unit 6

14 March, 10:08 UTC: 58.0 ˚C
15 March, 10:00 UTC: 58.5 ˚C
16 March, 05:00 UTC: 60.0 ˚C

The IAEA is continuing to seek further information about the water levels, temperature and condition of all spent fuel pool facilities at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

Well, Unit 4 looks to be getting close to boiling, but at the rate that the temperatures seem to be increasing, it looks like we have a few days before that boils off. Hopefully those U.S. pumps will work at getting some fresh water circulated in.

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 09:14 AM
3) I said it earlier, there is no safe dose of radiation. It does not exist. Instead, the question was always, "what is an acceptable risk?"

Well, yes, but just by walking, talking, breathing and eating you're exposed to background radiation.

Chiefspants
03-17-2011, 09:22 AM
Serves them right for what they did to the Jews during world war 2

Dumbass, you're thinking of Italy.

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 09:23 AM
This is also why the rate of thyroid cancer went up 30 fold in Belarus in four years among children, three times the rate of birth defects in children in the Ukraine, and heart disease so common that the quadrupling of cases led to the term "Chernobyl" heart.

I don't want to get in the middle of your debate with Alnorth, but on the thyroid cancer in children thing -- a Vanderbilt doctor with expertise in this area said that the thyroid cancer in children was caused by children drinking the milk of cows who had eaten grass in contaminated fields and that (1) the Russian government was particularly stupid or whatever to let this happen, and (2) even those deaths could largely have been prevented by iodine tablets.

Again, this is specific to the thyroid cancer in the children in the wake of Chernobyl.

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 09:27 AM
Because 18 coal miners died in the U.S. in 2009, or something like that.

For the record, as far as I know, that is 18 more people than ever died in teh US for working in the nuclear power plant industry.

cdcox
03-17-2011, 09:44 AM
If you are worried about the effects of nuclear power on human health, please google "excess deaths air pollution" (without quotes) and get back to
me.

Pants
03-17-2011, 09:49 AM
How is this even a debate? Nuclear > Coal.

CrazyPhuD
03-17-2011, 09:53 AM
How is this even a debate? Nuclear > Coal.

yea but you can't put nuclear rods in the stockings of bad children for that reason Coal > Nuclear.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-17-2011, 11:00 AM
Well, yes, but just by walking, talking, breathing and eating you're exposed to background radiation.

That's facetious.

Dylan
03-17-2011, 11:19 AM
Last one out turn off Mr. Coffee

Bwana
03-17-2011, 11:20 AM
yea but you can't put nuclear rods in the stockings of bad children for that reason Coal > Nuclear.

LMAO

Rep

Rausch
03-17-2011, 11:24 AM
Dumbass, you're thinking of Italy.

Dumbass, who thinks of Italy?...
:spock:

jiveturkey
03-17-2011, 11:29 AM
This vid does an excellent job of explaining the situation in poo terms.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5sakN2hSVxA?rel=0&amp;hd=1" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Rausch
03-17-2011, 11:33 AM
This vid does an excellent job of explaining the situation in poo terms.

I'm pretty sure that's the only terms you can explain it in...

Just Passin' By
03-17-2011, 11:37 AM
For the record, as far as I know, that is 18 more people than ever died in teh US for working in the nuclear power plant industry.

RECA says otherwise. Coal mining results in deaths. Uranium mining results in deaths.

DJ's left nut
03-17-2011, 11:42 AM
This vid does an excellent job of explaining the situation in poo terms.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5sakN2hSVxA?rel=0&amp;hd=1" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

There is a real chance that I'll never spend 4 minutes of my life more effectively again.

That. Was. Awesome.

Rausch
03-17-2011, 11:48 AM
There is a real chance that I'll never spend 4 minutes of my life more effectively again.

...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CAXRcebhcYs/TJS6hUWm-JI/AAAAAAAAGHc/Oxd-vBozROQ/s400/i-m-still-here-movie-poster-0.jpg

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 11:55 AM
That's facetious.


eh, wha....? You're saying that there aren't constant, very low and usually safe levels of radiation all around us all the time?

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 12:04 PM
I have a fascinating report from a well known investment bank that I can't post due to copyright issues, but I can quickly summarize.

1. The phrase "spent" fuel rods is potentially misleading, because the term spent doesn't mean inert/inactive. It means their usefulness is spent because they have accumulated additional neutrons from the fissioning process adn thus become MORE unpredictable and MORE radioactive. Spent rods have more radioactive particles than in the operating reactors.

2. A Brookhaven National Laboratory study using OLDER spent fuel than at Fukushima estimated that all water would boil away after 40 hours, a much shorter time than what has otherwise been posted on this thread.

3. The Fukushima spent fuel pools are near the top of the plant, which makes them harder to deal with, and a generally more dangerous situation. It's also not entirely clear what happens when you pour water on spent fuel rods if the zirconium casing has been compromised.

4. According to the newsletter, and something I haven't seen elsewhere, it's possible that all the power problems stem from having the fuel storage tanks for the backup generators sitting OUT IN THE OPEN ON THE FRICKING BEACH, with aerial photos suggesting the tsunami completely took them out to sea. If they had just had the fuel protected (underground or within sturdy structures), maybe none of this would be happening, comparing the situation at Daiichi to Daini, only 10 miles away, where the situation is stable (and where the fuel for the backup generators was not compromised).

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-17-2011, 12:20 PM
eh, wha....? You're saying that there aren't constant, very low and usually safe levels of radiation all around us all the time?

No, I'm saying such an observation is facetious. It's a pointless exercise in semantics.

Donger
03-17-2011, 12:26 PM
Tokyo Passengers Trigger U.S. Airport Detectors, N.Y. Post Says

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/tokyo-passengers-trigger-u-s-airport-detectors-n-y-post-says.html

Radiation detectors at Dallas-Fort Worth and Chicago O’Hare airports were triggered when passengers from flights that started in Tokyo passed through customs, the New York Post reported.

Tests at Dallas-Fort Worth indicated low radiation levels in travelers’ luggage and in the aircraft’s cabin filtration system; no passengers were quarantined, the newspaper said.

Details of the incident at O’Hare weren’t immediately clear, the Post said.

Donger
03-17-2011, 12:28 PM
And it sounds like they've got a power feed to one of the reactors now.

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 12:32 PM
No, I'm saying such an observation is facetious. It's a pointless exercise in semantics.


Well, no, not really.

So called sun worshippers (those who spent too much of their lives tanning themselves) have heightened risk for various cancers, including melanoma. People living in more sunny climates, or at higher altitudes, or in jobs that keep them outside in the sun, are at higher risk for such skin cancers.

We know that.

So we're always dealing with some small amounts of radiation. To what degree increased amounts of radiation, and over what period of time, increase such risks is what this side discussion is about.

I get your point that whether the baseline is zero or some number higher than zero might not be tremendously significant, but the question is how much MORE radiation than the everyday, normal radiation we're all exposed to is in the atmosphere around the plant, or in Tokyo, etc.

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 12:36 PM
Obama is visiting the Japanese Embassy in Washington. Will make a speech about the situation in the Rose Garden in a bit.

China and South Korea are sending hundreds of thousands of gallons of various fuels to Japan to help relief efforts.

American military is sending a nine member team of NBC exposure experts to Japan to help. SecDef Gates has offered $35MM for humanitarian aid.

Donger
03-17-2011, 12:38 PM
China and South Korea are sending hundreds of thousands of gallons of various fuels to Japan to help relief efforts.

Now there's some irony...

Bwana
03-17-2011, 12:42 PM
And it sounds like they've got a power feed to one of the reactors now.

Does this mean that we're not DOOMED? :hmmm:

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 12:42 PM
And it sounds like they've got a power feed to one of the reactors now.

Latest I've seen is Japan telling the IAEA that they have strung power cables to Reactor 2. Not sure if they're powered up yet.

Donger
03-17-2011, 12:44 PM
Does this mean that we're not DOOMED? :hmmm:

If they've got power established and the pumps are still operable, yes, pretty much. At least it won't get any worse.

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 12:44 PM
Now there's some irony...

I suspect there are not-a-few old timers in those countries saying "fuck 'em".

Whatever bitterness some people here have over Pearl Harbor, people in those two countries have times eleventy billion.

(and this isn't really directed at Donger, who knows this, but at anyone else reading this thread who isn't pretty familiar with the events of WWII).

Bwana
03-17-2011, 12:46 PM
If they've got power established and the pumps are still operable, yes, pretty much. At least it won't get any worse.

Well that's good. I don't have to deal with this kind of excitement and my coal fire plants or my refineries. Don't get me wrong, there can be some "interesting developments," but I don't have any nukes around here.

Nightfyre
03-17-2011, 12:55 PM
Well that's good. I don't have to deal with this kind of excitement and my coal fire plants or my refineries. Don't get me wrong, there can be some "interesting developments," but I don't have any nukes around here.

Bwana, if montana seceded from the union and kept the nukes, we would be the third largest nuclear power in the world. At least I heard that once.

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 12:57 PM
Posted on Reuters ~15 minutes ago.


By Kiyoshi Takenaka (http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=kiyoshi.takenaka&) and Junko Fujita (http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=junko.fujita&)
TOKYO | Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:43pm EDT


TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan (http://www.reuters.com/places/japan)ese engineers worked through the night to lay a 1.5 km (one mile) electricity cable to a crippled nuclear power plant in the hope of restarting pumps desperately needed to pour cold water on overheating fuel rods and avert a catastrophe.

Officials could not say when the cable might be connected, but said work would stop on Friday morning to allow helicopters and fire trucks to resume pouring water on the Daiichi plant, about 240 km (150 miles) north of Tokyo.

"Preparatory work has so far not progressed as fast as we had hoped," an official of plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) told a news briefing, adding that a cold snap was hampering the effort.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/17/us-japan-quake-idUSTRE72A0SS20110317

teedubya
03-17-2011, 01:03 PM
<object width="400" height="300" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://ireport.cnn.com/themes/custom/resources/cvplayer/ireport_embed.swf?player=embed&configPath=http://ireport.cnn.com&playlistId=573238&contentId=573238/0&" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><embed src="http://ireport.cnn.com/themes/custom/resources/cvplayer/ireport_embed.swf?player=embed&configPath=http://ireport.cnn.com&playlistId=573238&contentId=573238/0&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="300"></embed></object>

iReport —
I am roughly sixty to seventy kilometers due west from the nuclear plants that the Japanese authorities are struggling so hard to control. I witnessed two military helicopters fly over. Now, I am watching those same helicopters dropping water and attempting to cool those plants on the in-dash television of my car. This is as close as I am able to get to the plant. The video shows the needle of my Bicron PGM slamming the right side of the meter. I was taught in specialized training for this trip that, if this happened, I was to flee the area.

Sorry for any spelling typos or grammar mistakes. It's hard to edit while fleeing and, simultaneously, using CNN APP.

Bwana
03-17-2011, 01:08 PM
Bwana, if montana seceded from the union and kept the nukes, we would be the third largest nuclear power in the world. At least I heard that once.

Perhaps, but I don't have any I directly deal with. Most of that is the US Air Force. The nastiest stuff I deal with, is HF acid and Sulfur Dioxide.

Donger
03-17-2011, 01:12 PM
<object width="400" height="300" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://ireport.cnn.com/themes/custom/resources/cvplayer/ireport_embed.swf?player=embed&configPath=http://ireport.cnn.com&playlistId=573238&contentId=573238/0&" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><embed src="http://ireport.cnn.com/themes/custom/resources/cvplayer/ireport_embed.swf?player=embed&configPath=http://ireport.cnn.com&playlistId=573238&contentId=573238/0&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="300"></embed></object>

iReport —
I am roughly sixty to seventy kilometers due west from the nuclear plants that the Japanese authorities are struggling so hard to control. I witnessed two military helicopters fly over. Now, I am watching those same helicopters dropping water and attempting to cool those plants on the in-dash television of my car. This is as close as I am able to get to the plant. The video shows the needle of my Bicron PGM slamming the right side of the meter. I was taught in specialized training for this trip that, if this happened, I was to flee the area.

Sorry for any spelling typos or grammar mistakes. It's hard to edit while fleeing and, simultaneously, using CNN APP.

Kind of unhelpful without knowing which setting it's on.

cdcox
03-17-2011, 01:19 PM
4. According to the newsletter, and something I haven't seen elsewhere, it's possible that all the power problems stem from having the fuel storage tanks for the backup generators sitting OUT IN THE OPEN ON THE FRICKING BEACH, with aerial photos suggesting the tsunami completely took them out to sea. If they had just had the fuel protected (underground or within sturdy structures), maybe none of this would be happening, comparing the situation at Daiichi to Daini, only 10 miles away, where the situation is stable (and where the fuel for the backup generators was not compromised).

A friend of mine who trained as a nuclear engineer indicated the problem was that the diesel generators were built in a pit such that they were flooded by the Tsunami. He didn't mention the fuel supply, but both problems are related in that the emergency power was not designed to function in the midst of one of the most critical emergencies for that plant. Poor design.

loochy
03-17-2011, 01:23 PM
If they've got power established and the pumps are still operable, yes, pretty much. At least it won't get any worse.

Did you just hear that loud bang? It sounded like a gunshot!


Oh wait, it was just googlegoogle blowing his brains out.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-17-2011, 01:24 PM
Well, no, not really.

So called sun worshippers (those who spent too much of their lives tanning themselves) have heightened risk for various cancers, including melanoma. People living in more sunny climates, or at higher altitudes, or in jobs that keep them outside in the sun, are at higher risk for such skin cancers.

We know that.

So we're always dealing with some small amounts of radiation. To what degree increased amounts of radiation, and over what period of time, increase such risks is what this side discussion is about.

I get your point that whether the baseline is zero or some number higher than zero might not be tremendously significant, but the question is how much MORE radiation than the everyday, normal radiation we're all exposed to is in the atmosphere around the plant, or in Tokyo, etc.

It's orders of magnitude higher, as are the concentrations that workers have at various plants. Yes, you could technically consider a quadrillionth of a sievert as a subclinical dose, but in an adult discussion there is an expectation that we are operating under confines where these people are being exposed to far more than normal environmental doses, because in fact they are.

alnorth
03-17-2011, 03:16 PM
Pretty good article by the Christian Science Monitor today.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2011/0317/Fear-of-Japan-s-nuclear-crisis-far-exceeds-actual-risks-say-scientists

Fear of Japan's nuclear crisis far exceeds actual risks, say scientists

Fukushima is not Chernobyl, scientists repeat, and even Chernobyl was not as deadly as popularly believed.

...

“There is an increased level of anxiety disproportionate to the actual risk,” says Jerrold Bushberg, who directs programs in health physics at the University of California at Davis. “It’s the dose that makes the poison. It’s not a binary thing.”

Fear and hype surround radiation, which has become something of a bogeyman in part because of popular culture. A radioactive spider bit Peter Parker and turned him into Spiderman. Bruce Banner absorbed radiation in a bomb explosion and became The Incredible Hulk. Radiation from nuclear detonations morphed a small lizard into Godzilla.

“It gives you subliminal messages about the capacity of radiation to do harm,” Professor Bushberg says in a telephone interview.

To be sure, the 1986 nuclear meltdown north of Ukraine’s capital was tragic. Dozens of first-responders died within months from what doctors said was a combination of high radiation, trauma, and burns. It also led to cancer in hundreds of children, says Bushberg, who did environmental studies around Chernobyl in the late 1980s.

But the extent of devastation from Chernobyl is hotly debated.

“After more than 20 years of extensive study, there is no consistent evidence of increased birth defects, leukemia, or most other radiation-related diseases,” journalist Peter Hessler wrote in a 2010 article for The New Yorker. He said the only public epidemic consists of high rates of cancer in children, who tend to be more sensitive to radiation.

Even those incidences of cancer could have been prevented, scientists say, if the Soviet government had warned locals against feeding contaminated milk to their children.

“There’s a lack of objectivity sometimes in the responses of people,” he adds. “[The Fukushima crisis] needs to be viewed comparatively with other incidents much more deadly.”

Consider other industrial disasters, such as the 1984 leak of methyl isocyanate at a Union Carbide plan in Bhopal, India that killed some 20,000 people. It is one of many industrial disasters known by doctors to have directly killed thousands of people.

“Chernobyl was bad,” says Bushberg. “[But] in the general category of industrial disasters… no, it wasn’t so bad. Certainly one could quickly find industrial accidents that have resulted in much more serious affects than Chernobyl.”

And even then, Chernobyl was a very different incident from what is now unfolding at Fukushima Daiichi. Chernobyl’s reactor lacked a containment facility, unlike the Fukushima plant, whose GE-made containment vessels have withstood both an earthquake, tsunami, and thus far, a partial meltdown.

“It is blown out of proportion in the US,” says Najmedin Meshkati, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who has studied both Chernobyl and Japan’s nuclear industry.

“We shouldn’t make a comparison between this one and Chernobyl. Primarily because over there there was no containment vessel, and the reactor exploded. We have partial meltdowns and so far they have been contained,” adds Dr. Meshkati.

Most of the rest of the article is about everyday background radiation we are exposed to every day, which has already been talked about to death. When looking at Chernobyl and how bad it was or was not compared to perception, its also useful to note that Chernobyl's core exploded and an open-air radioactive graphite fire burned for almost 2 weeks to spread radiation everywhere. That is now almost impossible today.

Chiefnj2
03-17-2011, 03:22 PM
Pretty dumb to downplay Chernobyl's impact. There is still a 20 mile dead zone around the facility that won't be livable for the next 600 years.

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 03:35 PM
Pretty dumb to downplay Chernobyl's impact. There is still a 20 mile dead zone around the facility that won't be livable for the next 600 years.

I guess. The phrase "20 mile dead zone" suggests that it's devoid of life, or at least life that doesn't have three eyeballs, which is not at all the case. Cutting through the controversy, and not to go all Alnorth, but here's the facts that I think are incontrovertible:

1. the situation at Chernobyl (explosion of fully operating nuclear reactor, subsequent fire/plume which took weeks to put out) is much worse than anything that has happened, or that appears at all likely to happen, at Fukushima Daiichi.

2. the consequences of Chernobyl, in terms of the radioactive contamination, are hotly debated to this day, nearly 25 years later, but in any event appear to be MUCH less dire than most people expected.

3. The Japanese very quickly evacuated a significant area around the plant, to minimize the risks to the population.

4. The Japanese plant, unlike Chernobyl, actually has containment structures, which further limits the consequences of a release event.

All that is the good news, and it is in fact very good (in the larger context of a very bad event, of course). The bad news is that Chernobyl was in a very sparsely populated area, in comparison to Northern Japan, so the margin of error, if there is a serious release, is much smaller.

DJ's left nut
03-17-2011, 03:42 PM
I suspect there are not-a-few old timers in those countries saying "**** 'em".

Whatever bitterness some people here have over Pearl Harbor, people in those two countries have times eleventy billion.

(and this isn't really directed at Donger, who knows this, but at anyone else reading this thread who isn't pretty familiar with the events of WWII).

Didn't Japan roll into China and massacre thousands because of the Doolittle Raid?

In fairness to China and Korea, any animosity directed towards the Japanese due to WWII is well-earned. They were absolute barbarians and the fact that they treated enemy combatants the way they did likely played a very very large role in our decision to nuke 'em rather than send in a massive ground force to face similar atrocities.

The lessons taken from Japan's actions in WWII largely while I'll never get behind torturing enemy prisoners. Ultimately, the way you treat your enemy will come back on you, often leading to the needless deaths of your own soldiers to combatants that refuse to surrender due to what awaits. I know I wouldn't have ever surrendered to them; I'd have shot as many of them as I could. I'd far prefer take a bullet to the dome that be beaten and starved to death.

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 03:49 PM
Didn't Japan roll into China and massacre thousands because of the Doolittle Raid?

I hadn't heard this, but wouldn't be surprised. It's hardly relevant however -- the Japanese had been committing atrocities in China for years before Pearl Harbor. The Rape of Nanking -- which is an absolute abomination and stain on the history of mankind -- was 1937 for chrissakes.

In fairness to China and Korea, any animosity directed towards the Japanese due to WWII is well-earned. They were absolute barbarians and the fact that they treated enemy combatants the way they did likely played a very very large role in our decision to nuke 'em rather than send in a massive ground force to face similar atrocities.

Agreed all around. The thing to remember here, like with Germany, is that those atrocities are now several generations removed from the population of the current country, and all the leaders involved in those decisions died 50+ years ago. At some point, you need to move on.

The lessons taken from Japan's actions in WWII largely while I'll never get behind torturing enemy prisoners. Ultimately, the way you treat your enemy will come back on you, often leading to the needless deaths of your own soldiers to combatants that refuse to surrender due to what awaits. I know I wouldn't have ever surrendered to them; I'd have shot as many of them as I could. I'd far prefer take a bullet to the dome that be beaten and starved to death.

Also agreed.

DJ's left nut
03-17-2011, 03:52 PM
I hadn't heard this, but wouldn't be surprised. It's hardly relevant however -- the Japanese had been committing atrocities in China for years before Pearl Harbor. The Rape of Nanking -- which is an absolute abomination and stain on the history of mankind -- was 1937 for chrissakes.


Holy hell, I didn't realize it was this bad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhejiang-Jiangxi_Campaign

A quarter million Chinese citizens massacred because they gave aid to the downed pilots along the coast. Unbelievable. Then they went around spreading tyhpus? Yeah - probably not a lot of love for Japan in China.

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 03:58 PM
Holy hell, I didn't realize it was this bad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhejiang-Jiangxi_Campaign

A quarter million Chinese citizens massacred because they gave aid to the downed pilots along the coast. Unbelievable. Then they went around spreading tyhpus? Yeah - probably not a lot of love for Japan in China.

What Japan did to China and South Korea was not quite comparable to what Germany did to the Jews only because it was not systematic and probably not quite as horrible in terms of numbers.

But if you remove the Holocaust, then the Japanese conduct during the 1933-45 period is about as bad as anything done in all of human history by any one nation.

Donger
03-17-2011, 03:59 PM
Bah! History geek invasion!

http://clubtukinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/spray-bottle.gif

KC Dan
03-17-2011, 04:00 PM
Yeah - probably not a lot of love for Japan in China.
No doubt very true in the older generation of Chinese. Having said that, I have spent time in Dalian China and Beijing last year and both places especially Dalian have large Japanese areas of town where many live and have no issues. I asked my Chinese counterpart if there was hatred towards the Japanese because of the past and he said that for the most part it is only from the older folks.

Makes a lot of sense because during all of my time in Japan, many, many months in the past 10 years, I always feel like hatred or at a a minimum dissatisfaction is being directed at me from older folks due to the "A" bombs but not so much from the younger generations. I sometimes feel a bit guilty when I lock eyes with very old Japanese people on trains or a restaurant. I know that I shouldn't but I do

Donger
03-17-2011, 04:02 PM
I sometimes feel a bit guilty when I lock eyes with very old Japanese people on trains or a restaurant. I know that I shouldn't but I do

No, you really, really shouldn't.

KC Dan
03-17-2011, 04:04 PM
No, you really, really shouldn't.Hey, I know that. Hell, one of uncles was shot down in the Pacific and never found during WWII. But, can't help it

Ebolapox
03-17-2011, 04:09 PM
Perhaps, but I don't have any I directly deal with. Most of that is the US Air Force. The nastiest stuff I deal with, is HF acid and Sulfur Dioxide.

neither of which you really want to fuck with. *shudder*

Bwana
03-17-2011, 04:19 PM
neither of which you really want to **** with. *shudder*

You've got that right. I always make sure I'm geared up and never take any chances......EVER. When you're dealing with things that can leave you looking like the elephant man, or drop you dead in literally a second, (depending on PPM) it's safety first.

alnorth
03-17-2011, 04:53 PM
Holy hell, I didn't realize it was this bad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhejiang-Jiangxi_Campaign

A quarter million Chinese citizens massacred because they gave aid to the downed pilots along the coast. Unbelievable. Then they went around spreading tyhpus? Yeah - probably not a lot of love for Japan in China.

yeah. We didn't really hold much of a grudge, but there's a good reason why there's still a bit of Chinese-Japanese feelings and tension even today.

alnorth
03-17-2011, 05:11 PM
Pretty dumb to downplay Chernobyl's impact. There is still a 20 mile dead zone around the facility that won't be livable for the next 600 years.

You'll need to define livable. It has become something of a wildlife preserve there, thousands of workers basically live half the year there even if they don't officially live there (4 days on, 3 days off), and hundreds of people (not counting squatters) who were several miles away from any hotspot either refused to evacuate or insisted on returning soon after evacuating. A lot of them are still there all these decades later, seemingly not all that much worse off. It is not a good idea to drink the water or eat whatever is growing there, but the background radiation a few miles away from the hotspots is not that high.

And, again something like Chernobyl is almost impossible to reoccur where you need to permanently advise people to evacuate 20 miles. Nuclear power should not be overly criticized or abandoned because of safety.

It should be abandoned because it is just too damned expensive. Just burn natural gas and coal for electricity, we've got tons and tons of coal and natural gas within the USA. Save that expensive nuclear power for subs and aircraft carriers.

alnorth
03-17-2011, 05:25 PM
Reports coming out of Japan now say they finished building the power cable to the reactors. I'm no electrician, but apparently there's still several hours or maybe a day of work to get that cable ready to transmit power before they basically flip the switch. If the primary cooling systems are undamaged and still work at all reactors, then this could be over as early as tomorrow evening.

I'm a little confused like others on this thread though. I takes almost a week to put up an electrical cable that can transmit power a couple miles? I know thats usually hard but in a huge national emergency couldn't you bring in the army, engineers, hoards of volunteer labor, whoever and knock that out in just a day or two?

Pants
03-17-2011, 05:27 PM
Hey, I know that. Hell, one of uncles was shot down in the Pacific and never found during WWII. But, can't help it

Look up "Unit 731" and you won't feel guilty anymore. Guaranteed.

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 09:25 PM
Reports coming out of Japan now say they finished building the power cable to the reactors. I'm no electrician, but apparently there's still several hours or maybe a day of work to get that cable ready to transmit power before they basically flip the switch. If the primary cooling systems are undamaged and still work at all reactors, then this could be over as early as tomorrow evening.

I'm a little confused like others on this thread though. I takes almost a week to put up an electrical cable that can transmit power a couple miles? I know thats usually hard but in a huge national emergency couldn't you bring in the army, engineers, hoards of volunteer labor, whoever and knock that out in just a day or two?

Agreed. Completely baffling.

Rain Man
03-17-2011, 09:29 PM
Agreed. Completely baffling.

I'd been wondering that myself. When the power company managers were prioritizing where to reinstate power, you'd think that "nuclear plant about to meltdown" would pretty make the top of the list without a whole lot of disagreement.

FAX
03-17-2011, 09:55 PM
I'd been wondering that myself. When the power company managers were prioritizing where to reinstate power, you'd think that "nuclear plant about to meltdown" would pretty make the top of the list without a whole lot of disagreement.

I think we may have finally identified the problem.

According to CNN, there are no words in Japanese for "imminent nuclear meltdown". The nearest translation is, "Young flowers illuminated by burning rain."

And, apparently, there are also no words in their language for, "Hide yo kids, hide yo husband, they's meltin' down everybody 'round here."

FAX

orange
03-17-2011, 10:01 PM
As I understand it the problem was they had a three-prong socket and only had two-prong cord.

Baconeater
03-17-2011, 10:12 PM
As I understand it the problem was they had a three-prong socket and only had two-prong cord.
That's not really a problem, it's when you have a two-prong socket and only have a three-prong cord that the trouble begins, because you have your own personal nuclear meltdown when you can't remember where in the fuck you put the damn adapter thingy.

teedubya
03-17-2011, 11:27 PM
don't worry, Obama is monitoring the situation.

teedubya
03-17-2011, 11:29 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5R87YhYbnkA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-17-2011, 11:39 PM
Without watching the video, I'd bet that's the Sword of Damocles speech. Even if it's not, Kennedy is full of shit for giving it, because the man ran on the idea of a missile gap that both he and his advisers knew was false.

teedubya
03-18-2011, 12:33 AM
Hamas, What do you make of this? Apparently that radiation cloud is helping fuel a giant storm in the pacific.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kesP0IZggww

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kesP0IZggww" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://www.weather.com/maps/maptype/satelliteworld/pacificoceansatellite_larg...

http://www.intellicast.com/Storm/Hurricane/PacificSatellite.aspx?animate=true

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1766

http://www.weather.gov/view/prodsByState.php?state=CA&prodtype=discussion

Claynus
03-18-2011, 12:39 AM
Apparently that radiation cloud is helping fuel a giant storm in the pacific.

2012 is coming!

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-18-2011, 12:43 AM
Correlation does not imply causation. If sudden outbursts of radiation caused giant storms, one would think that we would have had a massive number of unusually large storms beginning in the 1950s and continuing until the Atmospheric Test Ban. To the best of my knowledge, we didn't.

teedubya
03-18-2011, 12:58 AM
True. I didn't think it CAUSED the storm. Just seems pretty big. I know large storms in the pacific are somewhat common, but I don't recall ever hearing of hurricane type storms on the west coast. It doesn't appear to have hurricane wind speeds though. And it appears to be going towards Alaska/Canada.

http://www.intellicast.com/Storm/Hurricane/PacificSatellite.aspx?animate=true

Just Passin' By
03-18-2011, 01:06 AM
True. I didn't think it CAUSED the storm, but it looks like it's adding to the shit storm.

http://www.intellicast.com/Storm/Hurricane/PacificSatellite.aspx?animate=true

This thing looks huge. It doesn't appear to have hurricane wind speeds though. Have we had a hurricane-like tropical storm on the west coast? I don't recall ever hearing of one.

Tropical Storm Nora was the last one to hit California.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Nora_%281997%29

alnorth
03-18-2011, 06:55 AM
The only thing coming out of the plants right now is a bit of radioactive steam, as well as radiation particles from who knows where (probably unit 3, I guess). Any weather that forms over the ocean is coincidental.

Also, just about every scientist on the planet is saying that Californians are nuts to worry about Japan, but it would be nice to quantify why. I heard one professor throw out a rule of thumb that whatever happens a mile or two east of the reactor, take that number and divide it by a billion and thats probably the worst case scenario for the west coast.

To grab one unlikely example out of thin air, a reading of 1,000 mSv/hour a couple miles east of the reactor would be an incredible, life-threatening, and horrifyingly high number. I don't think we saw that much radiation from a spot a couple miles away from Chernobyl right after it blew (more like 10 instead of 1,000), but what the hell, lets go with it. That divided by a billion is 1 nanoseivert/hr. We may or may not even be able to measure that small of an amount, and you'll certainly get far more than that even if you do nothing but wake up, watch TV all day, never leave the house, eat, and go back to sleep.

Hydrae
03-18-2011, 07:22 AM
2012 is coming!

In about 8 1/2 months. 12 months after that will be 2013. :eek:

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 08:43 AM
Also, just about every scientist on the planet is saying that Californians are nuts to worry about Japan, but it would be nice to quantify why.

I know you meant this in terms of radioactivity but this geologist says the entire Ring of Fire is following a clockwise pattern in earthquakes which means a high probability a big one is heading for our west coast. This plus strange patterns with fish and animals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQXDt4VdS0E&feature=player_embedded#at=235

alnorth
03-18-2011, 08:59 AM
I know you meant this in terms of radioactivity but this geologist says the entire Ring of Fire is following a clockwise pattern in earthquakes which means a high probability a big one is heading for our west coast. This plus strange patterns with fish and animals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQXDt4VdS0E&feature=player_embedded#at=235

California is definitely overdue for a massive quake, even bigger than the Northridge quake in 1994. The good news is that most of the San Andreas fault is on land except a bit in northern CA, so there's little (but not zero) chance of a horrible tsunami in the most populated areas of the coast.

If anyone should worry about a rare monster tsunami, it should probably be Oregon and Washington, since the fault line leaves land and extends into the ocean up there, but that fault very rarely does much.

Dartgod
03-18-2011, 09:01 AM
I know you meant this in terms of radioactivity but this geologist says the entire Ring of Fire is following a clockwise pattern in earthquakes which means a high probability a big one is heading for our west coast. This plus strange patterns with fish and animals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQXDt4VdS0E&feature=player_embedded#at=235
OMG!

WHY DIDN'T SOMEONE LET US KNOW ABOUT THIS SOONER????!!!!
Posted via Mobile Device

L.A. Chieffan
03-18-2011, 09:02 AM
its friiday friiiday, nuclear reaction for the weeeeekend!

Deberg_1990
03-18-2011, 09:43 AM
its friiday friiiday, nuclear reaction for the weeeeekend!

We-we-we so excited
We so excited
acid rain and fallout comes after...wards
I don’t want this weekend to end

KC Dan
03-18-2011, 09:45 AM
OMG!

WHY DIDN'T SOMEONE LET US KNOW ABOUT THIS SOONER????!!!!
Posted via Mobile DeviceHOLY CRAP!!!!! ANYONE GOT A SPARE BEDROOM? I NEED TO FLEE, NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dartgod
03-18-2011, 10:21 AM
HOLY CRAP!!!!! ANYONE GOT A SPARE BEDROOM? I NEED TO FLEE, NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I might be able to clear a space for you. :thumb:
Posted via Mobile Device

Amnorix
03-18-2011, 12:18 PM
Alnorth is happy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/us-japan-quake-radiation-health-idUSTRE72H6IZ20110318

Title of article:
Special Report: Radiation fears may be greatly exaggerated

alnorth
03-18-2011, 12:59 PM
Alnorth is happy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/us-japan-quake-radiation-health-idUSTRE72H6IZ20110318

Title of article:
Special Report: Radiation fears may be greatly exaggerated

eh, honestly I'm a little more concerned now for Japan's sake (but probably less than most) than I was a couple days ago when I went on a long multi-post rant. Those dry pools with spent fuel rods could do some serious damage if they begin to burn.

I'm also not necessarily in favor of nuclear power plants in the USA because coal and gas are cheaper and we've got plenty of both. (In Japan they have little choice, they have no natural resources and would have to import it all) I'd just rather criticize nuclear power for the correct reasons (too damned expensive, don't care about global warming) than for safety.

Hydrae
03-18-2011, 01:22 PM
California is definitely overdue for a massive quake, even bigger than the Northridge quake in 1994. The good news is that most of the San Andreas fault is on land except a bit in northern CA, so there's little (but not zero) chance of a horrible tsunami in the most populated areas of the coast.

If anyone should worry about a rare monster tsunami, it should probably be Oregon and Washington, since the fault line leaves land and extends into the ocean up there, but that fault very rarely does much.

I have been hearing more and more that the Cascadia Subduction Zone is overdue for a quake. If (when) it goes, the northwest is pretty screwed. Sorry Dan.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/big_earthquake_coming_sooner_t.html

KC Dan
03-18-2011, 01:33 PM
I have been hearing more and more that the Cascadia Subduction Zone is overdue for a quake. If (when) it goes, the northwest is pretty screwed. Sorry Dan.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/big_earthquake_coming_sooner_t.htmlHell, I'm looking forward to it. I live far enough inland (30 mi) that it would have to be one hell of a Tsunami. Then. I'm going looting! This is America and it is MY right since our gov't is screwing us.

Baby Lee
03-18-2011, 01:40 PM
eh, honestly I'm a little more concerned now for Japan's sake (but probably less than most) than I was a couple days ago when I went on a long multi-post rant. Those dry pools with spent fuel rods could do some serious damage if they begin to burn.

I'm also not necessarily in favor of nuclear power plants in the USA because coal and gas are cheaper and we've got plenty of both. (In Japan they have little choice, they have no natural resources and would have to import it all) I'd just rather criticize nuclear power for the correct reasons (too damned expensive, don't care about global warming) than for safety.

You keep stating this mantra about the expense of nuclear, and I'm wondering what you mean.

By far the heaviest expenses of nuclear are self imposed, safety compliance and [over]building to code. $$/KWh while in production is still massively less expensive than combustion tech. Even while in production, the overwhelming bulk of cost to produce is certification and maintenance. The production itself remains 'too cheap to meter' [ie, it'd be cheaper to provide it free for life than to provide every customer with a meter and employ a billing staff].

And to clear up another thing while the issue of spent fuel pools is current. Can't speak for Japan, but in the US, those pools contain EVERY BIT of fuel ever consumed. Kind of offers a sense of scale. Labadie plant, on a full load day, consumes an entire trainload of coal in a day, at a rate of an entire railcar full in 8 minutes. Whereas Calloway had all of its spent fuel from decades of operation in a containment pool about the size of 3-4 rail cars. A sizeable portion of their operation costs [$$Ms annually] consist of payments for future Yucca Mountain storage while not a single rod has ever gone there. They also can continue to contain onsite for the next century.

Pants
03-18-2011, 01:51 PM
Nuclear power is the goddamn future, deal with it! Unless, of course, we all die in 2012.

bevischief
03-18-2011, 01:52 PM
You can blame Clinton for canceling the next generation nuclear power plant that would use everything and leaving no radioactive waste.

Nightfyre
03-18-2011, 01:54 PM
You can blame Clinton for canceling the next generation nuclear power plant that would use everything and leaving no radioactive waste.

Link?

I would be interested in more info on this.

Bwana
03-18-2011, 02:02 PM
Hell, I'm looking forward to it. I live far enough inland (30 mi) that it would have to be one hell of a Tsunami. Then. I'm going looting! This is America and it is MY right since our gov't is screwing us.

Looting hell! If you are now 30 miles in, you may have yourself a fine piece of Ocean Front Property when the dust settles!

orange
03-18-2011, 02:04 PM
A long, long article:

Japan’s Nuclear Disaster Caps Decades of Faked Safety Reports, Accidents (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/japan-s-nuclear-disaster-caps-decades-of-faked-safety-reports-accidents.html)

:)

It's hard to pick out a "highlight," but this probably takes the cake:

Botched Container?

Mitsuhiko Tanaka, 67, working as an engineer at Babcock Hitachi K.K., helped design and supervise the manufacture of a $250 million steel pressure vessel for Tokyo Electric in 1975. Today, that vessel holds the fuel rods in the core of the No. 4 reactor at Fukushima’s Dai-Ichi plant, hit by explosion and fire after the tsunami.

Tanaka says the vessel was damaged in the production process. He says he knows because he orchestrated the cover-up. When he brought his accusations to the government more than a decade later, he was ignored, he says.

The accident occurred when Tanaka and his team were strengthening the steel in the pressure vessel, heating it in a furnace to more than 600 degrees Celsius (1,112 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that melts metal. Braces that should have been inside the vessel during the blasting were either forgotten or fell over. After it cooled, Tanaka found that its walls had warped.

KC Dan
03-18-2011, 02:12 PM
Looting hell! If you are now 30 miles in, you may have yourself a fine piece of Ocean Front Property when the dust settles!Sweeeeeet!!! Beach party at my place!

alnorth
03-18-2011, 02:12 PM
Couple recent and decent articles.

One is a long nerdy wonky article from the Cato institute (which you'd think might be politically predisposed to supporting nuclear), and the other from the business section of the Boston Globe.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9740

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/03/18/nuclear_power_just_too_expensive/

In theory once you have each plant built, nuclear power is cheaper to produce, but nuclear has a lot of tough financial problems. the cost to build a nuclear reactor in this country is enormous compared to coal and gas. Gas and coal also is slightly quicker to build, so there's some opportunity cost there. Finally, nuclear cant really play in the highly profitable peak demand market, they can only give base load power, while something like a gas plant can quickly ramp up to make a quick buck if a neighboring community is desperate to buy more power. It takes longer to get your investment return back, and the risk of loss is probably higher with nuclear.

Meanwhile, the cost to extract natural gas, which we've got a ton of, has fallen, so the price to buy natural gas is pretty cheap now. If I were an investor looking to help build a new plant for profit, I might invest in a natural gas plant today instead of nuclear or coal.

Just Passin' By
03-18-2011, 02:24 PM
Here's one for the anti-government/business crowd. It will not make Alnorth happy:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367684/Nuclear-plant-chief-weeps-Japanese-finally-admit-radiation-leak-kill-people.html

Baby Lee
03-18-2011, 02:26 PM
Re: peak demand, Taum Sauk notwithstanding, nuclear is so much cheaper that peak demand is answered easily with oversizing for average demand, and utilizing storage tech [flywheels, reservoirs, compressors, etc.] to be unleashed in peak periods.

alnorth
03-18-2011, 02:28 PM
Here's one for the anti-government/business crowd. It will not make Alnorth happy:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367684/Nuclear-plant-chief-weeps-Japanese-finally-admit-radiation-leak-kill-people.html

news flash: radiation within a few yards of these plants is pretty dang high.

Suddenly those rotating shifts of 50 (now 100 or so) make sense. I thought they arbitrarily did that for no reason except to make it more challenging for themselves.

Bambi
03-18-2011, 02:54 PM
http://fastcache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/03/medium_0318_crying.jpg

Fat Elvis
03-18-2011, 03:33 PM
Couple recent and decent articles.

One is a long nerdy wonky article from the Cato institute (which you'd think might be politically predisposed to supporting nuclear), and the other from the business section of the Boston Globe.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9740

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/03/18/nuclear_power_just_too_expensive/

In theory once you have each plant built, nuclear power is cheaper to produce, but nuclear has a lot of tough financial problems. the cost to build a nuclear reactor in this country is enormous compared to coal and gas. Gas and coal also is slightly quicker to build, so there's some opportunity cost there. Finally, nuclear cant really play in the highly profitable peak demand market, they can only give base load power, while something like a gas plant can quickly ramp up to make a quick buck if a neighboring community is desperate to buy more power. It takes longer to get your investment return back, and the risk of loss is probably higher with nuclear.

Meanwhile, the cost to extract natural gas, which we've got a ton of, has fallen, so the price to buy natural gas is pretty cheap now. If I were an investor looking to help build a new plant for profit, I might invest in a natural gas plant today instead of nuclear or coal.

Imagine that: the Cato Institute says to use more natural gas. Like that isn't a bit biased considering Koch Industries play in natural gas and natural gas pipelines....

orange
03-18-2011, 05:00 PM
http://timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/earthquakes_america1.jpg?w=455


Catastrophic quakes can (and do) happen in the U.S. — and not just on the West Coast.

A seismic map released by the United States Geological Survey shows that 39 out of 50 states have a moderate to high risk of earthquakes, bringing realism to concerns that such a large-scale disaster could happen in America.

While the majority of earthquake-prone areas lie in the West, as well as in Alaska and Hawaii, this chart points out an area of middle America that is particularly dangerous, and if an earthquake struck, could affect up to 15 million people in eight states.

The 'New Madrid' fault line lies between St. Louis and Memphis, and was the site of some of the worst quakes ever to hit the U.S. In 1811 and 1812, a series of three large earthquakes (and subsequent aftershocks) rocked Missouri, damaging almost 232,000 square miles of land and creating complex physiographic changes, according to the USGS.

It's said that these quakes were so powerful that they were widely felt across the East Coast, including in New York City, Washington, D.C., and South Carolina. Fortunately, few people lived in the area during this time. But if a similar episode was to occur today, it could devastate a significant part of the country.

Even more frightening: a 2009 USGS report showed that this area is wholly unprepared for a major earthquake, in terms of both planning and infrastructure, and a total of 15 nuclear power plants also exist within the fault zone. With more than 200 small earthquakes happening in this area per year, experts fear it's only a matter of time until a big one hits. (via The Daily Mail)



Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/17/usgs-map-could-a-japan-sized-disaster-occur-in-memphis/#ixzz1GzkVqqYS

Then I'm walking in Memphis / Walking with my feet ten feet off of Beale

alnorth
03-18-2011, 05:08 PM
Imagine that: the Cato Institute says to use more natural gas. Like that isn't a bit biased considering Koch Industries play in natural gas and natural gas pipelines....

Yeah. That could have absolutely nothing to do with the price of natural gas, or our supply, or the lowest cost to build and maintain the plant, or the low risk, or the high profit potential, its all politics.

alnorth
03-18-2011, 05:15 PM
Oh, and for those who excessively care about the environment, Natural Gas isn't a bad option.

Rain Man
03-18-2011, 05:21 PM
http://timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/earthquakes_america1.jpg?w=455



I made another one showing supervolcano risk.

Donger
03-18-2011, 05:24 PM
Even more frightening: a 2009 USGS report showed that this area is wholly unprepared for a major earthquake, in terms of both planning and infrastructure, and a total of 15 nuclear power plants also exist within the fault zone.

:spock:

alnorth
03-18-2011, 05:54 PM
So far the Japan nuclear disaster has caused at least 7 people in our country to be sick. Radiation cloud that travelled 5,000 miles? No, dumb Americans having an adverse reaction to Potassium Iodide when they had no reason to pop those pills in the first place.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42135438/ns/health-health_care/

orange
03-18-2011, 06:04 PM
:spock:

I honestly think the nuclear power plant designers/builders/operators put a lot more thought into earthquake safety than those state governments have. At least I hope so.

Donger
03-18-2011, 06:46 PM
I honestly think the nuclear power plant designers/builders/operators put a lot more thought into earthquake safety than those state governments have. At least I hope so.

I wasn't :spock: at that. I was :spock: at the 15 plant claim.

orange
03-18-2011, 07:09 PM
I count 13 plus one proposed (reactors, of course, not necc. plants)

http://www.publicintegrity.org/assets/img/MAPUSA_609.jpg

http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/3039/

Donger
03-18-2011, 07:25 PM
I count 13 plus one proposed (reactors, of course, not necc. plants)

http://www.publicintegrity.org/assets/img/MAPUSA_609.jpg

http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/3039/

Unless that paragraph was horribly written, they were referring to the the New Madrid fault zone.

alnorth
03-18-2011, 07:25 PM
Given that 1970's technology was able to resist an earthquake hundreds of times stronger than they were rated for (before a freak 30-foot tsunami wiped them out) I count only 4 locations on that map which are even vaguely questionable, and even then its debatable whether those faults are even capable of producing a 9.0

Bwana
03-18-2011, 10:43 PM
I made another one showing supervolcano risk.

Yeah, if that thing ever implodes, it's been real! Dirt (ASH) nap for Bwana time.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 09:20 AM
So far the Japan nuclear disaster has caused at least 7 people in our country to be sick. Radiation cloud that travelled 5,000 miles? No, dumb Americans having an adverse reaction to Potassium Iodide when they had no reason to pop those pills in the first place.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42135438/ns/health-health_care/
This is true with every properly prescribed prescription drug too. There's also fillers in vitamin supplements that people can be allergic to.


He warned that the drug could cause serious reactions in some people and even backfire in the case of an actual emergency...

One thing that will help the Japanese is that they eat a LOT of seaweed which is loaded with natural iodine.

Rams Fan
03-19-2011, 09:21 AM
Nuclear Power Plant Simulator:

http://esa21.kennesaw.edu/activities/nukeenergy/nuke.htm

alnorth
03-19-2011, 08:37 PM
Don't mean to get political, but this is very relevant.

On another note, this huge crisis (as well as recent court rulings against the administration) may force the Yucca mountain project to be revived, which Obama tried to shut down and which Reid has vowed to keep defunded.

The Japanese reactors are in bad shape but mostly seem to be under control. If that was all, this would not be as much of an issue since the fire trucks seem to be hosing plenty of water in now to keep them cool. The reason why we've still got a big crisis is the pools where spent fuel rods were stored, which sprang leaks. Those old fuel rods may yet catch fire and turn this into a massive disaster.

So, what does the US do with spent fuel rods? Every single fuel rod that has ever been used up is stored on site in water pools just like at these japanese reactors. If those pools are dry, thats bad because those slightly-warm rods can react with each other to eventually burn.

Alternatively, after you give a rod about 1 year to cool down in a water pool, each of those spent rods could be individually entombed in metal and buried indefinitely at least 200 feet below ground. (If a cool rod is isolated from other rods, it will just stay cool in a dry cask without any need for any water while the radiation decays.) This was what we had in mind for Yucca Mountain in NV, stop storing all these old rods on-site in dozens or hundreds of pools all over the country near populated areas, and instead entomb each rod and store them seperately in Yucca Mountain out in the middle of nowhere.

2 years ago, Obama and Reid basically said "we're fine storing all our waste in water pools, so forget about Yucca mountain." Well no, Japan shows us thats not fine if something happens to drain those pools and we cant refill them. At least reactor cores are encased in concrete with core-catchers and other designed features to mitigate the impact of a meltdown.

Obama and Reid needs to learn from Japan by realizing that whether Nevadans like it or not, we need Yucca mountain.

Reaper16
03-19-2011, 08:43 PM
Don't mean to get political, but this is very relevant.

On another note, this huge crisis (as well as recent court rulings against the administration) may force the Yucca mountain project to be revived, which Obama tried to shut down and which Reid has vowed to keep defunded.

The Japanese reactors are in bad shape but mostly seem to be under control. If that was all, this would not be as much of an issue since the fire trucks seem to be hosing plenty of water in now to keep them cool. The reason why we've still got a big crisis is the pools where spent fuel rods were stored, which sprang leaks. Those old fuel rods may yet catch fire and turn this into a massive disaster.

So, what does the US do with spent fuel rods? Every single fuel rod that has ever been used up is stored on site in water pools just like at these japanese reactors. If those pools are dry, thats bad because those slightly-warm rods can react with each other to eventually burn.

Alternatively, after you give a rod about 1 year to cool down in a water pool, each of those spent rods could be individually entombed in metal and buried indefinitely at least 200 feet below ground. (If a cool rod is isolated from other rods, it will just stay cool in a dry cask without any need for any water while the radiation decays.) This was what we had in mind for Yucca Mountain in NV, stop storing all these old rods on-site in dozens or hundreds of pools all over the country near populated areas, and instead entomb each rod and store them seperately in Yucca Mountain out in the middle of nowhere.

2 years ago, Obama and Reid basically said "we're fine storing all our waste in water pools, so forget about Yucca mountain." Well no, Japan shows us thats not fine if something happens to drain those pools and we cant refill them. At least reactor cores are encased in concrete with core-catchers and other designed features to mitigate the impact of a meltdown.

Obama and Reid needs to learn from Japan by realizing that whether Nevadans like it or not, we need Yucca mountain.

http://www.amazon.com/About-Mountain-John-DAgata/dp/0393339017/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300588944&sr=8-1

alnorth
03-19-2011, 08:56 PM
I don't give a rat's ass if a native american tribe somehow believes that a desolate desert mountain is sacred. If a better site is available, I'm fine with going with that instead of Yucca mountain, but storing lots of old rods together in water pools close to cities is no longer acceptable. Whether it is this mountain or somewhere else, we need a nuclear waste repository.

Dave Lane
03-19-2011, 09:21 PM
I don't give a rat's ass if a native american tribe somehow believes that a desolate desert mountain is sacred. If a better site is available, I'm fine with going with that instead of Yucca mountain, but storing lots of old rods together in water pools close to cities is no longer acceptable. Whether it is this mountain or somewhere else, we need a nuclear waste repository.

Quoted for truth.

Oh and have the reactors gone Chernobyl yet?

G2 wanted me to ask :)

alnorth
03-19-2011, 09:47 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704021504576210251376606080.html

The lesson of the day is if you need something to be soaked in water, then you should call the fire department. Looks like Japanese fire trucks have managed to cool the reactors enough to where the radiation in the area is falling quite a bit. The fuel rods at #5 and #6 are also not really a problem, so all we've probably got left is to make sure that the pools at #3 and #4 are full. They might be for all we know with all the intense FD water hosing, but no one can get close enough to see.

teedubya
03-19-2011, 10:09 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/c_db_AeHvIU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Joern Berninger,
Crisis Consulting

Dr. Berninger serves as a "Crisis Sherpa”, consulting his clients on the necessary preparations and investment strategies best suited for the current economic crisis, which he expects to last for several years. His predictions about the scope and the impacts of the financial crisis have earned him credibility and a proven track record. During the course of the crisis he has become one of the most accurate Trend Forecasters.

Entrenched in the subjects of business finance, macro-economics, monetary policy and growth forecasting, he helps companies maneuver through the fallout of the financial crisis and helps them to prepare and position for potential future impact.

Berninger also developed new, proprietary concenpts on measuring and comparing GDP, Deflation and Inflation allowing him to foresee eventual economic trends.

Berninger holds a Ph.D in Chemistry and an MBA from IESE Business School. He has a strong background in business strategy, operations, innovation and IT. In his career he has helped to grow businesses to a significant levels and successfully established new operations.

In 2005 he started predicting the financial crisis and following events. At that time he was involved in a start-up project and identified the need to secure financing in times of crisis. His analysis helped him not only to predict the coming crisis, but he also correctly predicted its start for 2007.

In an article, which he published in 2005 on his website, he described the impact and slow down of the Spanish economy and the decline of the stock markets for September 2007.

At the start of the financial crisis he started to get further entrenched into the details of what he thought to be the largest crisis which his generation will face. Since then he provides thoughts and opinions to a broader audience. As a result his website has become a valuable resource for business owners and investors to understand the impact on their business and investing decisions.

The website has a clear objective, which is to share knowledge and information with an ever increasing community of risk aware business owners and investors seeking solutions for their daily problems. The website allows them to participate and share their concerns or questions and to have access to otherwise limited resources.

alnorth
03-19-2011, 10:34 PM
Joern Berninger,
Crisis Consulting

etc...

This guy a family member looking for a job interview or something? Not sure if anyone in this thread owns a company looking to hire a risk management guy or not. In any case, he seems nice enough and hopefully he gets whatever he's looking for soon before his credibility is shot. ("japan is lost, tokyo is lost")

alnorth
03-20-2011, 10:12 AM
Sunday morning update: The pressure in reactor #3 is stabilizing to the point where they don't think they even need to vent steam anymore, or at least not for a while if they do. It is believed that all storage pools are partially filled with water, because the radiation levels coming from the storage pools have fallen. The only other reactor that is of any significant concern is reactor #2, which is under control since they have no problem with keeping it full of water, but they also think the containment in #2 was damaged by the quake so there's no margin for error in that reactor. So, they want to get that reactor into a cold safe shutdown before #3. If power is restored to the reactor's cooling systems today then they will have it well under control.

Unless something really weird happens (meteor strike, terrorists, another quake right now), they will not have to bury these reactors in sand and concrete. They will be taken apart and scrapped over the next few months.

In other words, if googlegoogle is reading any of this, Japan is not going Chernobyl. This is an accident, caused by a once a millenia earthquake for that region to an old reactor using 70's technology, that led to something a little worse than TMI.

Couple links:

http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/03/20/at-a-glance-pressure-levels-stabilizing-at-no-3/?mod=google_news_blog

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Pressure-Stabilizes-in-Japan-Reactor-2-Survivors-Found-118322559.html

teedubya
03-20-2011, 10:46 AM
God, I hope so. I don't think we are in the clear yet. I'm keeping the faith.

This information isn't what Japan is reporting though. My guess would be that the mainstream media in the US would rather us focus on March Madness and the bombing of Libya.

Couple links:

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/79849.html

http://enenews.com/renewed-nuclear-chain-reaction-feared-at-spent-fuel-storage-pool-sunday-at-1115-am-et-kyodo

alnorth
03-20-2011, 11:25 AM
Cool chart I saw which tries to lay out the dangers of nuclear radiation. Note the examples in blue regarding the extra dose for living in parts of CO, or living near the Fukushima reactor.

http://i.imgur.com/0Vvo1.png

Chiefaholic
03-20-2011, 11:52 AM
A long, long article:

Japan’s Nuclear Disaster Caps Decades of Faked Safety Reports, Accidents (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/japan-s-nuclear-disaster-caps-decades-of-faked-safety-reports-accidents.html)

:)

It's hard to pick out a "highlight," but this probably takes the cake:

Botched Container?

Mitsuhiko Tanaka, 67, working as an engineer at Babcock Hitachi K.K., helped design and supervise the manufacture of a $250 million steel pressure vessel for Tokyo Electric in 1975. Today, that vessel holds the fuel rods in the core of the No. 4 reactor at Fukushima’s Dai-Ichi plant, hit by explosion and fire after the tsunami.

Tanaka says the vessel was damaged in the production process. He says he knows because he orchestrated the cover-up. When he brought his accusations to the government more than a decade later, he was ignored, he says.

The accident occurred when Tanaka and his team were strengthening the steel in the pressure vessel, heating it in a furnace to more than 600 degrees Celsius (1,112 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that melts metal. Braces that should have been inside the vessel during the blasting were either forgotten or fell over. After it cooled, Tanaka found that its walls had warped.

This is bullshit... Aluminum doesn't melt till it reaches a temp of 1220 F. Depending on the alloys used in the steel the melting point varies. However, it'll take a minimum of 2500 F to melt steel. If it's stainless (more than likely) we're looking at a melting point of 2750 F.

orange
03-20-2011, 12:13 PM
the extra dose for living in parts of CO

http://games.multimedia.cx/wp-content/uploads/critical-path-mutants.jpg

Huh?!

alnorth
03-20-2011, 02:37 PM
hilarious video from our wacky nuclear testing.

One criticism of Yucca mountain is even if we could store them safely, and even if the consequences of something unanticipated going wrong at Yucca mountain were next to nothing, what if something happens while shipping nuclear waste to Yucca mountain?

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=2257476932172725496&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

Apparently to compromise these dry nuclear fuel casks, you'd have to shoot it with something like a 88mm gun from an aircraft carrier at point blank range.

teedubya
03-20-2011, 08:06 PM
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/79865.html

Spraying of water resumes at crisis-hit Fukushima nuke plant
TOKYO, March 21, Kyodo

Fire trucks resumed spraying water early Monday at the crisis-hit Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant as part of efforts to cool its overheating reactors and fuel pools.

The operation to cool the No. 4 reactor's spent-fuel pool began Sunday, while the No. 3 unit has so far been doused with over 3,700 tons of water since the unprecedented effort by Self-Defense Forces personnel, firefighters and others to lower the temperature in its fuel tank from outside its damaged building began Thursday.

External power reached the power-receiving facilities of the No. 2 and No. 5 reactors on Sunday, paving the way for plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. to restore their systems to monitor radiation and other data, light the control room and cool down the reactors and their spent-fuel storage pools.

The No. 5 and 6 reactors, which have been relatively less problematic than the plant's four others, stopped safely Sunday with the temperature of the water inside falling below 100 C, achieving so-called ''cold shutdown.''

After a magnitude 9.0 quake and ensuing tsunami knocked out power March 11 at the plant on the Pacific coast of Fukushima Prefecture about 220 kilometers northeast of Tokyo, the No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 reactors, which were operating at the time of the quake and halted automatically, lost their cooling functions.

Their reactor cores are believed to have partially melted and seawater has been pumped into them to prevent the fuel from being exposed. A series of blasts have severely damaged their buildings as well as the No. 2 reactor's containment vessel in its pressure-suppression chamber.

Plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel, known as MOX, in the No. 3 reactor poses the greatest risk of releasing highly toxic plutonium in the event of a meltdown. The fuel in the reactors is uranium.

The remaining No. 4, No. 5, and No. 6 units were under maintenance at the time of the earthquake, but the No. 4 reactor is different because some of the fuel was not in the reactor core but in the spent-fuel pool, which also lost its cooling function and lost the roof of its building.

==Kyodo

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-21-2011, 01:33 AM
Since alnorth is playing the Baghdad Bob of this crisis:

WHO spokesman: Japan food safety situation "serious"

BEIJING, March 21 (Reuters) - The World Health Organisation said on Monday that the detection of radiation in food after an earthquake damaged a Japan (http://www.reuters.com/places/japan)ese nuclear plant was a more serious problem than it had first expected.

"Quite clearly it's a serious situation," Peter Cordingley, Manila-based spokesman for WHO's regional office for the Western Pacific, told Reuters in a telephone interview.

"It's a lot more serious than anybody thought in the early days when we thought that this kind of problem can be limited to 20 to 30 kilometres," he said.

Cases of contaminated vegetables, dust, milk and water are already stoking regional anxieties despite Japanese officials' assurances the levels are not dangerous.

Japan's government has prohibited the sale of raw milk from Fukushima prefecture and spinach from another nearby area. It said more restrictions on food may be announced later on Monday. [ID:nL3E7EK08V]

Cordingley said the WHO had no evidence of contaminated food from Fukushima prefecture, where the damaged Daiichi plant is located, reaching other countries.

"We can't make any link between Daiichi and the export market. But it's safe to suppose that some contaminated produce got out of the contamination zone," he said.

Cordingley said the WHO's experts at its Geneva headquarters were trying to better understand the situation and would be able to give more guidance later on Monday.

But he cautioned that it was difficult to know at the moment whether the radioactive material found in some food in Japan originated from the stricken Daiichi plant. (Reporting by Sui-Lee Wee (http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=suilee.wee&), Editing by Ben Blanchard)

teedubya
03-21-2011, 02:03 PM
Reactor 3 with the MOX fuel is completely destroyed now. The gray smoke is not a good thing.

http://tvde.web.infoseek.co.jp/cgi-bin/jlab-dat/s/795434.jpg

Work to restore power delayed as smoke seen at Fukushima reactors
TOKYO, March 22, Kyodo

Work to restore power and key cooling functions to the troubled reactors at the quake-hit Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was marred Monday by smoke that rose from the buildings housing the No. 2 and No. 3 reactors, the plant operator said.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. and the government's nuclear safety agency said operations to revive power systems and spray massive coolant water onto overheating spent nuclear fuel pools will likely resume Tuesday after the utility observes the situation at the site.

TEPCO said it had briefly evacuated its workers after grayish and blackish smoke was seen at the southeast of the No. 3 reactor building around 3:55 p.m. above a pool storing spent nuclear fuel, though a blast was not heard.

The smoke stopped after 6 p.m., but TEPCO subsequently found that white smoke was rising through a crack in the roof of the building that houses the No. 2 reactor at around 6:20 p.m. The utility said later the smoke was believed to be steam, not from the reactor's core or spent fuel pool.

Firefighters and the Self-Defense Forces will prepare for the resumption of water-dousing operations Tuesday morning, the agency said. Three trucks with a concrete squeeze pump and a 50-meter arm provided by private firms will join the mission to pour water from a higher point.

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said no injuries were confirmed in the incidents. Radiation levels at the plant briefly increased after white smoke was detected from the No. 2 reactor, but later fell.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told a press conference that ''no problems had arisen'' with regard to the reactors and radiation levels after the smoke was detected.

Hidehiko Nishiyama, a spokesman for the nuclear safety agency, said the causes of the smoke billowing from the No. 2 and No. 3 reactor buildings remain unknown and that the originally scheduled work to revive power and cooling systems at the troubled reactors will be delayed by one day.

As the No. 3 reactor remains without power, smoke was not apparently triggered by an electricity leak or short-circuiting, Nishiyama said.

Following a magnitude 9.0 quake and ensuing tsunami on March 11, the cooling functions failed at the No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 reactors and their cores are believed to have partially melted.

At present, coolant water is being pumped into the three reactors and the pools for spent nuclear fuel rods at the No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 units. The roofs and upper walls of the buildings that house the No. 1, No. 3 and No. 4 reactors have been blown away by hydrogen explosions.

Before the smoke was detected, external power had reached the power-receiving facilities of the No. 2 and No. 5 reactors on Sunday, clearing the way for the plant operator to restore systems to monitor radiation levels and other data, light the control rooms and cool down the reactors and their spent-fuel storage pools.

On Monday, TEPCO finished laying cables to transmit electricity to the No. 4 reactor, as a step toward resuscitating the power systems at the No. 3 and No. 4 reactors, according to the utility and the nuclear agency.

The plant operator was also trying to restore a ventilation system to filter radioactive substances from the air and some measuring equipment at the control room of the No. 2 reactor, but this mission remained uncompleted due to the temporary evacuation.

The restoration of some functions at the control room would help improve working conditions, according to the nuclear agency.

It may take more time before the vital cooling system is restored at the No. 2 reactor, the containment vessel of which suffered damage to its pressure-suppression chamber, as some replacement parts are needed for the electrical system, the agency added.

In Vienna on Monday, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Yukiya Amano told a special meeting of its board of governors that the situation at the Fukushima plant ''remains serious, but we are starting to see some positive developments.''

Amano, who made an emergency trip to Japan last week, said the IAEA will ''continue to do everything in its power to help Japan to overcome'' the crisis at the power station on the Pacific coast of Fukushima Prefecture, around 220 kilometers northeast of Tokyo.

To facilitate the water-spraying operations at the plant, the government is also preparing SDF tanks to remove rubble emitting high-level radiation from around the reactors.

Japan's nuclear agency, meanwhile, said one of seven workers who were injured following a March 14 hydrogen explosion at the No. 3 reactor was found to have been exposed to radiation amounting to over 150 millisievert per hour.

The level is lower than the maximum limit of 250 millisievert per hour set by the health ministry for workers tackling the emergency at the Fukushima plant.

TEPCO and the nuclear agency said the height of a tsunami that submerged key functions at the Fukushima plant is believed to have reached 14 meters, much higher than the 5.7 meters that the utility had factored in before the disaster struck the power station.

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/80015.html

teedubya
03-21-2011, 02:06 PM
In that picture, I don't see any firetrucks hosing it down. I see a Cement truck. That is very telling, IMO.

Bwana
03-21-2011, 02:40 PM
In that picture, I don't see any firetrucks hosing it down. I see a Cement truck. That is very telling, IMO.

Heh, that shit should be hitting CA/OR/WA in about two days huh?

mikey23545
03-21-2011, 03:24 PM
Given that 1970's technology was able to resist an earthquake hundreds of times stronger than they were rated for (before a freak 30-foot tsunami wiped them out) I count only 4 locations on that map which are even vaguely questionable, and even then its debatable whether those faults are even capable of producing a 9.0

My friend, save your breath.

The people you would try to reach with your arguments have never used logic or reason to formulate their opinions. Years of anti-nuclear propaganda streaming through our mainstream media have turned out a Pavlovian population which knows only one reaction to the words "nuclear power". Add to the mix the nearly paranoiac rantings of the conspiracy crew, and you'll find there is little chance of real scientific debate.

DaFace
03-21-2011, 03:34 PM
So...we're all gonna die?

Detoxing
03-21-2011, 03:34 PM
So...we're all gonna die?

Ban Teedubya or im leaving this thread FOREVER.

teedubya
03-21-2011, 04:05 PM
Ban Teedubya or im leaving this thread FOREVER.

ROFL. Is this where I harness my inner Dane and say, FUCK OFF AND DIE?

teedubya
03-21-2011, 04:07 PM
So...we're all gonna die?

No, no. Everything is fine. They have the power hooked back up, and the reactors aren't smoking, at all.

http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1056449284762_2003/06/25/Sky,0.jpg

thecoffeeguy
03-21-2011, 04:11 PM
Heh, that shit should be hitting CA/OR/WA in about two days huh?

Not cool.

Bwana
03-21-2011, 04:13 PM
Not cool.

No, no it's not.

Bwana
03-21-2011, 04:13 PM
So...we're all gonna die?

Well yeah...........

CrazyPhuD
03-21-2011, 04:42 PM
So...we're all gonna die?

Yes....some just sooner than others.

teedubya
03-21-2011, 04:45 PM
Well yeah...........

Yeah, someday. Hopefully several decades from now.

We live on a very, volatile rock orbiting a much hotter rock with other smaller rocks floating around us. We have a magnetic field that protects us from the sun spots & solar flares, [except during KU MU games]. We are lucky to be here, so I say we just enjoy the ride as long as we can, because I acknowledge life is a miracle.

We have huge gas planets on the outer part of the solar system that most of the celestial debris hits, thus protecting Earth. We are truly lucky to be here... sure, shit goes down, and I like to be informed of it.

But, no one was guaranteed 90 years on Earth. No one was guaranteed a Chiefs superbowl. heh. But, we have this day, and that is all we are guaranteed. This moment.

So, hopefully people can have love in their hearts and kindness in their souls for the rest of humanity if shit goes down. Shit happens outside of our control... but the Earth keeps on spinning... for now. There are no riots or looting in Japan, and if that happened in America, this would most likely NOT be the case.

It would be better if the leaders in charge cared more about the people and less about power and pieces of paper with deceased notables on it. But, when it's my time to go, I'll go with strength and faith that it's time to meet my maker. So, I'm going to attempt moving away from the fear of the unknown and back to the realization that energy never dies and that my time on this ride on Earth isn't a guarantee.

I'm not scared of the radiation. If I die from it, I die from it. I'm mostly pissed of the corruption of the world governments, central bankers and the media control of accurate information. I'm a seeker of truths, and most of the time, this world is filled of lies, deceit and uber amounts of misdirection and bullshit.

Bwana
03-21-2011, 05:16 PM
What's the difference between (wlmailhtml:{5EB294DB-8F7F-4396-9D33-865F7B3779C1}mid://00000008/!x-usc:http://groups.sunaari.com/) an oscillatory and a trepidatory earthquake? (wlmailhtml:{5EB294DB-8F7F-4396-9D33-865F7B3779C1}mid://00000008/!x-usc:http://groups.sunaari.com/)


1. This calculation is just for engineers: (wlmailhtml:{5EB294DB-8F7F-4396-9D33-865F7B3779C1}mid://00000008/!x-usc:http://groups.sunaari.com/)


(wlmailhtml:{5EB294DB-8F7F-4396-9D33-865F7B3779C1}mid://00000008/!x-usc:http://groups.sunaari.com/)


And these three are for those ignorant bastages--like you and me:


2.This is a trepidatory earthquake: (wlmailhtml:{5EB294DB-8F7F-4396-9D33-865F7B3779C1}mid://00000008/!x-usc:http://groups.sunaari.com/)<O:p<O:p


3. This is an oscillatory earthquake: (wlmailhtml:{5EB294DB-8F7F-4396-9D33-865F7B3779C1}mid://00000008/!x-usc:http://groups.sunaari.com/)

4. And this is a combination of both: (trepidatory and oscillatory) (wlmailhtml:{5EB294DB-8F7F-4396-9D33-865F7B3779C1}mid://00000008/!x-usc:http://groups.sunaari.com/)


<O:p<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
Science is beautiful when it is well explained... (wlmailhtml:{5EB294DB-8F7F-4396-9D33-865F7B3779C1}mid://00000008/!x-usc:http://groups.sunaari.com/):thumb:<O:p

alnorth
03-22-2011, 07:42 PM
Just to illustrate how idiotically paranoid we are about nuclear radiation:

You heard about that panic about the nuclear contaminated milk in Japan? Well, if you drank one full glass of that radioactive Japanese milk, every single freakin day, for an entire year, you still would not get as much radiation in that year as one chest X-ray.

Obviously the food supply would be more significantly damaged if we had a full Chernobyl, but we don't have a full Chernobyl. So, until we do, the media is being completely retarded with their panic stories. Which is fine if, like me, you are fine with putting up with tons and tons of coal and natural gas plants, and all the death they bring, all over the US from coast to coast.

If you aren't fine with that, then you should know that nuclear power, aside from being the safest form of base power we have (though also more expensive than fossil fuels), is also the only base power option available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If you believe in that sort of thing.

alnorth
03-22-2011, 07:56 PM
My friend, save your breath.

The people you would try to reach with your arguments have never used logic or reason to formulate their opinions. Years of anti-nuclear propaganda streaming through our mainstream media have turned out a Pavlovian population which knows only one reaction to the words "nuclear power". Add to the mix the nearly paranoiac rantings of the conspiracy crew, and you'll find there is little chance of real scientific debate.

You are probably right. Perversely, since I'd rather we turn to cheaper coal and natural gas, this anti-nuclear sentiment works in my favor. So, I should be happy about this earthquake, but I'm not, because the people are focused on this stupid primitive caveman fear of magic invisible nuclear radiation. Screw science, we don't understand radiation like we understand mining and burning stuff, as if it was some magical thing we invented yesterday and we hadn't come up with better ways to handle it in the 40+ years since this decrepit old Japanese reactor was built.

Its like watching your team win a game due to an obviously-wrong, you-cant-even-pretend-the-ref's-call-was-correct, bullshit penalty. Yeah, I'd like to win, but I'm not really happy because I won due to someone's complete failure.

Oh well, maybe I should just enjoy the lower electric bill and not care that people are being stupid, since thats what I'd want anyway.

DaFace
03-22-2011, 07:59 PM
So...we're not all gonna die?

alnorth
03-22-2011, 08:05 PM
So...we're not all gonna die?

currently, no. Tomorrow morning, the broadcast media may or may not tell you that your gonna die, depending on if some unexplained smoke is seen.

DaFace
03-22-2011, 10:28 PM
alnorth will like this blog.

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-triumph-of-coal-marketing.html

Here's the key picture from it:

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7281/34975878.jpg (http://img215.imageshack.us/i/34975878.jpg/)

teedubya
03-23-2011, 12:21 AM
Tokyo says radiation in tap water above limit, unsafe to drink.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7486954.html


This is why Nuclear sucks...

US spent-fuel storage sites are packed

Jonathan Fahey and Ray Henry, The Associated Press, On Tuesday March 22, 2011, 7:45 pm EDT
The nuclear crisis in Japan has laid bare an ever-growing problem for the United States -- the enormous amounts of still-hot radioactive waste accumulating at commercial nuclear reactors in more than 30 states.

The U.S. has 71,862 tons of the waste, according to state-by-state numbers obtained by The Associated Press. But the nation has no place to permanently store the material, which stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AP-IMPACT-US-spentfuel-apf-811813708.html?x=0

mlyonsd
03-23-2011, 06:57 AM
Tokyo says radiation in tap water above limit, unsafe to drink.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7486954.html


This is why Nuclear sucks...

US spent-fuel storage sites are packed

Jonathan Fahey and Ray Henry, The Associated Press, On Tuesday March 22, 2011, 7:45 pm EDT
The nuclear crisis in Japan has laid bare an ever-growing problem for the United States -- the enormous amounts of still-hot radioactive waste accumulating at commercial nuclear reactors in more than 30 states.

The U.S. has 71,862 tons of the waste, according to state-by-state numbers obtained by The Associated Press. But the nation has no place to permanently store the material, which stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AP-IMPACT-US-spentfuel-apf-811813708.html?x=0

Unsafe for infants to drink. It's fine for the rest of the population.

*edit* Well 'fine' as much as radioactive water can be.

teedubya
03-23-2011, 10:52 AM
****ing NEUTRON BEAMS? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_radiation

Neutron beam observed 13 times at crippled Fukushima nuke plant
TOKYO, March 23, Kyodo

Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Wednesday it has observed a neutron beam, a kind of radioactive ray, 13 times on the premises of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant after it was crippled by the massive March 11 quake-tsunami disaster.

TEPCO, the operator of the nuclear plant, said the neutron beam measured about 1.5 kilometers southwest of the plant's No. 1 and 2 reactors over three days from March 13 and is equivalent to 0.01 to 0.02 microsieverts per hour and that this is not a dangerous level.

The utility firm said it will measure uranium and plutonium, which could emit a neutron beam, as well.

In the 1999 criticality accident at a nuclear fuel processing plant run by JCO Co. in Tokaimura, Ibaraki Prefecture, uranium broke apart continually in nuclear fission, causing a massive amount of neutron beams.

In the latest case at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, such a criticality accident has yet to happen.

But the measured neutron beam may be evidence that uranium and plutonium leaked from the plant's nuclear reactors and spent nuclear fuels have discharged a small amount of neutron beams through nuclear fission.

==Kyodo

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/80539.html

Saulbadguy
03-23-2011, 10:53 AM
Fucking NEUTRON BEAMS?

Neutron beam observed 13 times at crippled Fukushima nuke plant
TOKYO, March 23, Kyodo

Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Wednesday it has observed a neutron beam, a kind of radioactive ray, 13 times on the premises of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant after it was crippled by the massive March 11 quake-tsunami disaster.

TEPCO, the operator of the nuclear plant, said the neutron beam measured about 1.5 kilometers southwest of the plant's No. 1 and 2 reactors over three days from March 13 and is equivalent to 0.01 to 0.02 microsieverts per hour and that this is not a dangerous level.

The utility firm said it will measure uranium and plutonium, which could emit a neutron beam, as well.

In the 1999 criticality accident at a nuclear fuel processing plant run by JCO Co. in Tokaimura, Ibaraki Prefecture, uranium broke apart continually in nuclear fission, causing a massive amount of neutron beams.

In the latest case at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, such a criticality accident has yet to happen.

But the measured neutron beam may be evidence that uranium and plutonium leaked from the plant's nuclear reactors and spent nuclear fuels have discharged a small amount of neutron beams through nuclear fission.

==Kyodo

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/80539.html

CRAZY SHIT!!

teedubya
03-23-2011, 11:04 AM
CRAZY SHIT!!

Indeed. It's not everyday that evidence shows that uranium and plutonium leaked from the plant's nuclear reactors and spent nuclear fuels have discharged a small amount of neutron beams through nuclear fission.

Crazy shit, indeed.

Pants
03-23-2011, 11:07 AM
Indeed. It's not everyday that evidence shows that uranium and plutonium leaked from the plant's nuclear reactors and spent nuclear fuels have discharged a small amount of neutron beams through nuclear fission.

Crazy shit, indeed.

He was making fun of you, bro, but you probably already know this.

teedubya
03-23-2011, 11:10 AM
He was making fun of you, bro, but you probably already know this.

Yeah, Saul likens himself as troll of the interwebs, but he is harmless really.

Saul is like the majority of Americans.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WCxBDDk4Y-M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Detoxing
03-23-2011, 11:11 AM
Indeed. It's not everyday that evidence shows that uranium and plutonium leaked from the plant's nuclear reactors and spent nuclear fuels have discharged a small amount of neutron beams through nuclear fission.

Crazy shit, indeed.

Tee,

For as much shit as you get from others, I gotta give ya props. No matter how many people tell you they think you're bat-shit crazy, you still keep on keeping on.

GJ.

teedubya
03-23-2011, 11:18 AM
Tee,

For as much shit as you get from others, I gotta give ya props. No matter how many people tell you they think you're bat-shit crazy, you still keep on keeping on.

GJ.

People can give me all of the shit they want. My personal beliefs and self worth isn't determined by the good opinions that others have of me, especially on a message board.

I seek truths... and it's very hard to find in mainstream us media most of the time.

I'm gonna do what I do, and keep on keeping on. Eventually, more people will be with me, and less will be apathetic and lazy.

That Detached Reality video is spot on, IMO.

FAX
03-23-2011, 11:19 AM
Things sure have changed around here.

I remember the days when all we had were oldtron beams.

And we liked it.

FAX

Pants
03-23-2011, 11:23 AM
People can give me all of the shit they want. My personal beliefs and self worth isn't determined by the good opinions that others have of me, especially on a message board.

I seek truths... and it's very hard to find in mainstream us media most of the time.

I'm gonna do what I do, and keep on keeping on. Eventually, more people will be with me, and less will be apathetic and lazy.

That Detached Reality video is spot on, IMO.

What do you suggest people do?

Also, people dislike you because of the way you sensationalize things by being intellectually dishonest. You link to articles with retarded predictions that don't come true, etc. Most of the time you're not preaching the truth but rather making a fool out of yourself. Sounds like you're just a paranoid fear-monger, bro.

Baby Lee
03-23-2011, 11:26 AM
This is why Nuclear sucks...

US spent-fuel storage sites are packed

Jonathan Fahey and Ray Henry, The Associated Press, On Tuesday March 22, 2011, 7:45 pm EDT
The nuclear crisis in Japan has laid bare an ever-growing problem for the United States -- the enormous amounts of still-hot radioactive waste accumulating at commercial nuclear reactors in more than 30 states.

The U.S. has 71,862 tons of the waste, according to state-by-state numbers obtained by The Associated Press. But the nation has no place to permanently store the material, which stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AP-IMPACT-US-spentfuel-apf-811813708.html?x=0Potayto, potahto. As I've stated earlier, the nuclear plants have paid in $100s of millions each, $10s of billions total, for storage in Yucca Mountain. They were originally commissioned for 20-30 years of onsite storage, and began preparing for this eventuality decades ago. Now in the past few years, the Yucca mountain settled expectation fell to NIMBY concerns [though the $$$ remains in Federal coffers. But the plants have accommodated the reneging of the Feds by packing the fuel tighter, all without incident.
Fossil Fuel consumes more in 1 day by volume than nuclear does in 40 years. Everything a plant has consumed over decades is contained safely in an area smaller than an Olympic swimming pool.,

You're complaining about a 'crisis' you caused by complaining about a hypothetical crisis that's never been established for years.

Saulbadguy
03-23-2011, 11:32 AM
People can give me all of the shit they want. My personal beliefs and self worth isn't determined by the good opinions that others have of me, especially on a message board.

I seek truths... and it's very hard to find in mainstream us media most of the time.

I'm gonna do what I do, and keep on keeping on. Eventually, more people will be with me, and less will be apathetic and lazy.

That Detached Reality video is spot on, IMO.
This is why you brag about having thousands of followers on Twitter.

We get it!

teedubya
03-23-2011, 11:33 AM
FTR, I don't think nuclear power is bad. It can be bad if shit goes wrong, which it appears to be doing.

The SUN and all stars are nuclear FUSION. Nuclear power just needs to be controlled... AND they need to figure out what to do with the spent fuel rods.

And you don't need to put nuclear plants on known uber active earthquake faults. Common sense can go a long way.

Pants
03-23-2011, 11:34 AM
This is why you brag about having thousands of followers on Twitter.

We get it!

I also like how materialistic he is while preaching his 'save the Earth' mantra. Can't help but like the guy.

teedubya
03-23-2011, 11:35 AM
This is why you brag about having thousands of followers on Twitter.

We get it!

Yeah, way to detract from my main message. Go back to sleep, Mr. Sheep.

Since you are in the mood... go find me this "Bragging" post. Find more than 1 time where I've mentioned my amount of twitter followers and Ill leave for a week.

Saulbadguy
03-23-2011, 11:35 AM
FTR, I don't think nuclear power is bad. It can be bad if shit goes wrong, which it appears to be doing.

The SUN and all stars are nuclear fission. It just needs to be controlled and they need to figure out what to do with the spent fuel rods.

And you don't need to put nuclear plants on known uber active earthquake faults. Common sense can go a long way.

I thought they were nuclear fusion.

Saulbadguy
03-23-2011, 11:36 AM
Yeah, way to detract from my main message. Go back to sleep, Mr. Sheep.

Since you are in the mood... go find me this "Bragging" post. Find more than 1 time where I've mentioned my amount of twitter followers and Ill leave for a week.

Way to be "above it all" - teedubya.

Pants
03-23-2011, 11:36 AM
FTR, I don't think nuclear power is bad. It can be bad if shit goes wrong, which it appears to be doing.

The SUN and all stars are nuclear fission. It just needs to be controlled and they need to figure out what to do with the spent fuel rods.

And you don't need to put nuclear plants on known uber active earthquake faults. Common sense can go a long way.

Pretty sure you mean 'nuclear fusion' there, Einstein.

teedubya
03-23-2011, 11:38 AM
I also like how materialistic he is while preaching his 'save the Earth' mantra. Can't help but like the guy.

heh, we live in technological world and that is the industry that I am in.

I'm not materialistic, at all, really. Aside from a few gadgets. I drive a 10 year old vehicle that's paid for, a home within my means... and I don't buy dumb consumer shit, at all.

I invest in renewable stocks, silver, rare earth mining companies.

I have one TV in the house. I don't buy dumb shit... We don't spend a lot on clothes and my wife is low maintenance.

I'm fiscally conservative, certainly.

Pants
03-23-2011, 11:38 AM
teedub, I'm not going to waste my time looking for any posts, but Saul isn't lying. You're probably the biggest liar I have ever encountered on the internet and that's saying something.

Nobody has ever tooted their own horn more than you on ChiefsPlanet and most of the time you're blatantly lying.

teedubya
03-23-2011, 11:40 AM
heh, nitpickers. I've been reading about fission all day. Excuse the mistype. :doh!:

My mistype negates everything. Sorry, nothing to see here. lol. Go back to sleep.

Pants
03-23-2011, 11:41 AM
heh, we live in technological world and that is the industry that I am in.

I'm not materialistic, at all, really. Aside from a few gadgets. I drive a 10 year old vehicle that's paid for, a home within my means... and I don't buy dumb consumer shit, at all.

I invest in renewable stocks, silver, rare earth mining companies.

I have one TV in the house. I don't buy dumb shit... We don't spend a lot on clothes and my wife is low maintenance.

I'm fiscally conservative, certainly.

Sure. And once upon a time I noted how neither one of us was ever going to make hundreds of millions of dollars which resulted in you going into the "speak for yourself, bro, I'm working on some stuff blah blah blah.." mode.

I'm just saying, man, you're not fooling anyone here and you never have.

teedubya
03-23-2011, 11:42 AM
teedub, I'm not going to waste my time looking for any posts, but Saul isn't lying. You're probably the biggest liar I have ever encountered on the internet and that's saying something.

Nobody has ever tooted their own horn more than you on ChiefsPlanet and most of the time you're blatantly lying.

WTF. There is no need to lie. The times I've been "caught" are some post from 5-6 years ago that gets brought up that I have no rememberance of.

So fuck off "Pants". When did you become such a dicksmack?

Pants
03-23-2011, 11:42 AM
heh, nitpickers. I've been reading about fission all day. Excuse the mistype. :doh!:

My mistype negates everything. Sorry, nothing to see here. lol. Go back to sleep.

That wasn't a typo, teedub.

Pants
03-23-2011, 11:43 AM
WTF. There is no need to lie. The times I've been "caught" are some post from 5-6 years ago that gets brought up that I have no rememberance of.

So **** off "Pants". When did you become such a dicksmack?

If I give you my phone number, will you call me and prove to me that you're fluent in Russian?

teedubya
03-23-2011, 11:43 AM
Well, you obviously have no clue, man. Congrats.

Pants
03-23-2011, 11:44 AM
Well, you obviously have no clue, man. Congrats.

What does that even mean?

Saulbadguy
03-23-2011, 11:45 AM
If I give you my phone number, will you call me and prove to me that you're fluent in Russian?

:LOL:

I thought he proved that. Maybe i'm wrong, could have easily been a babelfish translation or whatnot.

teedubya
03-23-2011, 11:46 AM
If I give you my phone number, will you call me and prove to me that you're fluent in Russian?

Check your rep, you have some links.

And I was fluent about 19 years ago in the Army, when I got out... but I'm not fluent as much anymore.

This thread is not about me, dickhead. It's about you and the rest of humanity... in a potential nuclear meltdown.

Who cares what I make, or what I do? I'm no star. I'm not a big deal. I know technology, I have an ad agency, I have partners with many ad agencies and I have a team of programmers in India. I don't brag about this... and none of it really matters.

It's what I do to make income currently. I've tried many endeavors to become successful in the capitalist point of view... but I'm at a place now, where none of that fucking matters.

So fuck you and your judgemental hateration.

Saulbadguy
03-23-2011, 11:46 AM
heh, nitpickers. I've been reading about fission all day. Excuse the mistype. :doh!:

My mistype negates everything. Sorry, nothing to see here. lol. Go back to sleep.

Your post makes very little sense. Why would the sun need to know what to do with spent fuel rods?

Saulbadguy
03-23-2011, 11:48 AM
Check your rep, you have some links.

And I was fluent about 19 years ago in the Army, when I got out... but I'm not fluent as much anymore.

This thread is not about me, dickhead. It's about you and the rest of humanity... in a potential nuclear meltdown.

Who cares what I make, or what I do? I'm no star. I'm not a big deal. I know technology, I have an ad agency, I have partners with many ad agencies and I have a team of programmers in India. I don't brag about this... and none of it really matters.

It's what I do to make income currently. I've tried many endeavors to become successful in the capitalist point of view... but I'm at a place now, where none of that fucking matters.

So fuck you and your judgemental hateration.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7387770&postcount=6

I know 5 and am learning Portuguese.

Breaking down the languages and learning the top 100-500 most spoken words in English and then learning them in the new language helps... then learn the way the verbs are conjugated.

Tim Ferriss has a good breakdown.

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog...ning-language/

I use Rosetta Stone to help me learn Portuguese, currently.

The army taught me Russian. I learned Spanish in high school and working at restaurants. I know enough Arabic and Mandarin... and I'm getting Portuguese down.

And I speak pig latin.

Pants
03-23-2011, 11:49 AM
Check your rep, you have some links.

And I was fluent about 19 years ago in the Army, when I got out... but I'm not fluent as much anymore.

This thread is not about me, dickhead. It's about you and the rest of humanity... in a potential nuclear meltdown.

Who cares what I make, or what I do? I'm no star. I'm not a big deal. I know technology, I have an ad agency, I have partners with many ad agencies and I have a team of programmers in India. I don't brag about this... and none of it really matters.

It's what I do to make income currently. I've tried many endeavors to become successful in the capitalist point of view... but I'm at a place now, where none of that ****ing matters.

So **** you and your judgemental hateration.

Dude, I don't care about your business or how successful or unsuccessful you are. I was just trying to make a point of how materialistic you are. If that's in the past and you moved on, kudos to you.

teedubya
03-23-2011, 11:52 AM
I'm done with you two for now... I have "work" to fake. lol
......

Fukushima Engineer Says He Helped Cover Up Flaw at Dai-Ichi Reactor No. 4

One of the reactors in the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant may have been relying on flawed steel to hold the radiation in its core, according to an engineer who helped build its containment vessel four decades ago.

Mitsuhiko Tanaka says he helped conceal a manufacturing defect in the $250 million steel vessel installed at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi No. 4 reactor while working for a unit of Hitachi Ltd. (6501) in 1974. The reactor, which Tanaka has called a “time bomb,” was shut for maintenance when the March 11 earthquake triggered a 7-meter (23-foot) tsunami that disabled cooling systems at the plant, leading to explosions and radiation leaks.

“Who knows what would have happened if that reactor had been running?” Tanaka, who turned his back on the nuclear industry after the Chernobyl disaster, said in an interview last week. “I have no idea if it could withstand an earthquake like this. It’s got a faulty reactor inside.”

Tanaka’s allegations, which he says he brought to the attention of Japan’s Trade Ministry in 1988 and chronicled in a book two years later called “Why Nuclear Power is Dangerous,” have resurfaced after Japan’s worst nuclear accident on record. The No. 4 reactor was hit by explosions and a fire that spread from adjacent units as the crisis deepened.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-23/fukushima-engineer-says-he-covered-up-flaw-at-shut-reactor.html

teedubya
03-23-2011, 11:53 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7387770&postcount=6

True and true. Next. For the record, I am NO LONGER studying Portuguese, I'm back to studying Chinese.

Hope you jot this down in your notebook. If I need to take a quiz later, please let me know. I can't write or read the Chinese characters, though... only speak it.

Saulbadguy
03-23-2011, 11:53 AM
I'm done with you two for now... I have "work" to fake. lol
......

Fukushima Engineer Says He Helped Cover Up Flaw at Dai-Ichi Reactor No. 4

One of the reactors in the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant may have been relying on flawed steel to hold the radiation in its core, according to an engineer who helped build its containment vessel four decades ago.

Mitsuhiko Tanaka says he helped conceal a manufacturing defect in the $250 million steel vessel installed at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi No. 4 reactor while working for a unit of Hitachi Ltd. (6501) in 1974. The reactor, which Tanaka has called a “time bomb,” was shut for maintenance when the March 11 earthquake triggered a 7-meter (23-foot) tsunami that disabled cooling systems at the plant, leading to explosions and radiation leaks.

“Who knows what would have happened if that reactor had been running?” Tanaka, who turned his back on the nuclear industry after the Chernobyl disaster, said in an interview last week. “I have no idea if it could withstand an earthquake like this. It’s got a faulty reactor inside.”

Tanaka’s allegations, which he says he brought to the attention of Japan’s Trade Ministry in 1988 and chronicled in a book two years later called “Why Nuclear Power is Dangerous,” have resurfaced after Japan’s worst nuclear accident on record. The No. 4 reactor was hit by explosions and a fire that spread from adjacent units as the crisis deepened.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-23/fukushima-engineer-says-he-covered-up-flaw-at-shut-reactor.html

Yep. Crazy shit.

teedubya
03-23-2011, 11:56 AM
Yep. Crazy shit.

Indeed.

DaKCMan AP
03-23-2011, 12:16 PM
People need to chill out. The most dangerous thing from this is the misinformation and potential public panic.

Saulbadguy
03-23-2011, 01:51 PM
People need to chill out. The most dangerous thing from this is the misinformation and potential public panic.

You are just a typical misinformed American. Very un-awesome of you. Stop sticking your head in the sand!

Baby Lee
03-23-2011, 01:52 PM
You are just a typical misinformed American. Very un-awesome of you. Stop sticking your head in the sand!
Ha! Like sand will protect you from invisible magical death from across the sea!!

Donger
03-23-2011, 01:56 PM
FTR, I don't think nuclear power is bad. It can be bad if shit goes wrong, which it appears to be doing.

The SUN and all stars are nuclear fission. It just needs to be controlled and they need to figure out what to do with the spent fuel rods.

And you don't need to put nuclear plants on known uber active earthquake faults. Common sense can go a long way.

Actually, our Sun (and all other stars) is a fusion reaction.

Hydrae
03-23-2011, 01:59 PM
All this talk about the spent rods sitting in pools makes me wonder why we don't come up with a way to just launch these things into the sun. It is not like there is enough to have any affect on our star and it gets out of our "backyard."

DaKCMan AP
03-23-2011, 02:03 PM
You are just a typical misinformed American. Very un-awesome of you. Stop sticking your head in the sand!

Contrary to your ignorance, I work in the very specialized field of radiation effects.

Baby Lee
03-23-2011, 02:05 PM
Contrary to your sarcasm, I work in the very specialized field of radiation effects.

FYP

Pants
03-23-2011, 02:05 PM
Contrary to your ignorance, I work in the very specialized field of radiation effects.

LMAO

Saulbadguy
03-23-2011, 02:12 PM
Contrary to your ignorance, I work in the very specialized field of radiation effects.

Well, I read tons of shit, man. Crazy shit. Shit that your bosses probably keep from you - i'm pretty well connected, heh.

I'm just sayin - stock up on food, water, anything you can get your hands on...because shit is about to go down.

Saulbadguy
03-23-2011, 02:13 PM
Actually, our Sun (and all other stars) is a fusion reaction.

What does the sun do with the spent fuel rods? That's what i'd like to know.

Over-Head
03-23-2011, 02:23 PM
What does the sun do with the spent fuel rods? That's what i'd like to know.

Traces of Japanese radiation detected in N.L :eek:

http://news.ca.msn.com/local/newfoundland/article.aspx?cp-documentid=28105376

were doomed!!!!
Good thing we have an unlimited supply of "Screech" to keep ourselfs safe :thumb:

teedubya
03-23-2011, 02:27 PM
I sometimes question why I waste any time trying to enlighten the willfully ignorant and stubbornly stupid.

Seriously, Saul, please, please DON'T stock up on anything. The US isn't in a war on 3 fronts, there isn't a potential nuclear meltdown, the world's 3rd largest economy isn't about to crash & the US dollar is very strong. Everything is normal and certainly not crazy at all. Go back to EMAW and talk about your upcoming sweet 16 game.

Saulbadguy
03-23-2011, 02:28 PM
I sometimes question why I waste any time trying to enlighten the willfully ignorant and stubbornly stupid.

Seriously, Saul, please, please DON'T stock up on anything. The US isn't in a war on 3 fronts, there isn't a potential nuclear meltdown, the US dollar is very strong. Everything is normal.

Yeah - I think we are all at a loss, too.

Pants
03-23-2011, 02:36 PM
Ari, what should I do in terms of preparation?

Saulbadguy
03-23-2011, 02:43 PM
Ari, what should I do in terms of preparation?

Link your twitter account to your LinkedIn account, and just hope for the best.

Pants
03-23-2011, 02:53 PM
Link your twitter account to your LinkedIn account, and just hope for the best.

I was for reals, Saul.

Donger
03-23-2011, 03:24 PM
What does the sun do with the spent fuel rods? That's what i'd like to know.

:spock:

Nothing.

Donger
03-23-2011, 03:25 PM
Contrary to your ignorance, I work in the very specialized field of radiation effects.

And to qualify for such a position, one must have 12 fingers and the beginnings a newly-formed, secondary head.

Donger
03-23-2011, 03:25 PM
I sometimes question why I waste any time trying to enlighten the willfully ignorant and stubbornly stupid.

Me, too.

DaKCMan AP
03-23-2011, 03:27 PM
And to qualify for such a position, one must have 12 fingers and the beginnings a newly-formed, secondary head.

The second head is preferred, but not required.

Donger
03-23-2011, 03:28 PM
The second head is preferred, but not required.

LMAO

Pants
03-23-2011, 03:48 PM
:spock:

Nothing.

lulz

not you, Donger, not you....

Saulbadguy
03-23-2011, 04:12 PM
teedubya, please refrain from harassing me via PM. Thanks.

Pants
03-23-2011, 04:13 PM
reedy ya, please refrain from harassing me via PM. Thanks.

You too, huh?

Saulbadguy
03-23-2011, 04:15 PM
You too, huh?

Was yours in Russian?

Pants
03-23-2011, 04:17 PM
Was yours in Russian?

Nope.