PDA

View Full Version : Plutonium detected at Fu-kushima


mhgaffney
03-28-2011, 12:17 PM
The plant is now leaking Plutonium -- see press release below -- the most toxic substance known in the universe. Plutonium does not exist in Nature -- but is created in the bowels of nuclear reactors. Now it appears to be belching from reactor # 3 -- which used a mixed fuel including recycled Plutonium.

The biggest threat is not from external radiation -- which will not reach us. Rather, the main threat is from the dispersal of a witches brew of extremely radioactive isotopes -- around the planet. Some like Plutonium are long lived. Plutonium has a half life of 24,000+ years -- essentially forever in human terms.

These particles will get into the water and foods chain -- then into the body where they will cause leukemia, cancers and many other diseases -- not to mention the damage to the human genome.

Michio Kaku now rates the accident as a 6 out of 7. Chernobyl was a 7.

The anti nuclear argument is now vindicated. The hard nuclear path is simply too dangerous. The soft path of solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hydrogen, etc is much more forgiving. You can make mistakes on the soft path -- with very little consequence.

Notice Reuters says that the detection of Plutonium will not stop work at the plant. They have little choice at this point but to persist.
MHG

Plutonium find will not stop work at Japan plant - TEPCO

TOKYO, March 29 | Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:25am EDT
(Reuters) - The discovery of plutonium at five places within Japan's damaged ***ushima Daiichi nuclear complex will not cause work there to be suspended, plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co said on Tuesday. (Reporting by Yoko Nishikawa; Writing by Andrew Cawthorne)

DrFate
03-28-2011, 12:21 PM
According to wikipedia, plutonium does exist in nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium

"Plutonium is the heaviest primordial element, by virtue of its most stable isotope, plutonium-244, whose half-life of about 80 million years is just long enough for the element to be found in trace quantities in nature."

cmhargrove
03-28-2011, 12:29 PM
Tebow eats isotopes and ****s out Plutonium, it ain't no thang...

BroncoMan4ever
03-28-2011, 12:39 PM
we need to find a delorean and get doc brown on the phone to install the flux capacitor, load up the plutonium and gun it to 88 then go stop McD from trading Hillis.

Drunk Monkey
03-28-2011, 12:41 PM
aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh run for your lives there's a **** cloud coming.

bronco militia
03-28-2011, 12:42 PM
REPENT!!!! for the end is near!

worm
03-28-2011, 12:44 PM
First the Denver fans and now this disaster......both rated a 6.

Coincidence or conspiracy?

Doggcow
03-28-2011, 12:46 PM
I have a question.

Why can't we just shoot radioactive **** into space? I know it's expensive, but can you put a price on the health of our planet?

bronco militia
03-28-2011, 12:48 PM
I have a question.

Why can't we just shoot radioactive **** into space? I know it's expensive, but can you put a price on the health of our planet?

I guess these guys hate us too

http://www.sabinabecker.com/images/yankee-go-home-mars.jpg

Cito Pelon
03-28-2011, 12:50 PM
All they needed was backup power to keep the coolant pumps working, but they f'd up that basic necessity. OTOH, I've seen many an industry f up backup power systems. The longer you go without needing backup power, the more backup power gets neglected.

Boobs McGee
03-28-2011, 12:52 PM
I have a question.

Why can't we just shoot radioactive **** into space? I know it's expensive, but can you put a price on the health of our planet?

I was wondering the same thing. I also wonder though, if that would trigger a reaction of just shuttling excess into space on a regular basis. As long as we could ensure that it wouldn't become a regular ordeal, and that there is ABSOLUTELY no possible way it could somehow come back to bite us in the ass (somehow ending up in our atmosphere or whatever), then I'd be for it.

Doggcow
03-28-2011, 12:54 PM
I was wondering the same thing. I also wonder though, if that would trigger a reaction of just shuttling excess into space on a regular basis. As long as we could ensure that it wouldn't become a regular ordeal, and that there is ABSOLUTELY no possible way it could somehow come back to bite us in the ass (somehow ending up in our atmosphere or whatever), then I'd be for it.

I was thinking like shoot it at Venus or something. lol.

Watch some aliens come whoop our ass for it though.

DrFate
03-28-2011, 12:55 PM
Why can't we just shoot radioactive **** into space? I know it's expensive, but can you put a price on the health of our planet?

The main problem is that if you have a Challenger type accident, you spread that bad stuff over a large portion of the planet's surface.

And the rate of failure for missions of that nature is much higher than say commercial air travel.

McDman
03-28-2011, 12:57 PM
What happens if we shoot it into space and an anomoly happens and it blows up in our atmosphere. It's way too risky. Once they get the technology to build an elevator to space it's a much more viable option.

jhns
03-28-2011, 12:57 PM
It is belching plutonium? Is that why you can get the exact same readings in your back yard? There is plutonium in all soil that was distributed by nuclear bomb testing. If you would even try reading, you would know that they know 3 of those 5 sites have nothing to do with the reactors. Two of them may have something to do with the reactors...

Quoydogs
03-28-2011, 01:04 PM
I have a question.

Why can't we just shoot radioactive **** into space? I know it's expensive, but can you put a price on the health of our planet?

I thought about this but then I thought what happens when you have a whole ****load of this on a rocket and it gets 500 feet in the air and explodes ?

underrated29
03-28-2011, 01:13 PM
Well, that one guy and his kid sent their Iphone into space with 1 weather baloon.



I think we could pretty easily get it into space if we wanted.



Get it into space, then load it up on a rocket and send it for the sun. That way even if we miss the sun, it will get sucked into its gravitational pull and we will not have to worry about that plutonium falling back down to earth.

HAT
03-28-2011, 01:24 PM
The plant is now leaking Plutonium -- see press release below -- the most toxic substance known in the universe. Plutonium does not exist in Nature -- but is created in the bowels of nuclear reactors. Now it appears to be belching from reactor # 3 -- which used a mixed fuel including recycled Plutonium.

The biggest threat is not from external radiation -- which will not reach us. Rather, the main threat is from the dispersal of a witches brew of extremely radioactive isotopes -- around the planet. Some like Plutonium are long lived. Plutonium has a half life of 24,000+ years -- essentially forever in human terms.

These particles will get into the water and foods chain -- then into the body where they will cause leukemia, cancers and many other diseases -- not to mention the damage to the human genome.

Michio Kaku now rates the accident as a 6 out of 7. Chernobyl was a 7.

The anti nuclear argument is now vindicated. The hard nuclear path is simply too dangerous. The soft path of solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hydrogen, etc is much more forgiving. You can make mistakes on the soft path -- with very little consequence.



Toxic, bowels, belching, witches brew, radioactive, forever, water supply and food chain, cancer, Chernobyl, vindicated......

OH NOES!!!!!

Propaganda much?

Taco John
03-28-2011, 01:24 PM
I wouldn't want to be a politician and face the voters with a plan to put a nuclear reactor in their back yard. Voters would stone you on the spot.

Nuclear power is dead, dead, dead in America.

Kaylore
03-28-2011, 01:27 PM
I wouldn't want to be a politician and face the voters with a plan to put a nuclear reactor in their back yard. Voters would stone you on the spot.

Nuclear power is dead, dead, dead in America.

Soooooo disagree.

Taco John
03-28-2011, 01:30 PM
Soooooo disagree.

You gotta get through the voters first. I just don't see it. I don't see how you can.

Fedaykin
03-28-2011, 01:41 PM
The anti nuclear argument is now vindicated. The hard nuclear path is simply too dangerous. The soft path of solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hydrogen, etc is much more forgiving. You can make mistakes on the soft path -- with very little consequence.


In other news, the anti airplane movement was vindicated yesterday when the Wright brothers crashed in their newfangled machine while traveling across the U.S.

A witness to the event had this to say:

"Clearly these "planes" are a complete distaster. Wood is a terrible material to make a vehicle out of and engines throw rods all the time. Heck, the pilot isn't even strapped in!"

Fedaykin
03-28-2011, 01:45 PM
I have a question.

Why can't we just shoot radioactive **** into space? I know it's expensive, but can you put a price on the health of our planet?

The whole planet is radioactive. Do you know where radon gas comes from? It comes from the decay of naturally occuring uranium in the soil.

Archer81
03-28-2011, 01:47 PM
I wouldn't want to be a politician and face the voters with a plan to put a nuclear reactor in their back yard. Voters would stone you on the spot.

Nuclear power is dead, dead, dead in America.


Thanks to people like Gaff.


:Broncos:

Taco John
03-28-2011, 01:57 PM
Thanks to people like Gaff.


:Broncos:



You could say that about the opposition of any issue. Blaming the proponents or detractors isn't really productive. At the end of the day, the perception line is drawn across the foreheads of the voters and you either win them or you don't.

Chris
03-28-2011, 01:59 PM
Why don't they just dump a ****load of concrete on this site?

Rohirrim
03-28-2011, 02:00 PM
I have no problem with building new nuclear reactors in the U.S.. Just so long as they build them in Texas. ;D

Bronco Yoda
03-28-2011, 02:04 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/netizen/Information20Bowlen20Minister.jpg

No worries people! Calm down!

All Lies by the sneaky West.

The drinking water is clean. The air is clean. No food has been contaminated.

....what was I sayying aagain?

Oh, yah... We are confident that a lockout will not happenns now that half the roofss off the reactors are blown off anywayyy.

MIT sstudentts asssures me that plutonium makes prettty neon colorssss.

Oooh the wavess arre prrrretty glow in the mmoonliggth. Is thta a ppurple dooolphinnnnnnnnnn?

Who put thissssssssss umbrelllla in myaydh ddrilnk?

slldkdkfjjfjlllllsll...

jutang
03-28-2011, 02:05 PM
Once gas prices get to $8-10/gal most voters will reconsider nuclear power as a source. Oil and coal have killed a lot more people than nuclear power has.... You can probably put Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the total count and fossil fuels still have the higher body count.

I bet the BP gulf oil spill will have a more longer lasting effect than ***ushima on the environment.

Atwater His Ass
03-28-2011, 03:11 PM
I wouldn't want to be a politician and face the voters with a plan to put a nuclear reactor in their back yard. Voters would stone you on the spot.

Nuclear power is dead, dead, dead in America.

It's by far the safest power generating option in the world today.

Only people that have zero education about nuclear power think it's "dead".

Anybody who links what's happening in Japan to Chernobyl is an idiot, just belching propaganda for their own agenda.

Taco John
03-28-2011, 03:25 PM
It's by far the safest power generating option in the world today.

Only people that have zero education about nuclear power think it's "dead".

Anybody who links what's happening in Japan to Chernobyl is an idiot, just belching propaganda for their own agenda.


I have next to zero real education about nuclear power, but that's not why I think it's dead. It's the 99% of the rest of the voting population who has next to zero education about nuclear power that makes me think it's dead. People like you are confused about how public policy is built when you say things like "only the people that have zero education about nuclear power think it's dead." It's like you think there is some science dictator who over-rules the masses or something. That's not how it works.

Like it or not - whether it's wrong or right - nuclear power has been dealt a HUGE political blow. The damage done to it isn't going to be fixed with a bunch of snarky smartypantses running around telling people how stupid and uneducated they are for not wanting a nuclear reactor in their back yard. And if that's the approach, it's much, much deader than I currently imagine it is.

For my part, I'm following the politics of this thing around the globe, and so far the backlash has been resounding. Nuclear proponents are getting the asses kicked in politics right now. Angela Merkel being the first victim (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/28/angela-merkel-nuclear-review-election). Keep your eye on what's going on in Iowa (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_en&q=Iowa+Nuclear#q=Iowa+Nuclear&hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_en&prmd=ivnsu&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=eguRTaqUM430swOpqcmvDg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=4&ved=0CBYQ_AUoAw&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=b7e0bcb92b33b93) if you want to know the state of nuclear politics in America.

Tombstone RJ
03-28-2011, 04:05 PM
I have next to zero real education about nuclear power, but that's not why I think it's dead. It's the 99% of the rest of the voting population who has next to zero education about nuclear power that makes me think it's dead. People like you are confused about how public policy is built when you say things like "only the people that have zero education about nuclear power think it's dead." It's like you think there is some science dictator who over-rules the masses or something. That's not how it works.

Like it or not - whether it's wrong or right - nuclear power has been dealt a HUGE political blow. The damage done to it isn't going to be fixed with a bunch of snarky smartypantses running around telling people how stupid and uneducated they are for not wanting a nuclear reactor in their back yard. And if that's the approach, it's much, much deader than I currently imagine it is.

For my part, I'm following the politics of this thing around the globe, and so far the backlash has been resounding. Nuclear proponents are getting the asses kicked in politics right now. Angela Merkel being the first victim (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/28/angela-merkel-nuclear-review-election). Keep your eye on what's going on in Iowa (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_en&q=Iowa+Nuclear#q=Iowa+Nuclear&hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_en&prmd=ivnsu&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=eguRTaqUM430swOpqcmvDg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=4&ved=0CBYQ_AUoAw&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=b7e0bcb92b33b93) if you want to know the state of nuclear politics in America.

If I was a politician, I'd be pushing hard for nuclear as a viable option. I'd also tell people that what happened in Japan was extremely unlikely to ever happen again. Japan got hit with a class 9 earthquake right off its coast, then got pummled by mega tsunamis and then had to deal with the after shocks of the initial class 9 earthquake.

Japan probably has (I'm guessing here) more nuclear plants per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world, and they are all in a very small area (Japan is not very big).

You take those factors, put them all together and I say it's amazing that there's only 1 reactor that has partially melted down.

Think about it. IMHO, this more than proves that nuclear plants are pretty fuggin safe if they can go through this mega catastrophe and come out on the other end with one reactor having serious problems.

People need to put this in perspective.

Archer81
03-28-2011, 04:09 PM
If I was a politician, I'd be pushing hard for nuclear as a viable option. I'd also tell people that what happened in Japan was extremely unlikely to ever happen again. Japan got hit with a class 9 earthquake right off its coast, then got pummled by mega tsunamis and then had to deal with the after shocks of the initial class 9 earthquake.

Japan probably has (I'm guessing here) more nuclear plants per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world, and they are all in a very small area (Japan is not very big).

You take those factors, put them all together and I say it's amazing that there's only 1 reactor that has partially melted down.

Think about it. IMHO, this more than proves that nuclear plants are pretty fuggin safe if they can go through this mega catastrophe and come out on the other end with one reactor having serious problems.

People need to put this in perspective.

Japan is small. 100 + million people packed into an area roughly the size of NE and NY. Anything that happens there is magnified because of the population density. Nuclear power in the US would be different. What are the odds we place a nuclear reactor in an area known for catastrophic earthquakes or tsunamis? Also, the reactors in Japan did what they were supposed to do, and as bad as it is, it would have been worse if the reactors were not designed well.

:Broncos:

Tombstone RJ
03-28-2011, 04:12 PM
Once gas prices get to $8-10/gal most voters will reconsider nuclear power as a source. Oil and coal have killed a lot more people than nuclear power has.... You can probably put Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the total count and fossil fuels still have the higher body count.

I bet the BP gulf oil spill will have a more longer lasting effect than ***ushima on the environment.

yep, thanks for the perspective...

Tombstone RJ
03-28-2011, 04:14 PM
Japan is small. 100 + million people packed into an area roughly the size of NE and NY. Anything that happens there is magnified because of the population density. Nuclear power in the US would be different. What are the odds we place a nuclear reactor in an area known for catastrophic earthquakes or tsunamis? Also, the reactors in Japan did what they were supposed to do, and as bad as it is, it would have been worse if the reactors were not designed well.

:Broncos:

shhhh! Damnit man, why all the common sense??

mhgaffney
03-28-2011, 05:38 PM
If I was a politician, I'd be pushing hard for nuclear as a viable option. I'd also tell people that what happened in Japan was extremely unlikely to ever happen again. Japan got hit with a class 9 earthquake right off its coast, then got pummled by mega tsunamis and then had to deal with the after shocks of the initial class 9 earthquake.

Japan probably has (I'm guessing here) more nuclear plants per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world, and they are all in a very small area (Japan is not very big).

You take those factors, put them all together and I say it's amazing that there's only 1 reactor that has partially melted down.

Think about it. IMHO, this more than proves that nuclear plants are pretty fuggin safe if they can go through this mega catastrophe and come out on the other end with one reactor having serious problems.

People need to put this in perspective.

No, you do not get it.

Three of the reactors are probably in melt down mode -- with one - maybe two -- having cracked containment vessels. So they are leaking.

Yes, we need to get perspective. The situation is grave. That's the reality.

Check out this report last week by Michio Kaku. He was probably right, last week, when he urged the Japanese gov't to start sandbagging.


<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PREzwzXPd0A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Atwater His Ass
03-28-2011, 07:08 PM
"After taking soil samples at the ***ushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, Japanese authorities today confirmed finding traces of plutonium that most likely resulted from the nuclear accident there. The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency told the IAEA that the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) had found concentrations of plutonium in two of five soil samples.

Traces of plutonium are not uncommon in soil because they were deposited worldwide during the atmospheric nuclear testing era. However, the isotopic composition of the plutonium found at ***ushima Daiichi suggests the material came from the reactor site, according to TEPCO officials. Still, the quantity of plutonium found does not exceed background levels tracked by Japan's Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology over the past 30 years."

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html

Troll harder.

mhgaffney
03-28-2011, 08:20 PM
"After taking soil samples at the ***ushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, Japanese authorities today confirmed finding traces of plutonium that most likely resulted from the nuclear accident there. The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency told the IAEA that the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) had found concentrations of plutonium in two of five soil samples.

Traces of plutonium are not uncommon in soil because they were deposited worldwide during the atmospheric nuclear testing era. However, the isotopic composition of the plutonium found at ***ushima Daiichi suggests the material came from the reactor site, according to TEPCO officials. Still, the quantity of plutonium found does not exceed background levels tracked by Japan's Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology over the past 30 years."

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html

Troll harder.

Your attitude would be humorous if the issue were not so serious.

Here' s a video of Fu-kushima, shot within the last day or two. You can see the destruction -- and the smoke and steam pouring out of the reactors.

It's why the term "belching" is accurate.

From this -- it is not clear which reactor(s) are smoking. But it's a safe bet the smoke/steam we are seeing is highly radioactive.

The IAEA has poo-pooed the actual dangers of nuclear for many years. But there is no shortage of gullible fools who believe them.

MHG

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/p_T0M5nz_tg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Missouribronc
03-28-2011, 08:21 PM
Your attitude would be humorous if the issue were not so serious.

Here' s a video of Fu-kushima, shot within the last day or two. You can see the destruction -- and the smoke and steam pouring out of the reactors.

It's why the term "belching" is accurate.

From this -- it is not clear which reactor(s) are smoking. But it's a safe bet the smoke/steam we are seeing is highly radioactive.

The IAEA has poo-pooed the actual dangers of nuclear for many years. But there is no shortage of gullible fools who believe them.

MHG

The World is Ending! The World is Ending!

mhgaffney
03-28-2011, 08:23 PM
Correction.

The world as we know it is ending.

In fact, it never was.

Taco John
03-28-2011, 08:23 PM
If I was a politician, I'd be pushing hard for nuclear as a viable option.


Good luck getting elected. I doubt you'd break 20% in the current environment when push comes to shove at the ballot box with that message, especially with soccer moms. You'd have a group of hard core believers, and you'd need every last one of them passing out flyers and knocking on doors explaining to people why they should welcome a nuclear reactor in their back yards with open arms.

The point is, you're not looking at a downhill slope to win the election.

Lycan
03-28-2011, 08:59 PM
Good luck getting elected. I doubt you'd break 20% in the current environment when push comes to shove at the ballot box with that message, especially with soccer moms. You'd have a group of hard core believers, and you'd need every last one of them passing out flyers and knocking on doors explaining to people why they should welcome a nuclear reactor in their back yards with open arms.

The point is, you're not looking at a downhill slope to win the election.

So what your saying is that voters are stupid and politicians need to be also or pretend they are too in order to get elected? ... This country is screwed in the head.

extralife
03-28-2011, 09:02 PM
So what your saying is that voters are stupid and politicians need to be also or pretend they are too in order to get elected? ... This country is screwed in the head.

let me introduce you to THE WORLD, Mr. Lycan

extralife
03-28-2011, 09:03 PM
alternatively, ::sarahpalin.jpg::, etc.

lostknight
03-28-2011, 09:07 PM
There is no chance that this is natural plutonium. It's been known that there was some sort of a breach for quite a while. But please note, before people like mhgaffney hyperventillate - oops, too late - this is extraordinarily low amount of exposure and dispersal. This is exactly why you cool down the reactors to cold stage, rather then deliberatly letting them melt down as some here have proposed.

The exposed radiation outside of the reactors and the spent fuel ponds is on the scale on micro servs. Everyone on this board who lives in Denver have had a singificantly higher amount of exposure due to being a few feet closer to the sun, and a few more radioative soild in the ground.

It will be the worst possible outcome if this results in us keeping old plants like this around instead of reactors that are newer then say half a century and passive safety systems.

The reality still is that not a single person has died due to this accident. It's tragic, and worrying, but not on the same scale as the rest of the destruction.

lostknight
03-28-2011, 09:08 PM
Good luck getting elected. I doubt you'd break 20% in the current environment when push comes to shove at the ballot box with that message, especially with soccer moms. You'd have a group of hard core believers, and you'd need every last one of them passing out flyers and knocking on doors explaining to people why they should welcome a nuclear reactor in their back yards with open arms.

The point is, you're not looking at a downhill slope to win the election.

People already have them in their backyard, and the focus should be on replacing them with a effective new reactors.

It's either that and kill everyone with carbon poisioning, and having people freeze to death when the sun goes down.

HAT
03-28-2011, 09:14 PM
http://www.londonnet.co.uk/ahoy/196/graphics/topleft.jpg

Tombstone RJ
03-28-2011, 09:22 PM
No, you do not get it.

Three of the reactors are probably in melt down mode -- with one - maybe two -- having cracked containment vessels. So they are leaking.

Yes, we need to get perspective. The situation is grave. That's the reality.

I'm willing to admit that we don't know how serious the damage is to the 3 reactors at this one nuclear power plant, but I'm on a wait and see mode, unlike you, who appears to be on a "let's freak out" mode.

Again, it's a fluid situation and I want to see the how the Japanese deal with the it before I call it "grave." You have to remember the Japanese have other problems they are also trying to handle, along with this nuclear power plant. They have a lot of crap to deal with.

You obviously don't. The only crap you have to deal with is your own conspiracy theory gibberish.


Check out this report last week by Michio Kaku. He was probably right, last week, when he urged the Japanese gov't to start sandbagging.

I already watched the vid and Kaku isn't exactly my top choice for advice on this situation. Simply because he's Japanese and a scientist, and is on TV doing his astronomy stuff, does not mean he has any great insight into the situation. He's got an opinion, and that is fine. I hope he's wrong.

You however, hope he's right. And that is why you are a loser.

HAT
03-28-2011, 09:30 PM
People already have them in their backyard,

I surf in front of San Onofre several times a year.....No biggie.

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/san-onofre.jpg

http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/files/2008/07/san-onofre-beachgoers.jpg

http://media.trb.com/media/photo/2009-08/48572366.jpg

Funny that the majority of anti-nuclear power because of safety seem to live in middle America and the ones on the coasts oppose it for aesthetic or real estate reasons.

If somebody gave me a quaint little 2 bedroom right next to the domes I'd move in tomorrow.

Taco John
03-28-2011, 09:36 PM
So what your saying is that voters are stupid and politicians need to be also or pretend they are too in order to get elected? ... This country is screwed in the head.

Do you even follow elections? George Bush and Barack Obama got elected. What more do you need?

Tombstone RJ
03-28-2011, 09:41 PM
Good luck getting elected. I doubt you'd break 20% in the current environment when push comes to shove at the ballot box with that message, especially with soccer moms. You'd have a group of hard core believers, and you'd need every last one of them passing out flyers and knocking on doors explaining to people why they should welcome a nuclear reactor in their back yards with open arms.

The point is, you're not looking at a downhill slope to win the election.

Then I'd tell the soccor heads this: "you wanna drive little Madison and Brook to the soccor game right? I mean, your life is pretty darn busy right now and you don't have the money to pay $20 for a gallon of gas. But darn it, you still have a minivan that you gotta use to get those kiddies to those games, am I right?? How about an electic minivan, yah know, the one you plug in and recharge every night before you tuck little Madison and Brooky in! Electic cars are as green as good ole Mother Earth! And, they are quiet too so there's none of that noise pollution either! Well, we want to get you that electricity, and we want to get it to you at a reasonable price, instead of paying $400 a week for gas, how about paying $400 a year to keep that van running? Does that sound good to you? GOOOOOOOD. That's why we need electric energy from something called nuclear power plants."

Hit people in the wallet and their ears perk right up.

Dedhed
03-28-2011, 10:11 PM
I have a question.

Why can't we just shoot radioactive **** into space? I know it's expensive, but can you put a price on the health of our planet?
And people complain about the cost of developing solar technology...sigh

Dedhed
03-28-2011, 10:15 PM
Once gas prices get to $8-10/gal most voters will reconsider nuclear power as a source. Oil and coal have killed a lot more people than nuclear power has.... You can probably put Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the total count and fossil fuels still have the higher body count.

I bet the BP gulf oil spill will have a more longer lasting effect than ***ushima on the environment.

What, exactly, is this an argument for? This sounds like two guys arguing over a lady based on who has less body odor.

Meanwhile, the girl left the bar an hour ago, and there are two drunk guys smelling each others pits.

"WINNNING!!!!!"

mhgaffney
03-28-2011, 10:20 PM
d,

Thanks for the photos.

Scientists have confirmed that the US West Coast has been hit by large tsunamis many times in the past. Studies along the Oregon coast have proven this.

The last big one was a few hundred years ago. No telling when the next one will happen. But it will -- that is certain.

Was this nuclear plant designed to survive an 40 foot tsunami? The recent Japanese tsunami actually measured more than 40 feet in some places.

Sound very very stupid to me.

There's enough tidal power along the W coast to provide much -- maybe all -- of our needs. Add to that geothermal, wind, solar, conservation, water power, and you could certainly cover it.

Learn how to tap lighting from the ionosphere and electricity will be too cheap to meter. But if we destroy the biology of the planet with radionuclides in the meantime it won't be a fit place to live.

broncocalijohn
03-28-2011, 10:44 PM
I have a question.

Why can't we just shoot radioactive **** into space? I know it's expensive, but can you put a price on the health of our planet?

And kill the aliens? What kind of human are you?

HAT
03-28-2011, 11:19 PM
But if we destroy the biology of the planet with radionuclides in the meantime it won't be a fit place to live.

I'm surprised mankind survived the industrial revolution. Coal was the prime culprit & we are still burning it today......Only cleaner and safer.

http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/imgs_timeline/smoke.jpg

The same thing will happen with Nuke energy. Throughout history....every time one generation proclaims the end is near, the next usually solves whatever problem they were railing about.

Newsflash: As long as the US Navy is cruising around above and below the world's oceans.....Nuke power ain't going anywhere.

Atwater His Ass
03-28-2011, 11:32 PM
Your attitude would be humorous if the issue were not so serious.

Here' s a video of Fu-kushima, shot within the last day or two. You can see the destruction -- and the smoke and steam pouring out of the reactors.

It's why the term "belching" is accurate.

From this -- it is not clear which reactor(s) are smoking. But it's a safe bet the smoke/steam we are seeing is highly radioactive.



"On March 25, Japanese authorities reported to the IAEA that they had recorded the radiation doses to the thyroids of 66 children living just outside the perimeter of the evacuation zone. These measurements are important because the thyroid tends to accumulate iodine, and radioactive isotopes of iodine make up much of the radiation field being measured far from the reactor site. In addition, children are especially sensitive. The measurements showed no significant deviations from background radiation levels in these children, 14 of whom were infants."

http://mitnse.com/

Oh please. Continue.

mhgaffney
03-29-2011, 01:04 AM
I'm surprised mankind survived the industrial revolution. Coal was the prime culprit & we are still burning it today......Only cleaner and safer.

http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/imgs_timeline/smoke.jpg

The same thing will happen with Nuke energy. Throughout history....every time one generation proclaims the end is near, the next usually solves whatever problem they were railing about.

Newsflash: As long as the US Navy is cruising around above and below the world's oceans.....Nuke power ain't going anywhere.

Let's hope so.

The solution won't be nuclear, however. That much is now clear.

jhns
03-29-2011, 06:10 AM
There's enough tidal power along the W coast to provide much -- maybe all -- of our needs. Add to that geothermal, wind, solar, conservation, water power, and you could certainly cover it.


With current technology, these wouldn't cover a quarter of our energy needs even if we put the huge amount of money needed into it. Why would you just continually make uneducated claims? You do realize it makes you look like a dumbass, right?

55CrushEm
03-29-2011, 06:32 AM
Let's hope so.

The solution won't be nuclear, however. That much is now clear.

Maybe, maybe not. But it won't be wind power, either, you hippie.

mhgaffney
03-29-2011, 06:59 AM
With current technology, these wouldn't cover a quarter of our energy needs even if we put the huge amount of money needed into it. Why would you just continually make uneducated claims? You do realize it makes you look like a dumbass, right?

There's enough wind power on the high plains of west Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico to supply ALL of US electric needs --

The challenge is to capture it - and distribute it.

There is no shortage of answers. What is lacking is the political will to make it happen.

theAPAOps5
03-29-2011, 06:59 AM
I have a question.

Why can't we just shoot radioactive **** into space? I know it's expensive, but can you put a price on the health of our planet?

Superman did it!

mhgaffney
03-29-2011, 07:04 AM
Here's a good radio update about Fu-kushima by a Japanese nuclear expert Yoichi Shimatsu
http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/special/rense_Shimatsu_032811.mp3

jhns
03-29-2011, 07:06 AM
There's enough wind power on the high plains of west Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico to supply ALL of US electric needs --

The challenge is to capture it - and distribute it.

There is no shortage of answers. What is lacking is the political will to make it happen.

Wrong. What, if we fill every inch with wind turbines stacked 12 high? Who needs room for homes and food?

missingnumber7
03-29-2011, 07:10 AM
http://media.trb.com/media/photo/2009-08/48572366.jpg


There is no doubt in my mind that a man designed this....i mean cummon...lets make a nuclear reactor that looks like boobies.

Requiem
03-29-2011, 07:12 AM
He isn't necessarily wrong. There are plenty of places in America conducive to wind power. The problem with wind power right now is the technology and the expenses associated with it. Efficiency is also a big question. Operating at 60% efficiency is almost the best that are associated with what is currently available. They aren't entirely self-sustaining, so power is always being used elsewhere.

There is plenty of room too, just getting the right and affordable access to build these stations is the issue.

jhns
03-29-2011, 07:33 AM
He isn't necessarily wrong. There are plenty of places in America conducive to wind power. The problem with wind power right now is the technology and the expenses associated with it. Efficiency is also a big question. Operating at 60% efficiency is almost the best that are associated with what is currently available. They aren't entirely self-sustaining, so power is always being used elsewhere.

There is plenty of room too, just getting the right and affordable access to build these stations is the issue.

Countries that have invested a ton in wind energy are only able to get around 20 percent of their power from it. These countries use a lot less power than us. Wind energy will help but it isn't a solution in the near future. It takes a lot of land and money to get these going. Then there is the fact that they get half their power in about 15 percent of their operating time. They are not a consistent source of power.

Requiem
03-29-2011, 08:02 AM
Yes, I talked about their inefficiencies.

My dad has been working for the Department of Energy for ~ 30 years now and deals with this sort of thing.

He likes the idea of wind energy, but not the technology and cost right now. Maybe down da road.

Dat long road you take when you wiggity wooo

Ao WOooo

Kaylore
03-29-2011, 08:04 AM
Dat long road you take when you wiggity wooo

Ao WOooo

:spit:

DrFate
03-29-2011, 09:43 AM
There are plenty of places in America conducive to wind power.

Part of the problem with wind is that the places that are condudive to wind power are pretty far away from the places that are conducive to people. (by that I mean the population centers)

And energy is lost in the transmission

bendog
03-29-2011, 09:51 AM
And the electricity or energy has to somehow be stored, and there's less wind in summer, and less solar in winter.

The ***ashima plant should never have been set next to an ocean. And the battery power was insufficient to be the final back up if diesal generators and grid power from other elec producers temporaily failed. Not that the same errors aren't being made here.

Dedhed
03-29-2011, 10:30 AM
Nuclear is the answer, and we have the one nuclear reactor we need already in place; 90+million miles away which is exactly where you want it to be. We should invest billions of dollars in developing technology that captures that power.

HAT
03-29-2011, 10:54 AM
There is no doubt in my mind that a man designed this....i mean cummon...lets make a nuclear reactor that looks like boobies.

Hahaha,,,Yep. BCJ sent me a Rep comment mentioning the same.

If you were a kid growing up in SoCal, you didn't drive from LA to SD without making boobie jokes at San Onofre.

Leslie Nielsen agrees!

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/S5OQMoSCrqw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

HAT
03-29-2011, 11:09 AM
He isn't necessarily wrong. There are plenty of places in America conducive to wind power. The problem with wind power right now is the technology and the expenses associated with it. Efficiency is also a big question. Operating at 60% efficiency is almost the best that are associated with what is currently available. They aren't entirely self-sustaining, so power is always being used elsewhere.

There is plenty of room too, just getting the right and affordable access to build these stations is the issue.

Here in SoCal, we've got 2 pretty big AE sites. The Palm Springs wind farm & the Kramer Junction solar facility in the high desert. Both are about 2 hours from LA. I have no idea how much power these places produce but they are both pretty big installations.

What I want to know is at what point do the same hippies calling for wind/solar start screaming "Save our Desert environments!" ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Power_block_at_Kramer_Junction.JPG

http://dailybeatz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/palm-springs-windmills-e1270933965684.jpg

Drunk Monkey
03-29-2011, 11:18 AM
There's enough wind power on the high plains of west Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico to supply ALL of US electric needs --

The challenge is to capture it - and distribute it.

There is no shortage of answers. What is lacking is the political will to make it happen.

So you want to take wind energy from Texas and send that power to New York. What are you going to do about the energy lost over that distance? You are aware that the longer the distance the less efficient the transfer. I find you annoying first and foremost for being a crack pot alarmist. Compounded by your lack of intelligence you are borderline unbearable.

Willynowei
03-29-2011, 11:28 AM
So many idiots.

Inkana7
03-29-2011, 11:33 AM
Isn't something like 80% of France's energy supplied by Nuclear power? They haven't blown up yet.

bendog
03-29-2011, 11:56 AM
Does anyone have a link as to how it is possible to "store" power produced by wind/solar to be used when the wind or sun aren't doing their things?

bendog
03-29-2011, 11:57 AM
Isn't something like 80% of France's energy supplied by Nuclear power? They haven't blown up yet.

Their alarmaist surrender driven snail eating elitists.

Dedhed
03-29-2011, 12:07 PM
Does anyone have a link as to how it is possible to "store" power produced by wind/solar to be used when the wind or sun aren't doing their things?

Does anyone have a link for how it is possible to talk on a cell phone when it isn't plugged into a wall?

www.duracell.com

Dedhed
03-29-2011, 12:08 PM
Isn't something like 80% of France's energy supplied by Nuclear power? They haven't blown up yet.

Can anyone point out the operative word in this statement?

Archer81
03-29-2011, 12:09 PM
There's enough wind power on the high plains of west Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico to supply ALL of US electric needs -- The challenge is to capture it - and distribute it.

There is no shortage of answers. What is lacking is the political will to make it happen.


You do know the wind is not constant anywhere, right? And you know what else could supply all of our energy needs? Our oil, coal, hydeoelectric, geothermal, wind, solar and NUCLEAR resources.

I would call you a Cassandra but she at least had the benefit of being right.

:Broncos:

Archer81
03-29-2011, 12:10 PM
Can anyone point out the operative word in this statement?


Yet?

Should we determine energy policy by what could/might/possibly go wrong?


:Broncos:

Missouribronc
03-29-2011, 12:26 PM
Isn't something like 80% of France's energy supplied by Nuclear power? They haven't blown up yet.

Damn the luck.

:afro:

bendog
03-29-2011, 12:29 PM
Does anyone have a link for how it is possible to talk on a cell phone when it isn't plugged into a wall?

www.duracell.com

Right, store the electricity to cool LA. Genius.

Dedhed
03-29-2011, 02:12 PM
Right, store the electricity to cool LA. Genius.

So you're asking how to use the solar energy when the sun isn't shining and then use an example of when the sun is baking the earth to the point that people need cooling devices.

Genius!

Willynowei
03-29-2011, 02:13 PM
Does anyone have a link for how it is possible to talk on a cell phone when it isn't plugged into a wall?

www.duracell.com

All the batteries (car, industrial, backup, consumer electronic, computer, and every other battery ever made) in the world combined could not store US energy consumption for more than 10 minutes.

Dedhed
03-29-2011, 03:00 PM
All the batteries (car, industrial, backup, consumer electronic, computer, and every other battery ever made) in the world combined could not store US energy consumption for more than 10 minutes.

No kidding. It's a good thing that isn't even being discussed.

Boobs McGee
03-29-2011, 03:19 PM
Ever since I saw this program for the first time, I was fairly excited


<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0OkqJw1oTMk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Solar thermal power. Pretty cool idea

Popps
03-29-2011, 03:21 PM
I find you annoying first and foremost for being a crack pot alarmist. Compounded by your lack of intelligence you are borderline unbearable.

But, aside from that he's pretty cool.

elsid13
03-29-2011, 03:37 PM
You do know the wind is not constant anywhere, right? And you know what else could supply all of our energy needs? Our oil, coal, hydeoelectric, geothermal, wind, solar and NUCLEAR resources.

I would call you a Cassandra but she at least had the benefit of being right.

:Broncos:

He actually right for a change. The problem isn't setting up a turbine farms, it the transmission lines.

extralife
03-29-2011, 03:49 PM
did you know that if we could capture the sun's total energy output for one second it'd be enough to meet current human energy needs for 500,000 years?

I don't really have a point here I just wanted to be that guy

kamakazi_kal
03-29-2011, 03:58 PM
Here in SoCal, we've got 2 pretty big AE sites. The Palm Springs wind farm & the Kramer Junction solar facility in the high desert. Both are about 2 hours from LA. I have no idea how much power these places produce but they are both pretty big installations.

What I want to know is at what point do the same hippies calling for wind/solar start screaming "Save our Desert environments!" ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Power_block_at_Kramer_Junction.JPG

http://dailybeatz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/palm-springs-windmills-e1270933965684.jpg

ha ha if you ride dirt bikes in that area you would see "tread lightly" already.

I would know. Defend the shrubs.

extralife
03-29-2011, 04:01 PM
Y THE MAN GOTTA KEEP MY BITCHIN WHEELS DOWN SON I RIDE HOW I LIVE POINTLESS AND DANGEROUS LATER SQUARES I'M OFF TO TEABAG THE PRESIDENT

mhgaffney
03-29-2011, 04:56 PM
Let's hope this guy is wrong.
MHG

When the ***ushima Meltdown Hits Groundwater

March 27, 2011
By Dr. Tom Burnett

http://hawaiinewsdaily.com/2011/03/when-the-***ushima-meltdown-hits-groundwater/

***ushima is going to dwarf Chenobyl. The Japanese government has had a level 7 nuclear disaster going for almost a week but won’t admit it.

The disaster is occurring the opposite way than Chernobyl, which exploded and stopped the reaction. At ***ushima, the reactions are getting worse. I suspect three nuclear piles are in meltdown and we will probably get some of it.

If reactor 3 is in meltdown, the concrete under the containment looks like lava. But ***ushima is not far off the water table. When that molten mass of self-sustaining nuclear material gets to the water table it won’t simply cool down. It will explode – not a nuclear explosion, but probably enough to involve the rest of the reactors and fuel rods at the facility.

Pouring concrete on a critical reactor makes no sense – it will simply explode and release more radioactive particulate matter. The concrete will melt and the problem will get worse. Chernobyl was different – a critical reactor exploded and stopped the reaction. At ***ushima, the reactor cores are still melting down. The ONLY way to stop that is to detonate a ~10 kiloton fission device inside each reactor containment vessel and hope to vaporize the cores. That’s probably a bad solution.

A nuclear meltdown is a self-sustaining reaction. Nothing can stop it except stopping the reaction. And that would require a nuclear weapon. In fact, it would require one in each containment vessel to merely stop what is going on now. But it will be messy.

***ushima was waiting to happen because of the placement of the emergency generators. If they had not all failed at once by being inundated by a tsunami, ***ushima would not have happened as it did – although it WOULD still have been a nuclear disaster. Every containment in the world is built to withstand a Magnitude 6.9 earthquake; the Japanese chose to ignore the fact that a similar earthquake had hit that same general area in 1896.

Anyway, here is the information that the US doesn’t seem to want released. And here is a chart that might help with perspective.

Making matters worse is the MOX in reactor 3. MOX is the street name for ‘mixed oxide fuel‘ which uses ~9% plutonium along with a uranium compound to fuel reactors. This is why it can be used.

The problem is that you don’t want to play with this stuff. A nuclear reactor means bring fissile material to a point at which it is hot enough to boil water (in a light-water reactor) and not enough to melt and go supercritical (China syndrome or a Chernobyl incident). You simply cannot let it get away from you because if it does, you can’t stop it.

The Japanese are still talking about days or weeks to clean this up. That’s not true. They cannot clean it up. And no one will live in that area again for dozens or maybe hundreds of years.

boltaneer
03-29-2011, 06:14 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842


Viewpoint: We should stop running away from radiation

By Wade Allison
University of Oxford

More than 10,000 people have died in the Japanese tsunami and the survivors are cold and hungry. But the media concentrate on nuclear radiation from which no-one has died - and is unlikely to.

Nuclear radiation at very high levels is dangerous, but the scale of concern that it evokes is misplaced. Nuclear technology cures countless cancer patients every day - and a radiation dose given for radiotherapy in hospital is no different in principle to a similar dose received in the environment.

What of Three Mile Island? There were no known deaths there.

And Chernobyl? The latest UN report published on 28 February confirms the known death toll - 28 fatalities among emergency workers, plus 15 fatal cases of child thyroid cancer - which would have been avoided if iodine tablets had been taken (as they have now in Japan). And in each case the numbers are minute compared with the 3,800 at Bhopal in 1984, who died as a result of a leak of chemicals from the Union Carbide pesticide plant.

A becquerel (Bq), named after French physicist Henri Becquerel, is a measure of radioactivity

A quantity of radioactive material has an activity of 1Bq if one nucleus decays per second - and 1kBq if 1,000 nuclei decay per second

A sievert (Sv) is a measure of radiation absorbed by a person, named after Swedish medical physicist Rolf Sievert

A milli-sievert (mSv) is a 1,000th of a Sievert

So what of the radioactivity released at ***ushima? How does it compare with that at Chernobyl? Let's look at the measured count rates. The highest rate reported, at 1900 on 22 March, for any Japanese prefecture was 12 kBq per sq m (for the radioactive isotope of caesium, caesium-137).

A map of Chernobyl in the UN report shows regions shaded according to rate, up to 3,700 kBq per sq m - areas with less than 37 kBq per sq m are not shaded at all. In round terms, this suggests that the radioactive fallout at ***ushima is less than 1% of that at Chernobyl.

The other important radioisotope in fallout is iodine, which can cause child thyroid cancer.

This is only produced when the reactor is on and quickly decays once the reactor shuts down (it has a half life of eight days). The old fuel rods in storage at ***ushima, though radioactive, contain no iodine.

But at Chernobyl the full inventory of iodine and caesium was released in the initial explosion, so that at ***ushima any release of iodine should be much less than 1% of that at Chernobyl - with an effect reduced still further by iodine tablets.

Unfortunately, public authorities react by providing over-cautious guidance - and this simply escalates public concern.

Over-reaction

On the 16th anniversary of Chernobyl, the Swedish radiation authorities, writing in the Stockholm daily Dagens Nyheter, admitted over-reacting by setting the safety level too low and condemning 78% of all reindeer meat unnecessarily, and at great cost.

Unfortunately, the Japanese seem to be repeating the mistake. On 23 March they advised that children should not drink tap water in Tokyo, where an activity of 200 Bq per litre had been measured the day before. Let's put this in perspective. The natural radioactivity in every human body is 50 Bq per litre - 200 Bq per litre is really not going to do much harm.

In the Cold War era most people were led to believe that nuclear radiation presents a quite exceptional danger understood only by "eggheads" working in secret military establishments.

To cope with the friendly fire of such nuclear propaganda on the home front, ever tighter radiation regulations were enacted in order to keep all contact with radiation As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), as the principle became known.

This attempt at reassurance is the basis of international radiation safety regulations today, which suggest an upper limit for the general public of 1 mSv per year above natural levels.

This very low figure is not a danger level, rather it's a small addition to the levels found in nature - a British person is exposed to 2.7 mSv per year, on average. My book Radiation and Reason argues that a responsible danger level based on current science would be 100 mSv per month, with a lifelong limit of 5,000 mSv, not 1 mSv per year.

New attitude

People worry about radiation because they cannot feel it. However, nature has a solution - in recent years it has been found that living cells replace and mend themselves in various ways to recover from a dose of radiation.

These clever mechanisms kick in within hours and rarely fail, except when they are overloaded - as at Chernobyl, where most of the emergency workers who received a dose greater than 4,000 mSv over a few hours died within weeks.

However, patients receiving a course of radiotherapy usually get a dose of more than 20,000 mSv to vital healthy tissue close to the treated tumour. This tissue survives only because the treatment is spread over many days giving healthy cells time for repair or replacement.

In this way, many patients get to enjoy further rewarding years of life, even after many vital organs have received the equivalent of more than 20,000 years' dose at the above internationally recommended annual limit - which makes this limit unreasonable.

A sea-change is needed in our attitude to radiation, starting with education and public information.

Then fresh safety standards should be drawn up, based not on how radiation can be excluded from our lives, but on how much we can receive without harm - mindful of the other dangers that beset us, such as climate change and loss of electric power. Perhaps a new acronym is needed to guide radiation safety - how about As High As Relatively Safe (AHARS)?

Modern reactors are better designed than those at ***ushima - tomorrow's may be better still, but we should not wait. Radioactive waste is nasty but the quantity is small, especially if re-processed. Anyway, it is not the intractable problem that many suppose.

Some might ask whether I would accept it if it were buried 100 metres under my own house? My answer would be: "Yes, why not?" More generally, we should stop running away from radiation.

Wade Allison is a nuclear and medical physicist at the University of Oxford, the author of Radiation and Reason (2009) and Fundamental Physics for Probing and Imaging (2006).

Atwater His Ass
03-29-2011, 06:19 PM
"With the fuel at or above temperatures of 2400 C, there exists the possibility that the fuel could cause damage to the reactor vessel. The melting point of the steel making up the vessel is in the neighborhood of 1500 C. In addition, the vessel in question may have been weakened by its exposure to seawater. The sodium chloride within seawater accelerates the corrosion of steels, but usually on the order of weeks or months, not days. Nevertheless, some uncertainty as to the condition of the vessel does exist.

Thankfully, operating experience with melted fuel speaks favorably. At Three Mile Island, approximately 50% of the core’s nuclear fuel melted, and just 5/8 inch (out of 9 inches) of the reactor pressure vessel’s internal surface was ablated. During the corium’s contact with the bottom of the vessel, the vessel glowed red-hot for about an hour. The heat to which the vessel was exposed induced metallurgical changes in the steel, rendering it more brittle. Instrumentation penetrations in the lower vessel head also suffered damage. Nevertheless, the molten core was contained by the vessel.

In the event that molten corium does, as has been the case in some experiments, penetrate the lower head of the reactor vessel, it will drop onto the concrete basemat of the containment and spread out as far as possible. The interaction of corium with concrete is known to produce a buildup of non-condensable gases within the containment, a process called molten-core concrete interaction (MCCI).

In the wake of the Three Mile Island accident, a number of agencies undertook programs to determine experimentally how corium would behave when placed into contact with a concrete reactor pad. These experiments have been used to measure concrete ablation, and also the rate of generation of non-condensable gases. Over the past twenty years, these studies have focused on quenching of the corium with water.

The experiments are performed by producing a melt of un-irradiated uranium dioxide (extremely low levels of alpha radioactivity, easily avoided by the experimenters), zirconium alloy, and structural steel, in the proportions that would be present in a reactor core. This melt is sent through a nozzle used to simulate a pressure vessel lower head breach, and dropped onto concrete. Measurements are taken during the hours-long experiment using thermocouples and camera equipment, and the solidified material is examined after completion.

The experiments have shown that without water quenching, corium under conditions similar to those present at ***ushima Dai-ichi will ablate the meters-thick concrete pad at a rate of just millimeters per minute. Gases would build up within the containment at a rate which would require filtered ventilation of the containment in order to prevent rupture.
If, however, water is supplied to quench the corium as it spreads onto the reactor floor, the ablation occurs at 5-7% of the pre-quench rate, and production of gases is suppressed. The rate of ablation continues to undergo fits and starts, as the corium forms a solid crust, and then this crust is broken and re-formed."

Full article here: http://mitnse.com/2011/03/17/on-worst-case-scenarios/

Wrong again. Fear monger moar.

Willynowei
03-29-2011, 08:13 PM
http://mitnse.com/

Things look under control. Seriously, I would be surprised if nuclear plant related deaths will ever, on average, exceed the amount of people getting killed by vending machines per year. On the flip side, cheaper and cleaner energy could save millions, if not billions of lives going forward.

That One Guy
03-29-2011, 08:41 PM
Well, that one guy and his kid sent their Iphone into space with 1 weather baloon.



I think we could pretty easily get it into space if we wanted.



Get it into space, then load it up on a rocket and send it for the sun. That way even if we miss the sun, it will get sucked into its gravitational pull and we will not have to worry about that plutonium falling back down to earth.

We did no such thing. No idea what you're talking about.

That One Guy
03-29-2011, 08:41 PM
There is no doubt in my mind that a man designed this....i mean cummon...lets make a nuclear reactor that looks like boobies.

Exactly what I saw as well.

That One Guy
03-29-2011, 08:44 PM
There's enough wind power on the high plains of west Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico to supply ALL of US electric needs --

The challenge is to capture it - and distribute it.

There is no shortage of answers. What is lacking is the political will to make it happen.

I'm quoting Gaff but not actually hoping for a response from him.

Anyways, something I've always wondered about. Does wind blow in the same direction enough that if we put up a bunch of windmills, we'd speed up or slow down the rotation of the earth? I know it'd be completely tiny but I'd presume it'd be additive. Imagine a spinning ball suddenly popping out sails.

Broncoman13
03-29-2011, 08:58 PM
And how do you plan to finance the new systems required to harness all this energy. I think the biggest obstacle is how much it will cost to build all the infrastructure necessary to harness and distribute all that power.

extralife
03-29-2011, 09:03 PM
I'm quoting Gaff but not actually hoping for a response from him.

Anyways, something I've always wondered about. Does wind blow in the same direction enough that if we put up a bunch of windmills, we'd speed up or slow down the rotation of the earth? I know it'd be completely tiny but I'd presume it'd be additive. Imagine a spinning ball suddenly popping out sails.

did you seriously just ask this question

That One Guy
03-29-2011, 09:22 PM
did you seriously just ask this question

;D

Missouribronc
03-29-2011, 09:42 PM
There's enough wind power on the high plains of west Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico to supply ALL of US electric needs --

The challenge is to capture it - and distribute it.

There is no shortage of answers. What is lacking is the political will to make it happen.

No. There isn't. In fact that couldn't be further from the truth.

Atwater His Ass
03-29-2011, 10:38 PM
No. There isn't. In fact that couldn't be further from the truth.

Since when has that stopped him?

Bronco Yoda
03-29-2011, 11:07 PM
And how do you plan to finance the new systems required to harness all this energy. I think the biggest obstacle is how much it will cost to build all the infrastructure necessary to harness and distribute all that power.

Amazing how we can drop a half a billion in a few days just bombing Libya without blinking an eye, yet refuse to invest in new transmission grids that could enable renewable energy to work.

I say turn the southwest deserts into one giant solar & wind farm. Think of the jobs that would create.

jutang
03-29-2011, 11:40 PM
Making solar/wind farms sound all nice and dandy, but how do you transport that energy to high population areas? My knowledge of circuit resistance ends in college, but I'm pretty sure there no new technology that lowers electrical resistance inherent in any metal to give meaningful power to cities thousands of miles away.

That One Guy
03-30-2011, 05:04 AM
Making solar/wind farms sound all nice and dandy, but how do you transport that energy to high population areas? My knowledge of circuit resistance ends in college, but I'm pretty sure there no new technology that lowers electrical resistance inherent in any metal to give meaningful power to cities thousands of miles away.

Would it do any good to use the efficient energy for splitting the water into hydrogen and using the hydrogen to power a vehicle? Isn't that where the issue of hydrogen hits the first major obstacle?

55CrushEm
03-30-2011, 06:01 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842


Viewpoint: We should stop running away from radiation

By Wade Allison
University of Oxford

More than 10,000 people have died in the Japanese tsunami and the survivors are cold and hungry. But the media concentrate on nuclear radiation from which no-one has died - and is unlikely to.

Nuclear radiation at very high levels is dangerous, but the scale of concern that it evokes is misplaced. Nuclear technology cures countless cancer patients every day - and a radiation dose given for radiotherapy in hospital is no different in principle to a similar dose received in the environment.

What of Three Mile Island? There were no known deaths there.

And Chernobyl? The latest UN report published on 28 February confirms the known death toll - 28 fatalities among emergency workers, plus 15 fatal cases of child thyroid cancer - which would have been avoided if iodine tablets had been taken (as they have now in Japan). And in each case the numbers are minute compared with the 3,800 at Bhopal in 1984, who died as a result of a leak of chemicals from the Union Carbide pesticide plant.

A becquerel (Bq), named after French physicist Henri Becquerel, is a measure of radioactivity

A quantity of radioactive material has an activity of 1Bq if one nucleus decays per second - and 1kBq if 1,000 nuclei decay per second

A sievert (Sv) is a measure of radiation absorbed by a person, named after Swedish medical physicist Rolf Sievert

A milli-sievert (mSv) is a 1,000th of a Sievert

So what of the radioactivity released at ***ushima? How does it compare with that at Chernobyl? Let's look at the measured count rates. The highest rate reported, at 1900 on 22 March, for any Japanese prefecture was 12 kBq per sq m (for the radioactive isotope of caesium, caesium-137).

A map of Chernobyl in the UN report shows regions shaded according to rate, up to 3,700 kBq per sq m - areas with less than 37 kBq per sq m are not shaded at all. In round terms, this suggests that the radioactive fallout at ***ushima is less than 1% of that at Chernobyl.

The other important radioisotope in fallout is iodine, which can cause child thyroid cancer.

This is only produced when the reactor is on and quickly decays once the reactor shuts down (it has a half life of eight days). The old fuel rods in storage at ***ushima, though radioactive, contain no iodine.

But at Chernobyl the full inventory of iodine and caesium was released in the initial explosion, so that at ***ushima any release of iodine should be much less than 1% of that at Chernobyl - with an effect reduced still further by iodine tablets.

Unfortunately, public authorities react by providing over-cautious guidance - and this simply escalates public concern.

Over-reaction

On the 16th anniversary of Chernobyl, the Swedish radiation authorities, writing in the Stockholm daily Dagens Nyheter, admitted over-reacting by setting the safety level too low and condemning 78% of all reindeer meat unnecessarily, and at great cost.

Unfortunately, the Japanese seem to be repeating the mistake. On 23 March they advised that children should not drink tap water in Tokyo, where an activity of 200 Bq per litre had been measured the day before. Let's put this in perspective. The natural radioactivity in every human body is 50 Bq per litre - 200 Bq per litre is really not going to do much harm.

In the Cold War era most people were led to believe that nuclear radiation presents a quite exceptional danger understood only by "eggheads" working in secret military establishments.

To cope with the friendly fire of such nuclear propaganda on the home front, ever tighter radiation regulations were enacted in order to keep all contact with radiation As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), as the principle became known.

This attempt at reassurance is the basis of international radiation safety regulations today, which suggest an upper limit for the general public of 1 mSv per year above natural levels.

This very low figure is not a danger level, rather it's a small addition to the levels found in nature - a British person is exposed to 2.7 mSv per year, on average. My book Radiation and Reason argues that a responsible danger level based on current science would be 100 mSv per month, with a lifelong limit of 5,000 mSv, not 1 mSv per year.

New attitude

People worry about radiation because they cannot feel it. However, nature has a solution - in recent years it has been found that living cells replace and mend themselves in various ways to recover from a dose of radiation.

These clever mechanisms kick in within hours and rarely fail, except when they are overloaded - as at Chernobyl, where most of the emergency workers who received a dose greater than 4,000 mSv over a few hours died within weeks.

However, patients receiving a course of radiotherapy usually get a dose of more than 20,000 mSv to vital healthy tissue close to the treated tumour. This tissue survives only because the treatment is spread over many days giving healthy cells time for repair or replacement.

In this way, many patients get to enjoy further rewarding years of life, even after many vital organs have received the equivalent of more than 20,000 years' dose at the above internationally recommended annual limit - which makes this limit unreasonable.

A sea-change is needed in our attitude to radiation, starting with education and public information.

Then fresh safety standards should be drawn up, based not on how radiation can be excluded from our lives, but on how much we can receive without harm - mindful of the other dangers that beset us, such as climate change and loss of electric power. Perhaps a new acronym is needed to guide radiation safety - how about As High As Relatively Safe (AHARS)?

Modern reactors are better designed than those at ***ushima - tomorrow's may be better still, but we should not wait. Radioactive waste is nasty but the quantity is small, especially if re-processed. Anyway, it is not the intractable problem that many suppose.

Some might ask whether I would accept it if it were buried 100 metres under my own house? My answer would be: "Yes, why not?" More generally, we should stop running away from radiation.

Wade Allison is a nuclear and medical physicist at the University of Oxford, the author of Radiation and Reason (2009) and Fundamental Physics for Probing and Imaging (2006).

Good article. Odd that it totally contradicts the claim in Gaff's article that "***ishima will dwarf Chernobyl."

Bronco Yoda
03-30-2011, 10:29 AM
Making solar/wind farms sound all nice and dandy, but how do you transport that energy to high population areas? My knowledge of circuit resistance ends in college, but I'm pretty sure there no new technology that lowers electrical resistance inherent in any metal to give meaningful power to cities thousands of miles away.

Like there isn't any deserts just outside LA. :rofl:

You don't get out much do you? Take a trip to Vegas sometime. You'll notice some sand not too far into your trip.

Bronco Yoda
03-30-2011, 10:44 AM
I consider getting free of foreign oil dependency a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY. Right at the top of the list. So I don't really care that the current technology isn't exactly cost efficient. Since when has cost efficency ever swayed any of our OTHER national security measures.

bendog
03-30-2011, 12:41 PM
I consider getting free of foreign oil dependency a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY. Right at the top of the list. So I don't really care that the current technology isn't exactly cost efficient. Since when has cost efficency ever swayed any of our OTHER national security measures.

you don't think one reason bush and co didn't put in more security that would have made airports process less flights before 9-11 was the cost and incovenience?

you think grunts not getting the best body armor in Iraq wasn't about cost?

you think ANY potus who tells Americans they can't drive to Disney World this year becasue he's jacking up the cost of gas is gonna win another election?

Bronco Yoda
03-30-2011, 12:54 PM
you don't think one reason bush and co didn't put in more security that would have made airports process less flights before 9-11 was the cost and incovenience?

you think grunts not getting the best body armor in Iraq wasn't about cost?

you think ANY potus who tells Americans they can't drive to Disney World this year becasue he's jacking up the cost of gas is gonna win another election?

You're mixing personal security with national security.
Just imagine for a moment how our FR policies and priorities would/could change if we were energy independent. Maybe that grunt wouldn't be off in a foreign land getting shot at in the first place. Maybe crazies wouldn't be so hell bent on blowing everything up.

MagicHef
03-30-2011, 01:41 PM
Here in SoCal, we've got 2 pretty big AE sites. The Palm Springs wind farm & the Kramer Junction solar facility in the high desert. Both are about 2 hours from LA. I have no idea how much power these places produce but they are both pretty big installations.

What I want to know is at what point do the same hippies calling for wind/solar start screaming "Save our Desert environments!" ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Power_block_at_Kramer_Junction.JPG

http://dailybeatz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/palm-springs-windmills-e1270933965684.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/business/energy-environment/24solar.html?_r=1&src=busln

Bronco Yoda
03-30-2011, 02:05 PM
The Tea Party seems to be waging war against wind power for whatever reason.

mhgaffney
03-30-2011, 06:04 PM
I'm quoting Gaff but not actually hoping for a response from him.

Anyways, something I've always wondered about. Does wind blow in the same direction enough that if we put up a bunch of windmills, we'd speed up or slow down the rotation of the earth? I know it'd be completely tiny but I'd presume it'd be additive. Imagine a spinning ball suddenly popping out sails.

I was in Pennsylvania earlier this month and saw many large windmills on a ridge just east of Shanksville, PA, where UAL 93 went down.

I went there to do 911 research-- but was very impressed by the residents. Very friendly people. No rednecks.

I flew over W Virginia -- and also saw many large wind generators on the ridgetops of the Appalachians.

We just need to accelerate the transition to clean energy -- by building more. Today wind energy is the cheapest electricity on the market- or was -- last year.

The direction of the wind is not a big deal. I'm pretty sure the latest designs can rotate to catch the wind.

I think they are picturesque -- though some enviros complain about dead birds. I think the newer designs rotate more slowly - so as not to hurt the birds.

mhgaffney
03-30-2011, 06:09 PM
The news out of Japan is not good. They are losing the battle.
MHG

Japan nuclear crisis: workers 'losing race' to save reactor

Workers at Japan’s earthquake hit nuclear plant lost ground in the battle to save the plant from meltdown after the radioactive core of one reactor appeared to have melted through the bottom of its containment vessel.

for the rest:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8414554/Japan-nuclear-crisis-workers-losing-race-to-save-reactor.html

mhgaffney
03-30-2011, 06:16 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842


Viewpoint: We should stop running away from radiation

By Wade Allison
University of Oxford

More than 10,000 people have died in the Japanese tsunami and the survivors are cold and hungry. But the media concentrate on nuclear radiation from which no-one has died - and is unlikely to.

Nuclear radiation at very high levels is dangerous, but the scale of concern that it evokes is misplaced. Nuclear technology cures countless cancer patients every day - and a radiation dose given for radiotherapy in hospital is no different in principle to a similar dose received in the environment.

What of Three Mile Island? There were no known deaths there.

And Chernobyl? The latest UN report published on 28 February confirms the known death toll - 28 fatalities among emergency workers, plus 15 fatal cases of child thyroid cancer - which would have been avoided if iodine tablets had been taken (as they have now in Japan). And in each case the numbers are minute compared with the 3,800 at Bhopal in 1984, who died as a result of a leak of chemicals from the Union Carbide pesticide plant.

A becquerel (Bq), named after French physicist Henri Becquerel, is a measure of radioactivity

A quantity of radioactive material has an activity of 1Bq if one nucleus decays per second - and 1kBq if 1,000 nuclei decay per second

A sievert (Sv) is a measure of radiation absorbed by a person, named after Swedish medical physicist Rolf Sievert

A milli-sievert (mSv) is a 1,000th of a Sievert

So what of the radioactivity released at ***ushima? How does it compare with that at Chernobyl? Let's look at the measured count rates. The highest rate reported, at 1900 on 22 March, for any Japanese prefecture was 12 kBq per sq m (for the radioactive isotope of caesium, caesium-137).

A map of Chernobyl in the UN report shows regions shaded according to rate, up to 3,700 kBq per sq m - areas with less than 37 kBq per sq m are not shaded at all. In round terms, this suggests that the radioactive fallout at ***ushima is less than 1% of that at Chernobyl.

The other important radioisotope in fallout is iodine, which can cause child thyroid cancer.

This is only produced when the reactor is on and quickly decays once the reactor shuts down (it has a half life of eight days). The old fuel rods in storage at ***ushima, though radioactive, contain no iodine.

But at Chernobyl the full inventory of iodine and caesium was released in the initial explosion, so that at ***ushima any release of iodine should be much less than 1% of that at Chernobyl - with an effect reduced still further by iodine tablets.

Unfortunately, public authorities react by providing over-cautious guidance - and this simply escalates public concern.

Over-reaction

On the 16th anniversary of Chernobyl, the Swedish radiation authorities, writing in the Stockholm daily Dagens Nyheter, admitted over-reacting by setting the safety level too low and condemning 78% of all reindeer meat unnecessarily, and at great cost.

Unfortunately, the Japanese seem to be repeating the mistake. On 23 March they advised that children should not drink tap water in Tokyo, where an activity of 200 Bq per litre had been measured the day before. Let's put this in perspective. The natural radioactivity in every human body is 50 Bq per litre - 200 Bq per litre is really not going to do much harm.

In the Cold War era most people were led to believe that nuclear radiation presents a quite exceptional danger understood only by "eggheads" working in secret military establishments.

To cope with the friendly fire of such nuclear propaganda on the home front, ever tighter radiation regulations were enacted in order to keep all contact with radiation As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), as the principle became known.

This attempt at reassurance is the basis of international radiation safety regulations today, which suggest an upper limit for the general public of 1 mSv per year above natural levels.

This very low figure is not a danger level, rather it's a small addition to the levels found in nature - a British person is exposed to 2.7 mSv per year, on average. My book Radiation and Reason argues that a responsible danger level based on current science would be 100 mSv per month, with a lifelong limit of 5,000 mSv, not 1 mSv per year.

New attitude

People worry about radiation because they cannot feel it. However, nature has a solution - in recent years it has been found that living cells replace and mend themselves in various ways to recover from a dose of radiation.

These clever mechanisms kick in within hours and rarely fail, except when they are overloaded - as at Chernobyl, where most of the emergency workers who received a dose greater than 4,000 mSv over a few hours died within weeks.

However, patients receiving a course of radiotherapy usually get a dose of more than 20,000 mSv to vital healthy tissue close to the treated tumour. This tissue survives only because the treatment is spread over many days giving healthy cells time for repair or replacement.

In this way, many patients get to enjoy further rewarding years of life, even after many vital organs have received the equivalent of more than 20,000 years' dose at the above internationally recommended annual limit - which makes this limit unreasonable.

A sea-change is needed in our attitude to radiation, starting with education and public information.

Then fresh safety standards should be drawn up, based not on how radiation can be excluded from our lives, but on how much we can receive without harm - mindful of the other dangers that beset us, such as climate change and loss of electric power. Perhaps a new acronym is needed to guide radiation safety - how about As High As Relatively Safe (AHARS)?

Modern reactors are better designed than those at ***ushima - tomorrow's may be better still, but we should not wait. Radioactive waste is nasty but the quantity is small, especially if re-processed. Anyway, it is not the intractable problem that many suppose.

Some might ask whether I would accept it if it were buried 100 metres under my own house? My answer would be: "Yes, why not?" More generally, we should stop running away from radiation.

Wade Allison is a nuclear and medical physicist at the University of Oxford, the author of Radiation and Reason (2009) and Fundamental Physics for Probing and Imaging (2006).


The author says the quantity of nuclear waste is small. Are you serious? The figure for the US is around 64,000 tons -- all highly radioactive waste.

It;s presently sitting in tanks at US reactors because we don;t know what to do with the stuff.

This tells me that this so called expert has an agenda

I suggest you listen to this interview with Dr Helen Caldicott (below) before you sign off on the next generation of nuclear reactors.

http://209.217.209.33/~esnet/downloads/ES_110325_Show_LoFi.mp3

Dedhed
03-30-2011, 06:22 PM
This isn't really that difficult of an argument. Would you rather your lights go out for a few hours every year or so, or face what Japan is facing right now?

jutang
03-30-2011, 06:52 PM
Like there isn't any deserts just outside LA. :rofl:

You don't get out much do you? Take a trip to Vegas sometime. You'll notice some sand not too far into your trip.

I notice that LA is really a desert and the traffic sucks all the time when I drive around the valley. Wind? Not so much... unless there are Santa Ana's.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/wind/WIND_POWER_50M.PDF
http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap2/2-01m.html

Again if major cities were in Colorado, Utah, Idaho, and Montana, the US should go to wind power. :thumbsup:

mhgaffney
03-30-2011, 07:00 PM
Obviously we will have to build some new power lines. How tough is that?

No scientific breakthroughs are needed -- only the political will.

Missouribronc
03-30-2011, 07:20 PM
Obviously we will have to build some new power lines. How tough is that?

No scientific breakthroughs are needed -- only the political will.

You'd be surprised.

Atwater His Ass
03-30-2011, 08:04 PM
The news out of Japan is not good. They are losing the battle.
MHG

Japan nuclear crisis: workers 'losing race' to save reactor

Workers at Japan’s earthquake hit nuclear plant lost ground in the battle to save the plant from meltdown after the radioactive core of one reactor appeared to have melted through the bottom of its containment vessel.

for the rest:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8414554/Japan-nuclear-crisis-workers-losing-race-to-save-reactor.html

This "article" is nothing but blind speculation. Even if (big IF) here, there was a partial meltdown, it is unlikely to have breached the reactor pressure vessel. At all. Are you even aware what it would take for corium to melt through the RPV?

3-mile islad for example, experienced a much worse partial meltdown condition, and it did not breach the RPV. Which btw, had zero, zilch, nada affect on human life or the environment. This will more than likely also be the case in Japan.

You are nothing more than a 12-year old drama queen.

The news out of Japan is actually quite good. Why don't you bother to check the factual based sites already linked in this thread? Too scared?

mhgaffney
03-30-2011, 08:21 PM
This "article" is nothing but blind speculation. Even if (big IF) here, there was a partial meltdown, it is unlikely to have breached the reactor pressure vessel. At all. Are you even aware what it would take for corium to melt through the RPV?

3-mile islad for example, experienced a much worse partial meltdown condition, and it did not breach the RPV. Which btw, had zero, zilch, nada affect on human life or the environment. This will more than likely also be the case in Japan.

You are nothing more than a 12-year old drama queen.

The news out of Japan is actually quite good. Why don't you bother to check the factual based sites already linked in this thread? Too scared?

One of the reactors has now melted through containment -- and you call me
a drama queen? You must be on drugs.

Those sites you refer to are a joke. They are repeating ad infinitum the same old not-to-worry mantra -- but it's all spin doctoring.

Check out this report from the generally reliable Independent (UK).

Evidently the TEPCO CEO had a nervous breakdown -- has been holed up in his office. The poor shmuck lost face over Fu-kushima. It's going from bad to worse.
MHG


'Suicide squads' paid huge sums amid fresh fears for nuclear site

By David McNeill in Tokyo
Wednesday, 30 March 2011

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/suicide-squads-paid-huge-sums-amid-fresh-fears-for-nuclear-site-2256741.html

The radioactive core in one reactor at ***ushima's beleaguered nuclear power plant appeared to have melted through the bottom of its containment vessel, an expert warned yesterday, sparking fears that workers would not be able to save the reactor and that radioactive gases could soon be released into the atmosphere.

Richard Lahey, who was a head of reactor safety research at General Electric when the company installed the units at ***ushima, said the workers, who have been pumping water into the three reactors in an attempt to keep the fuel rods from melting, had effectively lost their battle. "The core has melted through the bottom of the pressure vessel in unit two, and at least some of it is down on the floor of the drywell," he said.

The damning analysis came as it emerged that workers at Japan's stricken nuclear plant are reportedly being offered huge sums to brave high radiation in an attempt to bring its overheated reactors under control. The plant's operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, is hoping to stop a spreading contamination crisis which could see another 130,000 people forced to leave their homes.

Radiation has already found its way into milk, vegetables and tap-water and is leaking into the sea around the complex. Government tests found yesterday that small quantities of plutonium, one of the world's most dangerous elements, have seeped into soil outside the plant.

State broadcaster NHK said underground tunnels linked to reactors 1, 2 and 3 are flooded with water containing radiation measured in some spots at a highly dangerous 1,000 millisieverts an hour. Workers in protective gear are shoring up the tunnel shafts with sandbags to stop the water – which reportedly contains concentrations of long-lived caesium-137 – from seeping into the sea about 55 to 70 metres away.

Japan's Nuclear Safety Agency said that the plutonium was "not at levels harmful to human health", but the government's top spokesman Yukio Edano called the situation "very grave", and confirmed fears that at least one reactor had suffered a partial meltdown.

The admission added to pressure on Prime Minister Naoto Kan to widen an exclusion zone around the plant, possibly forcing another 130,000 people to evacuate. Yesterday, a tired-looking Mr Kan faced withering criticism from opposition MPs, who called him "irresponsible" and "incompetent".

Engineers at the ***ushima Daiichi complex struggling to restart cooling systems for reactors are being hampered by the radiation and lack of electricity, forcing them to work in the dark and regularly withdraw.

Subcontractors to several companies connected to the plant have reportedly been offered 80,000 to 100,000 yen a day (£608 to £760) to join the operation, according to one former plant worker. The team of men inside the complex have been dubbed "samurai" and "suicide squads" in the popular press.

The company chief who disappeared from view

It has been a bad fortnight for Masataka Shimizu. Tepco's beleaguered president has watched the value of the utility giant plummet by $29 billion since 11 March after investors wiped over 70 per cent off its stock.

Its share price of 696 yen is the lowest it has been since 1977 as it battles to stop nuclear catastrophe in ***ushima. The company's problems have just turned existential now that the government has begun openly discussing nationalisation.

Mr Shimizu, 67, has been largely absent from public view since the crisis detonated, appearing briefly on 13 March to issue a boilerplate apology for "causing trouble", then disappearing totally on 16 March, reportedly suffering from overwork.

Rumours in the Japanese press suggest he has suffered a breakdown or even left the country. The Washington Post noted this week that he has been missing crucial appointments with leading politicians. Other reports say he has holed up in his office and refused to join a joint government-Tepco crisis management team.

According to the Asahi newspaper, prime minister Naoto Kan told Mr Shimizu in his office on 15 March that it was "ridiculous" for him to have left his post. In another now famous outburst, a frustrated Mr Kan shouted at Tepco executives demanding to know "what the hell is going on".

Most observers believe it is only a matter of time before Mr Shimizu steps down, leaving the company he took over two years ago a smouldering ruin.

David McNeill

Bronco Yoda
03-30-2011, 08:40 PM
Didn't Japan finally admit to 3 partial meltdowns yesterday? That's what CNN reported anyway.

mhgaffney
03-30-2011, 09:16 PM
Didn't Japan finally admit to 3 partial meltdowns yesterday? That's what CNN reported anyway.

Yes, I think three.

With 1 or 2 cracked containment vessels.

If one of the melt downs is now spilling out of the containment vessel -- it's a serious worsening.

Hopefully the report s wrong.

TailgateNut
03-31-2011, 12:41 AM
.....and we thought the BP oil spill was damaging to sea-life. Can't wait to see some of the "creatures" they'll catch in the waters off Japan in a few years. Should be interesting, to say the least.

baja
03-31-2011, 01:13 AM
.....and we thought the BP oil spill was damaging to sea-life. Can't wait to see some of the "creatures" they'll catch in the waters off Japan in a few years. Should be interesting, to say the least.

Should be a boon for fish head soup...

mhgaffney
03-31-2011, 01:23 AM
Things are getting worse at Fu-kushima. Radiation levels continue to rise in the seawater and now also beyond the 19 mile exclusion zone.

Looks like they will have to evacuate more people -- but given the population density of Japan -- there is a limit to how many people they can move,.

If the zone grows enough -- it will encompass much of -- who knows? -- maybe all of the country.

MHG

Dangerous Levels of Radioactive Isotope Found 25 Miles From Nuclear Plant

By MATTHEW L. WALD and DAVID JOLLY
Published: March 30, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/asia/31japan.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

WASHINGTON — A long-lasting radioactive element has been measured at levels that pose a long-term danger at one spot 25 miles from the crippled ***ushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, raising questions about whether Japan’s evacuation zone should be expanded and whether the land might need to be abandoned.

The isotope, cesium 137, was measured in one village by the International Atomic Energy Agency at a level exceeding the standard that the Soviet Union used as a gauge to recommend abandoning land surrounding the Chernobyl reactor, and at another location not precisely identified by the agency at more than double the Soviet standard.

The measurements, reported Wednesday, would not be high enough to cause acute radiation illness, but far exceed standards for the general public designed to cut the risks of cancer.

While the amount measured would not pose an immediate danger, the annual dose would be too high to allow people to keep living there, according to Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an American organization that is often critical of nuclear safety rules. Cesium persists in the environment for centuries, losing half its strength every 30 years.

The International Atomic Energy Agency stressed that levels of contamination varied considerably from place to place. Experts said the measurement might represent a “hot spot” and might not be representative of larger areas, though that remains to be seen.

Dr. Lyman said that if a plume of contaminants had drifted with the wind, a large amount could have been dumped in one spot by a rainstorm. “I think it’s not surprising that there would be local concentrations that high,” he said. But Japan should expand the evacuation zone, now set at 19 miles, he said, and the International Atomic Energy Agency should release data faster. The measurements were made between March 18 and March 26, the agency said.

Yukio Edano, the chief cabinet secretary, said on Thursday morning that officials were studying the contamination levels, but that there were currently no plans to expand the evacuation zone.

Land can be cleaned up by scraping off the contaminated dirt, or paving it over. Asked if land abandonment was likely, Dr. Lyman said, “It depends on the cost of cleanup and how much people are willing to spend.”

Japan, experts noted, is far more densely settled than the Chernobyl region of Ukraine, where a reactor explosion in 1986 contaminated large areas.

The international team, using a measure of radioactivity called the becquerel, found as much as 3.7 million becquerels per square meter; the standard used at Chernobyl was 1.48 million.

In another development, seawater near the plant showed significantly higher levels of radioactive iodine than in recent days, Japan’s nuclear safety agency reported Wednesday. In addition, the operator of the plant acknowledged for the first time that at least four of the six reactors at the multibillion-dollar complex would have to be scrapped.

Hidehiko Nishiyama, deputy director general of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, said Wednesday that seawater collected about 300 yards from the ***ushima Daiichi station was found to contain iodine 131 at 3,355 times the safety standard. On Sunday, a test a mile north showed 1,150 times the maximum level, and a test the day before showed 1,250 times the limit in seawater taken from a monitoring station at the plant.

The level of radioactive iodine 131 in the waters off the Daiichi plant continued to increase on Thursday, rising to 4,385 times the statutory limit, Mr. Nishiyama said at a news conference. The increases raise the possibility that contaminants from the plant are continuously leaking into the sea, he said.

Workers have been dousing the nuclear fuel rods with seawater and now from freshwater sources to prevent full meltdowns, but they have had to release harmful amounts of radioactive steam into the atmosphere, and their efforts have set off leaks of highly contaminated water.

Iodine 131, one of the radioactive byproducts of nuclear fission, can accumulate in the thyroid and cause cancer. But unlike cesium 137, it degrades relatively rapidly, becoming half as potent every eight days. The risk can be diminished by banning fishing.

Mr. Nishiyama said the new readings posed no immediate threat to public health, and no fishing was occurring in the area.

Regarding the international agency’s findings, he said on Thursday, “One sample is over the limit, so we have to continue monitoring the situation.” As to whether the evacuation zone should be expanded, he said, “We’ll be considering that.”

The plant’s operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, acknowledged that it would write off Reactors 1 through 4.

Matthew L. Wald reported from Washington, and David Jolly from Tokyo. Moshe Komata and Ayasa Aizawa contributed reporting from Tokyo, and Kevin Drew from Hong Kong.

missingnumber7
03-31-2011, 09:47 AM
.....and we thought the BP oil spill was damaging to sea-life. Can't wait to see some of the "creatures" they'll catch in the waters off Japan in a few years. Should be interesting, to say the least.

Could find some goofy looking creatures next Tsunami.

mhgaffney
03-31-2011, 06:54 PM
This aired about 5-6 days ago -- but is still well worth watching.
MHG

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/P3tbdAK9W4k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Boomhauer
03-31-2011, 07:15 PM
^^^
By now, the F.ukushima disaster should be a level7: far reaching consequences and radiation release.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/japan-quake-nuclear-france-idUSLDE72E2M920110315
*edit: Rueters article from March 15. Things have gotten significantly worse since.
-snips- "..."We are now in a situation that is different from yesterday's. It is very clear that we are at a level six, which is an intermediate level between what happened at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl," ASN President Andre-Claude Lacoste told a news conference in Paris on Tuesday. ... A U.S.-based think-tank said the situation had "worsened considerably" and that it was now closer to a level 6 event, "and it may unfortunately reach a level 7."

"A level 6 event means that consequences are broader and countermeasures are needed to deal with the radioactive contamination," the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) said in a statement. "A level 7 event would constitute a larger release of radioactive material, and would require further extended countermeasures," it said, adding the international community should step up assistance to Japan."

baja
03-31-2011, 08:12 PM
it is amazing to me the lack of main stream coverage on this epic event

boltaneer
04-04-2011, 12:32 PM
it is amazing to me the lack of main stream coverage on this epic event

It's because the story is nearly a month old now the situation is for the most part in control now.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/04/03/other-perspectives-***ushima/#more-4367

Hell, even CNN has finally stopped sensationalizing things:

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/04/radiation-safety-what-you-should-know/?hpt=T2

bendog
04-04-2011, 12:39 PM
but will kobe beef still be kobe beef? (-:

Cito Pelon
04-04-2011, 03:22 PM
I thought this problem would be solved by now.

mhgaffney
04-04-2011, 06:06 PM
This disaster will continue for months -- maybe years.

Tombstone RJ
04-04-2011, 06:35 PM
This disaster will continue for months -- maybe years.

yah, cause it's not easy to rebuild after a class 9 earthquake right off the coast of a small island nation that is densley populated and suffering from the effects of massive tsunamis and violent after shocks. right you are sir, right you are...

Archer81
04-04-2011, 06:51 PM
This disaster will continue for months -- maybe years.


The japanese rebuilt a highway completely destroyed by the quake and tsunami in 6 days. Odds are fairly good cleanup and reconstruction will be well underway or complete within a year.


:Broncos:

Missouribronc
04-04-2011, 06:53 PM
The japanese rebuilt a highway completely destroyed by the quake and tsunami in 6 days. Odds are fairly good cleanup and reconstruction will be well underway or complete within a year.


:Broncos:

Any chance we can contract them to do work here? It took two years to rebuild and resurface the interstate where I live. (About eight miles)

broncocalijohn
04-04-2011, 08:50 PM
but will kobe beef still be kobe beef? (-:

Well, if it is really ****ty now and no one wants it, it will be called Carmelo beef.

broncocalijohn
04-04-2011, 08:54 PM
The japanese rebuilt a highway completely destroyed by the quake and tsunami in 6 days. Odds are fairly good cleanup and reconstruction will be well underway or complete within a year.


:Broncos:

Must not have used union labor.
Watch the Japanese migrate to America and especially Hawaii if this becomes worse.

mhgaffney
04-04-2011, 09:35 PM
Yeag I can see the Wackahut zombies giving the body searches to the Japanese immigrants and denying them entry when the geiger counters go off the scale...

Land of the free. If you have enough money.

mhgaffney
04-06-2011, 07:23 PM
Wednesday April 6

Dr Bill Deagle with the latest on Fu-kushima...

Deagle is an MD but is also nuclear trained -- and has some sobering news about the ongoing crisis in Japan.

http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/special/rense_Deagle_040411.mp3

Drunk Monkey
04-07-2011, 05:44 AM
Worried about a radioactive ocean? A reality check

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110406/ap_on_sc/us_sci_radiation_q_a

mhgaffney
04-08-2011, 01:42 AM
Here's a good report by nuclear expert Arnie Gunderson, who thinks the info we are getting is not accurate...

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/22062314" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0"></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/22062314">Closing Ranks: The NRC, the Nuclear Industry, and TEPCo. Are Limiting the Flow of Information</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user6415562">Fairewinds Associates</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

mhgaffney
04-08-2011, 01:48 AM
Worried about a radioactive ocean? A reality check

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110406/ap_on_sc/us_sci_radiation_q_a

Your reality check does not offer much in the way of reality. This is typical of the crappy press coverage we are seeing.

The problem is a long term problem of the longer lived radionuclides getting into the water, food and air- -and into our bodies.

I suggest you scroll down this site for a glimpse of what low level alpha radiation can do once it gets inside the body. Warning! The photos are graphic.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

mhgaffney
04-11-2011, 05:56 PM
This actually went up on April 4th -- but is still well worth a look.

Strange how the apostles of nuclear have vanished.

MHG

Hanging by your Fingernails - The ***ushima Meltdown

Michio Kaku on April 4, 2011, 8:30 PM

http://bigthink.com/ideas/37705

The situation at ***ushima is relatively stable now... in the same way that you are stable if you hang by your fingernails off a cliff, and your fingernails begin to break one by one.

As I mentioned before, the accident so far in ***ushima is progressing in three acts. The first act was the earthquake and tsunami, which immediately wiped out all emergency cooling systems simultaneously at all three reactors and all hell has broken loose.

Act II was the enormous damage done to the cores of these three reactors. With the loss of cooling water, temperatures began to rise rapidly, causing the hydrogen gas explosions and fuel melting. We know that about 70% of Unit 1's core was damaged, and that 33% of Unit 2's core was also damaged. All computer simulations done by various laboratories all show the same thing—that we came perilously close to a full scale metldown at all three reactors, including a spent fuel pond accident in Unit 4.

Against the wishes the utility, the Japanese government ordered flushing the entire reactors with seawater, which temporarily halted the accident from progressing to a full blown tragedy. This stabilized the accident, at present, from going into free fall (but reduced the three reactors to pieces of junk.) Meanwhile, radiation keeps flowing out of the reactors and into food, agricultural products, the oceans, the soil, etc. Now we are entering Act III. With the cores covered with seawater and fresh water, the workers are desperately trying to hit rock bottom, so they can begin recovery operations.

Unfortunately, we have not yet reached the bottom. Leaks of radiation are being found everywhere. The crucial thing is that the workers do not know precisely where this radiation is coming from. The primary suspect is that there is a direct contact between melted uranium (called "corium") and the cooling water, probably caused by a pipe break or, more ominously, a pressure vessel that has completely melted through.

So the utility is like the little Dutch boy, trying desperately to plug up one leak, only to find another. But until they find the primary source of this leak, there will be damaging reports of radiation being found in more and more places. Time is not on their side. The longer it takes to hit rock bottom, the more the danger of evacuations of workers and damage to the economy of the area. Also, secondary earthquakes and pipe breaks can cause the accident to start up all over again with the loss of precious cooling water. It's also a Catch 22: they need to flood the cores with water, but this water becomes contaminated and flows out to the environment. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

One solution is to put a special TV camera into the contaminated water to actually photograph the bottom of the reactor vessel, which is underwater, to see precislely the nature of this leak, whether its just a simple crack or a full blown melt-through of the reactor pressure vessel. If it's just a crack, then it might be possible to drain the water and then weld the crack shut. But if it is a melt through, then it is much harder to seal up the hole. Either way, robots or suicide squads of workers will be necessary to seal up the leak. In the best case scenario, the situation continues on for months and years. At TMI, it took years before a camera was finally able go underwater to photograph the state of the core. There, the reactor vessel was not damaged. But at ***ushima, it is likely that the pressure vessel is cracked or partially melted through, which makes clean up much more difficult. Workers have a long, long way to go. For example, although electricity was been brought onto the site, a great disappointment is that the pumps cannot be turned on, because they are broken, or there is too much hydrogen gas, or it is too radioactive to make repairs. Until the pumps are turned on, workers have to use the Stone Age method of using firemen to shoot hose water into the reactor. (This is a problem if radiation levels continue to rise due to the failue to find the leak in the reactor.)

I get a headache just thinking of all the measures that have to be taken just to reach rock bottom and then to begin clean-up operations. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. Let's hope there are no more secondary earthquakes, or pipe breaks, or full scale evacuations of workers, which could restart the nightmare all over again.

Let's hope no more fingernails crack.

Atwater His Ass
04-11-2011, 07:40 PM
Good to see your still fearmongering and spreading flat out wrong information.

boltaneer
04-11-2011, 08:40 PM
This is one of those times I hate all the information available due to the internet.

So many varying opinions both from experts and non-experts that who do you believe? As usual, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

mhgaffney
04-11-2011, 09:02 PM
Good to see your still fearmongering and spreading flat out wrong information.

Maybe if you opened your eyes wide open instead of wide shut you would know something.

This is breaking...


Japan raises nuclear alert level to seven
***ushima Daiichi power plant emergency is now on a par with the 1986 Chernobyl warning

Justin McCurry in Tokyo
guardian.co.uk,

Tuesday 12 April 2011 01.54 BST

***ushima Daiichi nuclear power station where the radiation level warning has been raised to a maximum of seven. Photograph: EPA
Japan is to raise the nuclear alert level at the ***ushima Daiichi power plant to a maximum seven, putting the emergency on a par with the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

Nuclear safety officials had insisted they had no plans to raise the severity of the crisis from five – the same level as the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 – according to the international nuclear and radiological event scale.

But the government came under pressure to raise the level at the plant after Japan's nuclear safety commission estimated the amount of radioactive material released from its stricken reactors reached 10,000 terabecquerels per hour for several hours following the earthquake and tsunami that devastated the country's northeast coast on 11 March. That level of radiation constitutes a major accident, according to the INES scale.

The scale, devised by the international atomic energy agency, ranks nuclear and radiological accidents and incidents by their severity from one to seven.

Japan also temporarily issued tsunami warnings for parts of the north-east coast on Monday following another powerful aftershock. It is exactly a month since a magnitude-9 earthquake created huge waves that left an estimated 28,000 people dead or missing. NHK, the public broadcaster, warned of a tsunami up to 2 metres high on the coast of Ibaraki prefecture after the magnitude-7.1 quake.

Although the waves were estimated to be much smaller than those that hit on 11 March, the meteorological agency warned people in Ibaraki to evacuate to higher ground. The warnings were later lifted.

The aftershock came as the government said it was widening the evacuation zone around the plant due to high levels of accumulated radiation and fears about long-term effects on residents' health. A fire that broke out at the plant's number four reactor at 6.38am local time was extinguished, the operator, Tokyo Electric Power company (Tepco), said.

More than 14,000 people are still missing following the disaster, and 152,000 survivors are living in evacuation centres.

The prime minister, Naoto Kan, placed a message in newspapers in several countries, including Britain, China and the United States, thanking the international community for its support. Kan said the generosity shown towards Japan in its time of need demonstrated the human capacity for kizuna, or bonds of friendship, and vowed that Japan would emerge a stronger nation.

"We deeply appreciate the kizuna our friends from around the world have shown and I want to thank every nation, entity, and you personally, from the bottom of my heart," he said.

The government's chief spokesman, Yukio Edano, said the current 12-mile (20km) evacuation zone would be extended to five other communities, including the village of Iitate, which lies 25 miles from the plant.

mhgaffney
04-12-2011, 04:17 AM
Dr Helen Caldicott takes apart pro nuclear advocate Gerorge Monbiot:

How nuclear apologists mislead the world over radiation

George Monbiot and others at best misinform and at worst distort evidence of the dangers of atomic energy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation

Helen Caldicott
guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 April 2011 12.10 BST

Soon after the ***ushima accident last month, I stated publicly that a nuclear event of this size and catastrophic potential could present a medical problem of very large dimensions. Events have proven this observation to be true despite the nuclear industry's campaign about the "minimal" health effects of so-called low-level radiation. That billions of its dollars are at stake if the ***ushima event causes the "nuclear renaissance" to slow down appears to be evident from the industry's attacks on its critics, even in the face of an unresolved and escalating disaster at the reactor complex at ***ushima.

Proponents of nuclear power – including George Monbiot, who has had a mysterious road-to-Damascus conversion to its supposedly benign effects – accuse me and others who call attention to the potential serious medical consequences of the accident of "cherry-picking" data and overstating the health effects of radiation from the radioactive fuel in the destroyed reactors and their cooling pools. Yet by reassuring the public that things aren't too bad, Monbiot and others at best misinform, and at worst misrepresent or distort, the scientific evidence of the harmful effects of radiation exposure – and they play a predictable shoot-the-messenger game in the process.

To wit:

1) Mr Monbiot, who is a journalist not a scientist, appears unaware of the difference between external and internal radiation

Let me educate him.

The former is what populations were exposed to when the atomic bombs were detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; their profound and on-going medical effects are well documented. [1]

Internal radiation, on the other hand, emanates from radioactive elements which enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. Hazardous radionuclides such as iodine-131, caesium 137, and other isotopes currently being released in the sea and air around ***ushima bio-concentrate at each step of various food chains (for example into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow's meat and milk, then humans). [2] After they enter the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, where they continuously irradiate small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years, can induce uncontrolled cell replication – that is, cancer. Further, many of the nuclides remain radioactive in the environment for generations, and ultimately will cause increased incidences of cancer and genetic diseases over time.

The grave effects of internal emitters are of the most profound concern at ***ushima. It is inaccurate and misleading to use the term "acceptable levels of external radiation" in assessing internal radiation exposures. To do so, as Monbiot has done, is to propagate inaccuracies and to mislead the public worldwide (not to mention other journalists) who are seeking the truth about radiation's hazards.

2) Nuclear industry proponents often assert that low doses of radiation (eg below 100mSV) produce no ill effects and are therefore safe. But , as the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative and adds to an individual's risk of developing cancer.

3) Now let's turn to Chernobyl. Various seemingly reputable groups have issued differing reports on the morbidity and mortalities resulting from the 1986 radiation catastrophe. The World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2005 issued a report attributing only 43 human deaths directly to the Chernobyl disaster and estimating an additional 4,000 fatal cancers. In contrast, the 2009 report, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment", published by the New York Academy of Sciences, comes to a very different conclusion. The three scientist authors – Alexey V Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V Nesterenko – provide in its pages a translated synthesis and compilation of hundreds of scientific articles on the effects of the Chernobyl disaster that have appeared in Slavic language publications over the past 20 years. They estimate the number of deaths attributable to the Chernobyl meltdown at about 980,000.

Monbiot dismisses the report as worthless, but to do so – to ignore and denigrate an entire body of literature, collectively hundreds of studies that provide evidence of large and significant impacts on human health and the environment – is arrogant and irresponsible. Scientists can and should argue over such things, for example, as confidence intervals around individual estimates (which signal the reliability of estimates), but to consign out of hand the entire report into a metaphorical dustbin is shameful.

Further, as Prof Dimitro Godzinsky, of the Ukranian National Academy of Sciences, states in his introduction to the report: "Against this background of such persuasive data some defenders of atomic energy look specious as they deny the obvious negative effects of radiation upon populations. In fact, their reactions include almost complete refusal to fund medical and biological studies, even liquidating government bodies that were in charge of the 'affairs of Chernobyl'. Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, officials have also diverted scientific personnel away from studying the problems caused by Chernobyl."

4) Monbiot expresses surprise that a UN-affiliated body such as WHOmight be under the influence of the nuclear power industry, causing its reporting on nuclear power matters to be biased. And yet that is precisely the case.

In the early days of nuclear power, WHO issued forthright statements on radiation risks such as its 1956 warning: "Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation … We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring."

After 1959, WHO made no more statements on health and radioactivity. What happened? On 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); clause 12.40 of this agreement says: "Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement." In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA – a group that many people, including journalists, think is a neutral watchdog, but which is, in fact, an advocate for the nuclear power industry. The IAEA's founding papers state: "The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world."

Monbiot appears ignorant about the WHO's subjugation to the IAEA, yet this is widely known within the scientific radiation community. But it is clearly not the only matter on which he is ignorant after his apparent three-day perusal of the vast body of scientific information on radiation and radioactivity. As we have seen, he and other nuclear industry apologists sow confusion about radiation risks, and, in my view, in much the same way that the tobacco industry did in previous decades about the risks of smoking. Despite their claims, it is they, not the "anti-nuclear movement" who are "misleading the world about the impacts of radiation on human health."

• Helen Caldicott is president of the Helen Caldicott Foundation for a Nuclear-Free Planet and the author of Nuclear Power is Not the Answer

[1] See, for example, WJ Schull, Effects of Atomic Radiation: A Half-Century of Studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki (New York: Wiley-Lis, 1995) and DE Thompson, K Mabuchi, E Ron, M Soda, M Tokunaga, S Ochikubo, S Sugimoto, T Ikeda, M Terasaki, S Izumi et al. "Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors, Part I: Solid tumors, 1958-1987" in Radiat Res 137:S17-S67 (1994).

[2] This process is called bioaccumulation and comes in two subtypes as well, bioconcentration and biomagnification. For more information see: J.U. Clark and V.A. McFarland, Assessing Bioaccumulation in Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Contaminated Sediments, Miscellaneous Paper D-91-2 (1991), Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS and H.A. Vanderplog, D.C. Parzyck, W.H. Wilcox, J.R. Kercher, and S.V. Kaye, Bioaccumulation Factors for Radionuclides in Freshwater Biota, ORNL-5002 (1975), Environmental Sciences Division Publication, Number 783, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

jhns
04-12-2011, 05:53 AM
Maybe if you opened your eyes wide open instead of wide shut you would know something.



LOL

That is funny coming from you. Don't you have a bunker to build or something? No one here cares for the way you get off on tragedy. No one here cares about you and all this hoping for the worst. In fact, I bet most even think you are a POS...

jhns
04-12-2011, 06:00 AM
Dr Helen Caldicott takes apart pro nuclear advocate Gerorge Monbiot:

How nuclear apologists mislead the world over radiation

George Monbiot and others at best misinform and at worst distort evidence of the dangers of atomic energy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation

Helen Caldicott
guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 April 2011 12.10 BST

Soon after the ***ushima accident last month, I stated publicly that a nuclear event of this size and catastrophic potential could present a medical problem of very large dimensions. Events have proven this observation to be true despite the nuclear industry's campaign about the "minimal" health effects of so-called low-level radiation. That billions of its dollars are at stake if the ***ushima event causes the "nuclear renaissance" to slow down appears to be evident from the industry's attacks on its critics, even in the face of an unresolved and escalating disaster at the reactor complex at ***ushima.

Proponents of nuclear power – including George Monbiot, who has had a mysterious road-to-Damascus conversion to its supposedly benign effects – accuse me and others who call attention to the potential serious medical consequences of the accident of "cherry-picking" data and overstating the health effects of radiation from the radioactive fuel in the destroyed reactors and their cooling pools. Yet by reassuring the public that things aren't too bad, Monbiot and others at best misinform, and at worst misrepresent or distort, the scientific evidence of the harmful effects of radiation exposure – and they play a predictable shoot-the-messenger game in the process.

To wit:

1) Mr Monbiot, who is a journalist not a scientist, appears unaware of the difference between external and internal radiation

Let me educate him.

The former is what populations were exposed to when the atomic bombs were detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; their profound and on-going medical effects are well documented. [1]

Internal radiation, on the other hand, emanates from radioactive elements which enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. Hazardous radionuclides such as iodine-131, caesium 137, and other isotopes currently being released in the sea and air around ***ushima bio-concentrate at each step of various food chains (for example into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow's meat and milk, then humans). [2] After they enter the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, where they continuously irradiate small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years, can induce uncontrolled cell replication – that is, cancer. Further, many of the nuclides remain radioactive in the environment for generations, and ultimately will cause increased incidences of cancer and genetic diseases over time.

The grave effects of internal emitters are of the most profound concern at ***ushima. It is inaccurate and misleading to use the term "acceptable levels of external radiation" in assessing internal radiation exposures. To do so, as Monbiot has done, is to propagate inaccuracies and to mislead the public worldwide (not to mention other journalists) who are seeking the truth about radiation's hazards.

2) Nuclear industry proponents often assert that low doses of radiation (eg below 100mSV) produce no ill effects and are therefore safe. But , as the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative and adds to an individual's risk of developing cancer.

3) Now let's turn to Chernobyl. Various seemingly reputable groups have issued differing reports on the morbidity and mortalities resulting from the 1986 radiation catastrophe. The World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2005 issued a report attributing only 43 human deaths directly to the Chernobyl disaster and estimating an additional 4,000 fatal cancers. In contrast, the 2009 report, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment", published by the New York Academy of Sciences, comes to a very different conclusion. The three scientist authors – Alexey V Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V Nesterenko – provide in its pages a translated synthesis and compilation of hundreds of scientific articles on the effects of the Chernobyl disaster that have appeared in Slavic language publications over the past 20 years. They estimate the number of deaths attributable to the Chernobyl meltdown at about 980,000.

Monbiot dismisses the report as worthless, but to do so – to ignore and denigrate an entire body of literature, collectively hundreds of studies that provide evidence of large and significant impacts on human health and the environment – is arrogant and irresponsible. Scientists can and should argue over such things, for example, as confidence intervals around individual estimates (which signal the reliability of estimates), but to consign out of hand the entire report into a metaphorical dustbin is shameful.

Further, as Prof Dimitro Godzinsky, of the Ukranian National Academy of Sciences, states in his introduction to the report: "Against this background of such persuasive data some defenders of atomic energy look specious as they deny the obvious negative effects of radiation upon populations. In fact, their reactions include almost complete refusal to fund medical and biological studies, even liquidating government bodies that were in charge of the 'affairs of Chernobyl'. Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, officials have also diverted scientific personnel away from studying the problems caused by Chernobyl."

4) Monbiot expresses surprise that a UN-affiliated body such as WHOmight be under the influence of the nuclear power industry, causing its reporting on nuclear power matters to be biased. And yet that is precisely the case.

In the early days of nuclear power, WHO issued forthright statements on radiation risks such as its 1956 warning: "Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation … We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring."

After 1959, WHO made no more statements on health and radioactivity. What happened? On 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); clause 12.40 of this agreement says: "Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement." In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA – a group that many people, including journalists, think is a neutral watchdog, but which is, in fact, an advocate for the nuclear power industry. The IAEA's founding papers state: "The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world."

Monbiot appears ignorant about the WHO's subjugation to the IAEA, yet this is widely known within the scientific radiation community. But it is clearly not the only matter on which he is ignorant after his apparent three-day perusal of the vast body of scientific information on radiation and radioactivity. As we have seen, he and other nuclear industry apologists sow confusion about radiation risks, and, in my view, in much the same way that the tobacco industry did in previous decades about the risks of smoking. Despite their claims, it is they, not the "anti-nuclear movement" who are "misleading the world about the impacts of radiation on human health."

• Helen Caldicott is president of the Helen Caldicott Foundation for a Nuclear-Free Planet and the author of Nuclear Power is Not the Answer

[1] See, for example, WJ Schull, Effects of Atomic Radiation: A Half-Century of Studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki (New York: Wiley-Lis, 1995) and DE Thompson, K Mabuchi, E Ron, M Soda, M Tokunaga, S Ochikubo, S Sugimoto, T Ikeda, M Terasaki, S Izumi et al. "Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors, Part I: Solid tumors, 1958-1987" in Radiat Res 137:S17-S67 (1994).

[2] This process is called bioaccumulation and comes in two subtypes as well, bioconcentration and biomagnification. For more information see: J.U. Clark and V.A. McFarland, Assessing Bioaccumulation in Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Contaminated Sediments, Miscellaneous Paper D-91-2 (1991), Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS and H.A. Vanderplog, D.C. Parzyck, W.H. Wilcox, J.R. Kercher, and S.V. Kaye, Bioaccumulation Factors for Radionuclides in Freshwater Biota, ORNL-5002 (1975), Environmental Sciences Division Publication, Number 783, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

LOL

"I am a reporter. I know better than everybody else when it comes to nuclear stuff. Who cares that they have actually gone to school for it and studied it? I can sell these articles to those that are hoping for the worst!"

Yeah, we should take this guys word for it. Screw the nuclear scientists on site with all their educations and fancy equipment....

chrisp
04-12-2011, 02:16 PM
Fact is, we're still waiting for a recorded instance of anyone suffering a serious, measurable impact to their health as a result of the problems at ***ushima.

There are all these concerns about possible levels of radiation that may or may not be dangerous (remember radiation 'safe' limits are set far, far below the level that is known to cause harm).

However, all of the measures so far are precautionary. This within the context of a situation where an earthquake and tsunami have caused real, actual death and destruction on a massive scale, the ***ushima scaremongers are guilty of a severe lack of perspective at best, and at worst are deliberately trying to capitalise on a massive human tradgedy to advance their own political goals.

For anyone interested in the other side of the story, a science and technology site has been running a series of stobbornly pro-nuclear and anti-fearmonger articles throughought the whole crisis. Concentrating on the known facts, mind you, not speculation an conspiracy theories. Latest one here

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/12/***ushima_ffs/

***edit**** obsecnity filter on this site has killed the link! It has censored the first three letters of ***ushima in the url! You should get to the article if you manually overtype them in your browser bar....

the sad thing is, the anti-nuclear lobby won the argument 20 years ago. Nuclear energy does have the potential to solve the energy crisis without us having to make drastic cuts in out living standards - and that's why a lot of people hate it so much. Please don't give us cheap, plentiful safe energy - we won't be able to lecture people about their sinful and wasteful lifestyles....

Atwater His Ass
04-12-2011, 03:16 PM
The highest number assumes the entire INES rating, but there are three criteria to the INES rating, one of which is still being analyzed and the other is a low number (3). Only 1 of the 3 classifications of ratings is being shown at a 7 (criterion 2), and they're still toying with those numbers.

These new numbers include an estimate of all the material released since the incident began, most of which has been going into the ocean and a good portion of it is all short lived activity.

We're not going to know final/fixed INES classification probably for another month or so, when they've had time to analyze the extent of the physical damage. Granted, it'll still be a 7, because once again the highest of any criterion is the total INES rating, regardless of the other fields.

They're not ever going to start at INES 7. I really hate the 'Japan is downplaying this' thing. They haven't downplayed anything, they've laid out all the information and some of us have tried to actually relay it. Personally I think they've been incredibly open about it, dishing out all this raw data (have you even looked at the hour-by-hour NISA radiation monitoring post graphs?) If you're basing the 'downplaying' on what you heard on Fox news or the like, then yeah, you probably do think so.

A lot of Iodine and Cesium has been released. We know this, we've known this. Disposition reports have been released and are available for anyone to see. It's not 'a lot' per unit time but this has been going on for a month now, which adds up to 'a lot' total released. However, 'a lot' does not mean 'makes area unlivable' or 'significantly impacts local cancer rates' or 'the workers at the site will all die in weeks' or like-wise.

(JAIF has some good reports (if slightly dubbed down for understanding) that show some analytical comparisons to concentrations of land/sea; NISA has really good reports (if more complicated/harder to read) for land/sea/air if you're interesting and want to know what the estimated impact will be from that which has been released already.)

It should still be stressed that most of the 'a lot' is short lived. Besides Cesium, the areas outside of the site haven't seen detectable concentrations of 'long-lived' (Cesium lasts for a while, but compared to other things *cough*Chernobyl-4 radionuclide release*cough* it's nowhere near as bad) particulate, and even still the amount of general area radiation increase is rather minimal.

You can compare that Chernobyl and ***ushima released similar amounts (at least within same orders) of Iodine and Cesium, but Chernobyl released a lot of other stuff that is the principle cause for why the area is as it is today. Iodine and Cesium are not what made Chernobyl 'bad'.

There is also the issue of the median of release - Chernobyl put it all up into the atmosphere. ***ushima is putting most of it into the sea, where it is very quickly diluted. And before you even start with that discussion, adding a bit more radioisotope to the ocean is not going to have a drastic impact except locally at the plant. Not that we should put it into the ocean, but if I were personally given a choice of where it went, I would be for choosing the medium that makes for very good shielding material and has a massive dilution volume.

Also, this is all contamination we're talking about, not radiation. Iodine and Cesium isotopes do not have the same energetic decay as other radionuclides, and thus do not deal the same amounts of equivalent biological damage. Hence why radiation levels remain low away from the site (though elevated above typical background amounts).

The impact to foodstuffs, water, et cetera has been discussed over and over and over again. The area around ***ushima is not going to become like Chernobyl unless something majorly catastrophic happens down the line. It will be a bitch to cleanup if they go for the typical 'less than' amounts, but that doesn't mean the area is a 'wasteland'.

There are minor amounts of other radionuclides released noted, also for the most part short lived and confined within the site. Fractional increases in plutonium concentrations confirmed locally at the site.

So overall they're having issues but coming through them slowly and surely.

Comparing this to Chernobyl is like comparing an Austin Martin to a Pontiac Fiero. They're both called sports cars. People will of course continue to compare this to Chernobyl, especially now, because they're being handed the association on golden platters.

Atwater His Ass
04-12-2011, 03:17 PM
This is one of those times I hate all the information available due to the internet.

So many varying opinions both from experts and non-experts that who do you believe? As usual, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

It'd help if they'd just explain/teach nuclear material in enough depth that people could acknowledge it rather than seeing it as magic green goo.

There are some valid comparisons that can be made between ***ushima and Chernobyl, such as total release concentrations of Iodine and Cesium (hence the change in INES rating). But you're never going to make something that can accurately describe a situation to someone when they don't understand what the situation is and everyone is telling them information is just as misplaced. When people compare something to Chernobyl, they're not talking about contamination level or radionulcide content - they're talking about how ****ed up the area is and how long it'll remain that way.

enjolras
04-12-2011, 03:19 PM
Important note: They raised the initial rating (just following the tsunami) to a 7. The situation still remains fairly stable, and isn't even in the same vicinity in terms of radiation exposure as Chernobyl.

mhgaffney
04-14-2011, 05:01 AM
You'd have to be crazy to buy fresh spinach or milk at this point.

MHG

UCB Food Chain Sampling Results


Radionuclides, once deposited by rainwater or air onto the ground, will find their way through the ecosystem. We are already tracking its path from rainwater to creek runoff to tap water, but we would also like to monitor how much these isotopes that make their way into our food. For example, how much gets taken up by the grass and eventually winds up in our milk?

We have been collecting produce that is as local as possible to test for the radioactive isotopes. We might expect different kinds of plants to take up different quantities of cesium and iodine, so we are trying to measure as many different plants and fruits as we are able to. So far, we have measured grass, wild mushrooms, spinach, strawberries, cilantro, kale, and arugula. We have also measured local topsoil.

The topsoil, grass, and wild mushroom samples collected so far all come from the same place, so comparing grass samples to each other is a fair "apples to apples" comparison. For most of the produce, different samples came from different markets and different farms, so there will be many factors influencing the results. This variety of produce helps provide a picture of the food chain as a whole. But for understanding the time-dependence of the food chain results, the grass and soil is what to look at.

In the tables below, we are providing two numbers for each of the isotopes. The first is a standard concentration unit of Becquerel per kilogram (Bq/kg) which is the number of particles decaying per second in each kilogram of the sample. The number in parentheses after the activity is the number of kilograms that one would need to consume to equal the radiation exposure of a single round trip flight from San Francisco to Washington D.C. (0.05 mSv). For more information on how this equivalent dose is calculated, the details are here: How Effective Dose is Calculated

The experimental setup used for the food testing is the same setup used for the Rainwater Collection Experiment.

for the rest go to
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2525

chrisp
04-14-2011, 05:18 AM
You'd have to be crazy to buy fresh spinach or milk at this point.

MHG

UCB Food Chain Sampling Results


The experimental setup used for the food testing is the same setup used for the Rainwater Collection Experiment.

for the rest go to
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2525

You'd have to be CRAZY? The authors of the report you quote don't seem to think so:

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling

Please note that though all I-131 activities have increased due to this revision, the levels are still very low -- one would have to consume at least 1,900 liters of milk to receive the same radiation dose as a cross-country airplane trip.

.....and maybe we shouldn't be flying either....

4/6 (6:20pm): Our first food chain tests are now posted. So far, we have measured spinach, cilantro, grass, and mushrooms. We have detected I-131, Cs-134, and Cs-137 in these samples, but the levels are very low -- consuming 403 kg of spinach could give you a radiation dose equivalent to a roundtrip flight from San Francisco to Washington, DC. Not all isotopes are present in all samples, and the levels vary widely.

These results are more a testament to the sensitivity of modern measuring equipment than they are to any nuclear dangers.

chrisp
04-14-2011, 05:31 AM
And from the sites own FAQ:

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2044

8.What steps would you recommend members of the public take to avoid the radiation?

In our laboratory we all learn the three basic rules of radiation protection: time, distance, and shielding. That is, minimize the amout of time during which you might contact a radioactive material, recognize that distance is very effective in reducing dose, and use shielding if the dose is high. As scientists but not health professionals, our expertise lies in detecting and quantifying trace radioisotopes in our samples. We try to put the dose from these radioisotopes in perspective by using comparisons to radiation doses that the public routinely accepts, such as the small dose one receives on an airplane flight, which is an element of background exposure. All we are showing is that we are observing extra radiation exposures to the public that are far, far smaller than the variations in background exposure that the public routinely accepts.

Therefore, we will not issue statements recommending that people take steps to receive a smaller dose of radiation, such as avoiding milk, drinking filtered water, or taking potassium iodide pills. Recommending such actions would be irresponsible, both because we are not health professionals and because such actions could have unintended health risks such as malnutrition or sickness. These decisions are left for you to make in consultation with your doctor.

Some have asked what the members of the team are doing in response to ***ushima. The answer is that none of us are changing our lifestyles in any way due to the fallout from ***ushima.

mhgaffney
04-17-2011, 01:43 AM
Michio Kaku calls Fu-kushima "a ticking time bomb.."

http://youtu.be/wrxKqLeZYD0

mhgaffney
04-17-2011, 03:06 AM
SATURDAY, APRIL 16, 2011

Morgan Stanley Defaulted on a Loan and Walked away from Offices in Tokyo!! Gave the keys back! Biggest Default in Japan's History 3.3 Billion!

Morgan Stanley Defaulted on a Tokyo Commercial office building yesterday (April 15th) they gave the keys back!

It is the biggest default ever in Japan's History - it is worth 3.3 Billion. Morgan Stanley left their investors high and dry with this default! Will this information come to light in the U.S. MSM?

Portions from Article:

TOKYO (Reuters) – A Morgan Stanley property fund failed to make $3.3 billion in debt payments by a deadline on Friday, handing over the keys to a central Tokyo office building to Blackstone (BX.N).

The $4.2 billion MSREF V real estate fund missed its April 15 deadline to repay 278 billion yen($3.3 billion) vestors, the largest repayment failure of its kind in Japan.

The refinanced debt was sold in six different tranches by Morgan Stanley to investors.

Now comes the question on WHY Morgan Stanley did this?

Commonsense says they know something we do not or they can read the writing on the wall. Tokyo is getting a major amount of radiation from the ***ushima melt down. They have decided to walk away from their investments there.

I have read this morning (16th) that planes have been chartered with the elite getting out of Japan in a more hurried fashion than before.

Here is an article on how many of the banks have left Tokyo along with other major corporations and evacuated their top personnel. It is being denied by those corporations, but with the latest news of Morgan Stanley walking away from an office building, I would wager a bet it is true.

From Article:
Foreign firms are evacuating staff from Japan, after fears of radiation leaks at the ***ushima Daiichi plant escalated further.

German car maker BMW and car part maker Continental are among companies moving employees out of the country.

Others, including software group SAP, are moving staff to southern cities within Japan.

Workers have suspended operations at the nuclear plant after a rise in radiation levels.

Radiation levels in Tokyo were higher than normal, officials said, but not at levels dangerous to humans.

The expatriate staff of international banks, including Morgan Stanley, BNP Paribas and Standard Chartered, have reportedly left the capital city.

http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2011/04/morgan-stanley-defaulted-on-loan-and.html

baja
04-17-2011, 07:45 AM
I don't know what is really happening with all this reactor business but it does seem odd to me the lack of news coverage about this on-going event.

TailgateNut
04-17-2011, 01:47 PM
I don't know what is really happening with all this reactor business but it does seem odd to me the lack of news coverage about this on-going event.


The Japanese know the prevailing winds will carry their crap across the pacific. They'd rather be hush hush about their disaster. Also you don't hear squat about the effect on the ocean and the fishing industry.

Tombstone RJ
04-17-2011, 02:16 PM
The Japanese know the prevailing winds will carry their crap across the pacific. They'd rather be hush hush about their disaster. Also you don't hear squat about the effect on the ocean and the fishing industry.

nobody is stopping the media from covering the situation, what hush, hush are you referring to?

Atwater His Ass
04-17-2011, 03:41 PM
The Japanese know the prevailing winds will carry their crap across the pacific. They'd rather be hush hush about their disaster. Also you don't hear squat about the effect on the ocean and the fishing industry.

Maybe because there isn't any affect outside the immediate vicinity of the plant?

Radiation monitoring is being conducted daily, both on land and sea, in a wide diameter from the plant. This information is availalbe to the public, and *gasp* the links to it have been posted in this thread. But yeah, reading is hard and stuff. Way more fun to make unfounded ignorant claims.

TailgateNut
04-17-2011, 08:36 PM
Maybe because there isn't any affect outside the immediate vicinity of the plant?

Radiation monitoring is being conducted daily, both on land and sea, in a wide diameter from the plant. This information is availalbe to the public, and *gasp* the links to it have been posted in this thread. But yeah, reading is hard and stuff. Way more fun to make unfounded ignorant claims.


Do you you better now? I hope so.

Just like their assinine claims of "hundreds dead" when images of whole villages decimated were broadcast around the globe. What's the lastest count? 25K + 1000s missing?


Then there was no concern of a pending disaster, and now it's starting to look like Chernoble II. It takes blinders and earmuffs to believe that their attempts at reducing a chance for a disaster, in turn, creates other disasters.

Sushi, anyone?

baja
04-21-2011, 12:40 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ITrXVJMKeQ&feature=share

baja
04-21-2011, 12:41 PM
http://enenews.com/***ushima-forecast-series-radiation-clouds-hit-west-coast-beginning-april-24-video

mkporter
04-21-2011, 03:35 PM
Just like their assinine claims of "hundreds dead" when images of whole villages decimated were broadcast around the globe. What's the lastest count? 25K + 1000s missing?


Governments typically only report confirmed dead. The Japanese government consistently noted that the final death toll would be much higher than the early confirmed dead figures. Not really asinine, just conservative and methodical. You may now continue your rantings.

mhgaffney
04-21-2011, 06:58 PM
The US has decided to move US military personnel from Japan to Guam.

The Japanese are talking about moving their capital out of Tokyo -- further south.

Check out this must watch video. Dr Helen Caldicott explains why the ***ushima reactor is worse than Chernobyl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ITrXVJMKeQ&feature=share

boltaneer
04-22-2011, 01:07 AM
The US has decided to move US military personnel from Japan to Guam.

:rofl:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/20_13.html

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 13:28 +0900 (JST)

US to unveil detailed Marine relocation plan

The US Defense Department has compiled a specific plan for relocating Marine Corps units from Japan's southernmost prefecture of Okinawa to Guam. The US government aims for an agreement with Japan on the plan in a few months' time.

The United States and Japan agreed in 2006 that 8,000 of 18,000 US Marines in Okinawa would be relocated to Guam. The Defense Department has been studying which units would be moved to the US territory.

Internal US Marine Corps documents obtained by NHK show that the number of Marines in Okinawa is to be reduced to 10,280 from the current 18,000.

The Japanese are talking about moving their capital out of Tokyo -- further south.

Where in the hell are you getting your information? First the so-called U.S. military exodus out of Japan and now this.

There's been nothing about this on Japanese TV and for giggles, I did a quick search and only found matches from a couple of blogs and rumor sites. Nothing reputable at all.

Check out this must watch video. Dr Helen Caldicott explains why the ***ushima reactor is worse than Chernobyl.

Don't know how much stock I put into her words. She's a medical doctor, not a scientist and she certainly has an obvious agenda (http://www.helencaldicott.com/about.htm).

mkporter
04-22-2011, 09:03 AM
The United States and Japan agreed in 2006 that 8,000 of 18,000 US Marines in Okinawa would be relocated to Guam. The Defense Department has been studying which units would be moved to the US territory.


It pains me to complement a dolts fan, but that's some nice work right there. That's the problem with the tin foil hats, they protect you from the satellites trying to read your minds, but they also seem to prevent you from seeing simple, logical explanations.
:rofl:

mhgaffney
04-22-2011, 09:43 AM
It pains me to complement a dolts fan, but that's some nice work right there. That's the problem with the tin foil hats, they protect you from the satellites trying to read your minds, but they also seem to prevent you from seeing simple, logical explanations.
:rofl:

The decision to remove troops from Okinawa -- was made because of many cases where US soldiers raped Japanese women. It has been a long standing issue.

This latest evac is due to the reactor meltdown -- and involves moving troops out of Japan proper.

You ding-bats need to get a clue. The source here is the Army Times.
MHG

U.S. to evacuate Americans out of Japan
Voluntary evacuation offered to family members and dependents of U.S. personnel

WASHINGTON — The United States has authorized the first evacuations of Americans out of Japan, taking a tougher stand on the deepening nuclear crisis and warning U.S. citizens to defer all non-essential travel to any part of the country as unpredictable weather and wind conditions risked spreading radioactive contamination.

The U.S. is doing minute-by-minute analysis of the fast-moving situation, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday.

for the rest go to
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-us-to-evacuate-americans-from-japan-031711/

mhgaffney
04-22-2011, 09:45 AM
It is mind boggling to see knee jerks still making light of the disaster in Japan.

Denial runs deep.

jhns
04-22-2011, 09:47 AM
The decision to remove troops from Okinawa -- was made because of many cases where US soldiers raped Japanese women. It has been a long standing issue.

This latest evac is due to the reactor meltdown -- and involves moving troops out of Japan proper.

You ding-bats need to get a clue. The source here is the Army Times.
MHG

U.S. to evacuate Americans out of Japan
Voluntary evacuation offered to family members and dependents of U.S. personnel

WASHINGTON — The United States has authorized the first evacuations of Americans out of Japan, taking a tougher stand on the deepening nuclear crisis and warning U.S. citizens to defer all non-essential travel to any part of the country as unpredictable weather and wind conditions risked spreading radioactive contamination.

The U.S. is doing minute-by-minute analysis of the fast-moving situation, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday.

for the rest go to
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-us-to-evacuate-americans-from-japan-031711/

You just posted something that doesn't at all say what you are claiming.

jhns
04-22-2011, 09:48 AM
It is mind boggling to see knee jerks still making light of the disaster in Japan.

Denial runs deep.

Says the guy that only uses sources that have zero real information on the situation. Why do you want it to be so bad? You are sick.

You want to convince people of something? Don't lie and try to decieve. Go take a college class on what is and isn't a good source. This would be a good start. The reason everyone laughs at you is because you are either an idiot or you think everyone else is...

boltaneer
04-22-2011, 09:49 AM
It pains me to complement a dolts fan, but that's some nice work right there. That's the problem with the tin foil hats, they protect you from the satellites trying to read your minds, but they also seem to prevent you from seeing simple, logical explanations.
:rofl:

BTW, I'm not really pro or anti-nuclear energy. I just don't like it when people on either side who are so blinded by their agenda that they can't see the truth.

I'd love to see a safer, cleaner form of energy being used everywhere but that's not the reality right now.

Also, I never really understood why solar energy is still so expensive to install. I, as well as a friend have looked into it for our homes and the prices are ridiculous. It's not like this new tech or anything. Anyone know the deal on this?

mhgaffney
04-22-2011, 10:10 AM
Says the guy that only uses sources that have zero real information on the situation. Why do you want it to be so bad? You are sick.

You want to convince people of something? Don't lie and try to decieve. Go take a college class on what is and isn't a good source. This would be a good start. The reason everyone laughs at you is because you are either an idiot or you think everyone else is...

You are looney tunes. You must be on drugs.

Check out this interview with Michio Kaku -- a theoretical physicist who now calls Daiichi a ticking time bomb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrxKqLeZYD0

mhgaffney
04-22-2011, 10:11 AM
So, now what? Kaku is a tin foil hat? Kaku has an agenda?

No -- the bottom line is you guys are certifiably crazy. You been living on a diet of FOX for so long your brain turned to jello.

jhns
04-22-2011, 10:44 AM
So, now what? Kaku is a tin foil hat? Kaku has an agenda?

No -- the bottom line is you guys are certifiably crazy. You been living on a diet of FOX for so long your brain turned to jello.

I haven't watched a single second of Fox news in the past 5 years. We aren't crazy. You are just an extreme drama queen.

Also, you using that old video is funny. They are not still relying on pumping water in? They have already stabalized the plant enough that they are pumping water out of the reactors. You and Kaku should get up to date before trying to claim this crap. Notice what he said it would take to worsen the situation? Another big earthquake or some other random events. He was being an alarmist because that is the crowd he is talking to. In reality, it would take another huge disaster to make those reactors melt down because they aren't close to it now. The reality is Kaku has no real data on the situation because he hasn't been anywhere close to it.... Again, the whole learning what a good source is...

boltaneer
04-22-2011, 10:58 AM
You just posted something that doesn't at all say what you are claiming.

And on top of that, the article is over a month old.

gaffney, you still haven't cited your sources. Where are you getting all of this mis-information?

How can we take you seriously? Your sources are always wrong or outdated.

mhgaffney
04-22-2011, 11:17 AM
You are running away from the seriousness of the nuclear disaster in Japan.

You say the situation has stabilized?

Is this why they are still using fire hoses? Manually pouring water in because the electric pumps still do not work..

As for pumping water out -- check again. Radioactive water is leaking out of the cooling pools through big cracks that happened in the earthquake. This is why they can't keep the spent fuel cool ---

As Kaku says - they are making it up as they go along. Meanwhile, radionuclides are circulating through the northern hemisphere --

Not good -especially for pregnant women, babies, and children.

I have posted sources -- scroll back to interviews with a number of nuclear experts -- and you react by ignoring them -- or dissing them -- as if you know better.

And as for why I started this thread -- the answer is simple. The US media is not informing the people. I do not watch TV -- but from what I have heard the press is downplaying the disaster. The people deserve better.

jhns
04-22-2011, 11:32 AM
You are running away from the seriousness of the nuclear disaster in Japan.

You say the situation has stabilized?

Is this why they are still using fire hoses? Manually pouring water in because the electric pumps still do not work..

As for pumping water out -- check again. Radioactive water is leaking out of the cooling pools through big cracks that happened in the earthquake. This is why they can't keep the spent fuel cool ---

As Kaku says - they are making it up as they go along. Meanwhile, radionuclides are circulating through the northern hemisphere --

Not good -especially for pregnant women, babies, and children.

I have posted sources -- scroll back to interviews with a number of nuclear experts -- and you react by ignoring them -- or dissing them -- as if you know better.

And as for why I started this thread -- the answer is simple. The US media is not informing the people. I do not watch TV -- but from what I have heard the press is downplaying the disaster. The people deserve better.

Are you done making stuff up yet? It is obvious that you are not even close to beinv up to date on the situation. You have not posted one credible source yet. In fact, you can't even find a source that has said anything in the last few weeks. I wonder why that is... So, which of your sources have actual data? I don't remember you posting a single source that has even been to Japan since the quake. Again, not hard to figure out why.

boltaneer
04-22-2011, 11:48 AM
You are running away from the seriousness of the nuclear disaster in Japan.

You say the situation has stabilized?

Is this why they are still using fire hoses? Manually pouring water in because the electric pumps still do not work..

As for pumping water out -- check again. Radioactive water is leaking out of the cooling pools through big cracks that happened in the earthquake. This is why they can't keep the spent fuel cool ---

As Kaku says - they are making it up as they go along. Meanwhile, radionuclides are circulating through the northern hemisphere --

Not good -especially for pregnant women, babies, and children.

I have posted sources -- scroll back to interviews with a number of nuclear experts -- and you react by ignoring them -- or dissing them -- as if you know better.

And as for why I started this thread -- the answer is simple. The US media is not informing the people. I do not watch TV -- but from what I have heard the press is downplaying the disaster. The people deserve better.

I don't watch TV either, though I don't really see how that's relevant or not.

I don't think I know better than any expert. I take both opinions in and listen to them. The problem is that, most of your sources are not qualified experts. They're either MDs or journalists. And the remaining sources still remain unknown. Kaku seems like the only scientist out of that bunch but from what I understand, even he is not a nuclear expert. He, like Caldicott have their agenda:

Kaku credits his anti-nuclear war position to programs he heard on the Pacifica Radio network, during his student years in California. It was during this period that he made the decision to turn away from a career developing the next generation of nuclear weapons in association with Teller and focused on research, teaching, writing and media. Kaku joined with others such as Helen Caldicott, Jonathan Schell, Peace Action and was instrumental in building a global anti-nuclear weapons movement that arose in the 1980s, during the administration of U.S. President Ronald Reagan.


As for the media, why would the US or any other media downplay this? The media was the one sensationalizing everything a month ago. Sensationalizing is what the media does these days!

Where is the information that the US is moving military out of Japan because of the nuclear crisis? Like jhns said, that link you posted had nothing to do with that.

That link was from March 17th and it was directed at non-military and potential American travelers to Japan.

Why is Japan not listed on the State Department travel advisory/warning page?

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html

Here's the current Travel alert:

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/pa/pa_5437.html

The assessment of technical and subject matter experts across United States Government agencies is that while the situation at the ***ushima Daiichi plant remains serious and dynamic, the health and safety risks to areas beyond the 50 mile evacuation zone, and particularly to Tokyo, Nagoya (Aichi Prefecture), Yokohama (Kanagawa Prefecture) nearby U.S. military facilities and the prefectures of Akita, Aomori, Chiba, Gunma, Iwate, Nagano, Niigata, Saitama, Shizuoka, Tochigi, and Yamanashi, and those portions of ***ushima, Ibaraki, Miyagi and Yamagata prefectures which are outside a 50 mile radius of the ***ushima Daiichi nuclear power plant are low and do not pose significant risks to U.S. citizens.

And you still haven't provided any source for your assumption that Japan is thinking of moving the capital from Tokyo.

jhns
04-22-2011, 11:55 AM
He, like Caldicott have their agenda:

What is funny about this is he tells me that none of the sources that have actual information are good because they are biased for nuclear energy. He then only posts souces with an obvious bias against it. How does that make any sense?

mkporter
04-22-2011, 11:55 AM
Your original assertion:

The US has decided to move US military personnel from Japan to Guam.


From the article you linked :
"The authorized departure offers voluntary evacuation to family members and dependents of U.S. personnel in Tokyo, Yokohama and Nagoya and affects some 600 people.

In other words, they provided voluntary evacuations for 600 people, who are not active service personnel. Whereas you try to imply that the US military is bailing out because the situation is so dire.

I think it is important that people stay informed about the reactor problems, because it is a serious issue. You are doing an active disservice to people trying to inform themselves with your hyperbolic posts. I encourage you to spend some time thinking critically about the sources of information you are using. Just like mainstream media, alternative media sources are rife with bias and misinformation. People have an irrational fear of radiation causing many to overstate the dangers.

boltaneer
04-22-2011, 12:08 PM
I think it is important that people stay informed about the reactor problems, because it is a serious issue. You are doing an active disservice to people trying to inform themselves with your hyperbolic posts. I encourage you to spend some time thinking critically about the sources of information you are using. Just like mainstream media, alternative media sources are rife with bias and misinformation. People have an irrational fear of radiation causing many to overstate the dangers.

I totally agree.

I'm not leaning towards either side. I'm just trying to get reliable information as to what's going on in Japan. I'm very concerned about this situation because I have friends and relatives in Japan and I do get updates frequently.

People definitely need to realize that this still remains a serious issue but at the same time I can't stand people like gaffney who are spewing out misinformation and who are just using this situation to push their political views on everyone. He seems to have on interest in the welfare of Japan at all. It just happens to be where this nuclear incident happens to be.

mhgaffney
04-22-2011, 06:39 PM
I totally agree.

I'm not leaning towards either side. I'm just trying to get reliable information as to what's going on in Japan. I'm very concerned about this situation because I have friends and relatives in Japan and I do get updates frequently.

People definitely need to realize that this still remains a serious issue but at the same time I can't stand people like gaffney who are spewing out misinformation and who are just using this situation to push their political views on everyone. He seems to have on interest in the welfare of Japan at all. It just happens to be where this nuclear incident happens to be.

You are an A-hole.

If you gave a damn about the people of Japan you'd be riled about the fact that the US pressured a prostrate Japan -- defeated in WW II -- to purchase US nuclear technology.

This is, after all, how Japan came to have those reactors (designed by GE) at Fu-kushima. We in the US pushed Japan hard to buy US technology.

Oh -- except that -- no one in Washington happened to notice that Japan sits on three major faults and has a long history of quakes and tsunamis.

Gimme a break. You can't make this stuff up.

So where is the indictment of Washington? A small group of people here in the states got very rich selling US nuclear technology. If anyone here had an ounce of common sense -- it never would have happened.

What is the matter with you clowns? It is the same old story we see endlessly repeated on the OM. You are purblind when it comes to the dark side of US policy.

mhgaffney
04-22-2011, 06:41 PM
Your original assertion:



From the article you linked :
"The authorized departure offers voluntary evacuation to family members and dependents of U.S. personnel in Tokyo, Yokohama and Nagoya and affects some 600 people.

In other words, they provided voluntary evacuations for 600 people, who are not active service personnel. Whereas you try to imply that the US military is bailing out because the situation is so dire.

I think it is important that people stay informed about the reactor problems, because it is a serious issue. You are doing an active disservice to people trying to inform themselves with your hyperbolic posts. I encourage you to spend some time thinking critically about the sources of information you are using. Just like mainstream media, alternative media sources are rife with bias and misinformation. People have an irrational fear of radiation causing many to overstate the dangers.

Totally informed?

You mean by tuning in to the Heritage Foundation?

You guys don't even know what planet you live on.

As for "voluntary evacuation"....like I said -- you don't even know what planet this is.

mhgaffney
04-22-2011, 06:50 PM
I don't watch TV either, though I don't really see how that's relevant or not.

I don't think I know better than any expert. I take both opinions in and listen to them. The problem is that, most of your sources are not qualified experts. They're either MDs or journalists. And the remaining sources still remain unknown. Kaku seems like the only scientist out of that bunch but from what I understand, even he is not a nuclear expert. He, like Caldicott have their agenda:


As for the media, why would the US or any other media downplay this? The media was the one sensationalizing everything a month ago. Sensationalizing is what the media does these days!

Where is the information that the US is moving military out of Japan because of the nuclear crisis? Like jhns said, that link you posted had nothing to do with that.

That link was from March 17th and it was directed at non-military and potential American travelers to Japan.

Why is Japan not listed on the State Department travel advisory/warning page?

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html

Here's the current Travel alert:

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/pa/pa_5437.html

The assessment of technical and subject matter experts across United States Government agencies is that while the situation at the ***ushima Daiichi plant remains serious and dynamic, the health and safety risks to areas beyond the 50 mile evacuation zone, and particularly to Tokyo, Nagoya (Aichi Prefecture), Yokohama (Kanagawa Prefecture) nearby U.S. military facilities and the prefectures of Akita, Aomori, Chiba, Gunma, Iwate, Nagano, Niigata, Saitama, Shizuoka, Tochigi, and Yamanashi, and those portions of ***ushima, Ibaraki, Miyagi and Yamagata prefectures which are outside a 50 mile radius of the ***ushima Daiichi nuclear power plant are low and do not pose significant risks to U.S. citizens.

And you still haven't provided any source for your assumption that Japan is thinking of moving the capital from Tokyo.


If you had tracked the nuclear issue -- as I have -- over the years - you would know that the so called experts in the "US government agencies" have lied time and time again about the actual danger of nuclear.

They used US troops as guinea pigs in the 1950s during the atmospheric tests -- then when the soldiers came down with radiation sickness --they turned their back on them.

If you don't believe it -- check out this amazing book KILLING OUR OWN by Harvey Wasserman and Norman Solomon. It was published in 1982 -- and is still the best book - by far - on the subject.

Killing Our Own: The Disaster of America's Experience With Atomic Radiation

mkporter
04-23-2011, 06:56 AM
Totally informed?

You mean by tuning in to the Heritage Foundation?

You guys don't even know what planet you live on.

As for "voluntary evacuation"....like I said -- you don't even know what planet this is.

This post doesn't remotely make sense as a reply to mine. And why is it that you assume that everyone that points out how crazy you come off is a right wing stooge? I happen to lean pretty far left, and I still think you are a little unbalanced here.

mhgaffney
04-23-2011, 11:00 AM
This post doesn't remotely make sense as a reply to mine. And why is it that you assume that everyone that points out how crazy you come off is a right wing stooge? I happen to lean pretty far left, and I still think you are a little unbalanced here.

I have posted testimony by nuclear physicists and engineers -- yet, you whiffed at them like a Denver LB.

Let's review who these folks are. Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist. Dr Bill Deagle is an MD -- but also has a PhD in physics. Ted Gunderson is a nuclear engineer.

All of them are saying the same thing. The situation in Japan is extremely serious -- and holds the potential to be much worse than Chernobyl. This is because three reactors have melted down simultaneously -- whereas one melted down at Chernobyl. There is also the added danger of spent fuel -- which the Japanese cannot keep cool - because of breaches in the containment pool. This stuff burns when it hearts up -- emitting huge amounts of radiation.

Most nuclear scientists cannot and will not speak out -- because they have signed security oaths. Most of them work for the US government -- or industry -- and would lose their cushy jobs if they spoke the truth.

If you are waiting for experts from Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore -- same deal. Hell will freeze over before they speak the truth in public. They have been lying to us since the dawn of the nuclear age. And thus, there is no reason to expect them to speak out, now. Most of these scientists have bought into the Cold War mentality -- and some of them are deeply involved in work on the next generation of nukes.

You should be listening to the scientists/engineers who have spoken out -- Kaku, Deagle, Gunderson.

You also whiffed at Dr Caldicott, author of numerous books about nuclear weapons/nuclear power. One of the posters complained that she "has an agenda.." Will, yeah, she took the Hippocratic oath to do no harm. Being a pediatrician, it's easy to understand why Caldicott is concerned about nuclear radiation, since infants/children are the most vulnerable.

If you are old enough -- you might recall that Caldicott inspired Physicians for Social Responsibility, the group that warned us about nuclear winter in the 1980s-90s. She was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by the only scientist who ever won it twice, Linus Pauling, which is a rather strong endorsement of her work. Incidentally, Pauling won his second Nobel for helping to bring about the atmospheric test ban in 1963. You need to understand that the US government "rewarded" Pauling for this important contribution by treating him like some kind of subversive, or Commie.

This is what happens in America when you stand for peace instead of war. We are a war mad nation -- and nuclear power fits right into this paradigm. I suggest you read Caldicott's fine books. If you do they will turn you around.

mkporter
04-23-2011, 11:55 AM
Gaff-

I'm sure some of your posts have some useful information in them, and I agree that there is ample reason to treat this matter seriously. What you fail to realize is that you are the mirror image of those that you rail against, and few rational people take you seriously because of this. Fewer all caps, and more thoughtful arguments would win a lot more people over. Enjoy your thread.

mhgaffney
04-23-2011, 01:39 PM
Gaff-

I'm sure some of your posts have some useful information in them, and I agree that there is ample reason to treat this matter seriously. What you fail to realize is that you are the mirror image of those that you rail against, and few rational people take you seriously because of this. Fewer all caps, and more thoughtful arguments would win a lot more people over. Enjoy your thread.

Since when do you presume to speak for rational people? I have yet to see any rational response by yourself (or anyone else on this board) that specifically addresses the points raised by the experts I have cited.

Instead, you attack me.

This is nothing new. You don't like the message -- so you attack the messenger. You are as old as the hills.

I have not exaggerated anything with regard to Fu-kushima. The facts are dire enough -- and do not need hyperbole.

I suspect you (and others) dismiss Helen Caldicott because your male ego(s) can't handle the fact that a woman might have something important to say.

Here is the truth: If you and the rest of the knee jerks on this board had listened to Caldicott back in 2002 we would not be in the mess we are in today -- in Iraq and elsewhere.

I remember when Caldicott was interviewed on the eve of war -- this was the liberal NPR -- and how the NPR radio host harassed this great woman on air because she refused to be stampeded into war fever. It was appalling and made me ashamed to be an American.

I am no fan of Winston Churchill -- but he nailed it when he said that "Americans always make the right decision...after exhausting every other possibility..."

mhgaffney
04-23-2011, 08:40 PM
This aired on April 19th

Nuclear Engineer Arnie Gunderson on Democracy Now

Talks about the Ku-kushjima disaster


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5mxi1HJP7Q&NR=1

Missouribronc
04-23-2011, 08:46 PM
This aired on April 19th

Nuclear Engineer Arnie Gunderson on Democracy Now

Talks about the Ku-kushjima disaster


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5mxi1HJP7Q&NR=1

You're a crack pot.

No nuclear, no coal, no energy....

mhgaffney
04-23-2011, 10:59 PM
Thanks, Mizzou,

That's the most substantive post I've seen you make, yet.

Cito Pelon
04-24-2011, 11:31 AM
BTW, I'm not really pro or anti-nuclear energy. I just don't like it when people on either side who are so blinded by their agenda that they can't see the truth.

I'd love to see a safer, cleaner form of energy being used everywhere but that's not the reality right now.

Also, I never really understood why solar energy is still so expensive to install. I, as well as a friend have looked into it for our homes and the prices are ridiculous. It's not like this new tech or anything. Anyone know the deal on this?

Because it's worthless for homeowners. Plant a garden on the south side of your house and you'll get a better return monetarily than a solar system.