Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 93

Thread: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

  1. #41
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Fun fact: there is more uranium in the waste from a coal plant than there is in a nuclear plant. Which do you think is stored better?
    Not quite, you need to reread that scienticic american article.

    As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.

    Source

  2. #42
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,718

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Not quite, you need to reread that scienticic american article.
    I didn't read that article and I was referring to volume.

    Unshielded, yes, nuclear waste is more radioactive because its more concentrated. But if we're going with unshielded nuclear waste, I get to go with unfiltered coal waste spit into the atmosphere, right?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #43
    Professor

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    06-21-17 @ 12:55 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,577

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    In a manner of speaking. The Nuclear Industry is not bankable. IJt is completely subsidized by the taxpayers. The liability potential of disasters is and has been recognized as too great to make it a good investment. Ergo, all Nuclear Energy is gov't subsidized. The same monies should have gone into genuine renewable energy projects that would simultaneously mitigate Global Warming. The monies were derailed by Big Money lobbying, politicking, and MIC scheming to maintain the Centralized Distribution Network of electricity . This keeps the fat cats fat. Renewable Energy is fought at every turn because it hurts the fat cats of Centralized Distribution. Distributed Energies is old money networks maintaining the status quo at the expense of the citizens. Nukes are the worst manifestation of this greed at any cost. If that is personal, so be it, but I would view it as a financial analysis of why a problem persists. A really BIG problem, getting bigger.
    To my uninformed ears, parts of your argument sound very tinfoil-hat. Do you have any grounds to base your statements or expertise upon which you base your conclusions? I know the military is not the best of examples, but we stick sailors in a metal tube hundreds of feet underwater with a nuclear generator. If they are willing to do that, why not use them on land where safety systems can be much more detailed and contain more redundancies? If the "waste" is almost entirely recyclable and the remaining can be stored with little-to-no impact on the environment, why not use the energy source to create jobs and cheaper energy - which can help sustain efforts to develop more alternative sources of energy?

    Note: I say I am uninformed. For the most part that is true, but I have several friends who were nuclear engineers on submarines and in land-based power plants. Everyone I've ever met who worked around nuclear energy has told me they wouldn't be able to cause a worst-case scenario in the new facilities if they tried to.

  4. #44
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:16 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by CycloneWanderer View Post
    To my uninformed ears, parts of your argument sound very tinfoil-hat. Do you have any grounds to base your statements or expertise upon which you base your conclusions? I know the military is not the best of examples, but we stick sailors in a metal tube hundreds of feet underwater with a nuclear generator. If they are willing to do that, why not use them on land where safety systems can be much more detailed and contain more redundancies? If the "waste" is almost entirely recyclable and the remaining can be stored with little-to-no impact on the environment, why not use the energy source to create jobs and cheaper energy - which can help sustain efforts to develop more alternative sources of energy?

    Note: I say I am uninformed. For the most part that is true, but I have several friends who were nuclear engineers on submarines and in land-based power plants. Everyone I've ever met who worked around nuclear energy has told me they wouldn't be able to cause a worst-case scenario in the new facilities if they tried to.
    The problem scenario is the accumulation of deadly waste, tons and tons and tons. I think there are 400 tons at Fukushima alone. The agents responsible for the permanent handling of this waste are CORPORATIONS. Corporations are a legal entity designed to minimize liability for the Corporations owners. They are in this business because they are making a large profit. When the profits stop, so do Corporations. They file bankruptcy. At that point the waste belongs to you, me, Grandma and the dog. Not to worry because the waste is only going to be really dangerous for half a million years or so. But, alas, no more profit, screw you, the waste is yours. Already, Japan is financing lots of cleanup at Fukushima. Nuclear Power is a welfare Industry. It is not bankable and it is not insurable. Potential liability confirmed by actuarial tables keep the insurance companies away and also keeps bankers away. Ergo, these Nukes are always built with "public" or taxpayer monies, but the taxpayers don't get the profit. The taxpayers will get the waste when the Corporate bankruptcy is filed. Standard Operating Procedure in the USA. Privatize (give to corporations) the profits and Socialize (baptize the taxpayer) the liabilities. You are watching this scenario everyday with the "too big to fail" banks. You cannot ruin the planet's water and air and not take responsibility for those actions. That is what all Nukes are about.

  5. #45
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,718

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    The problem scenario is the accumulation of deadly waste, tons and tons and tons. I think there are 400 tons at Fukushima alone. The agents responsible for the permanent handling of this waste are CORPORATIONS. Corporations are a legal entity designed to minimize liability for the Corporations owners. They are in this business because they are making a large profit. When the profits stop, so do Corporations. They file bankruptcy. At that point the waste belongs to you, me, Grandma and the dog. Not to worry because the waste is only going to be really dangerous for half a million years or so. But, alas, no more profit, screw you, the waste is yours. Already, Japan is financing lots of cleanup at Fukushima. Nuclear Power is a welfare Industry. It is not bankable and it is not insurable. Potential liability confirmed by actuarial tables keep the insurance companies away and also keeps bankers away. Ergo, these Nukes are always built with "public" or taxpayer monies, but the taxpayers don't get the profit. The taxpayers will get the waste when the Corporate bankruptcy is filed. Standard Operating Procedure in the USA. Privatize (give to corporations) the profits and Socialize (baptize the taxpayer) the liabilities. You are watching this scenario everyday with the "too big to fail" banks. You cannot ruin the planet's water and air and not take responsibility for those actions. That is what all Nukes are about.
    How many nuclear power companies have declared bankruptcy anyway?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  6. #46
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:16 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    How many nuclear power companies have declared bankruptcy anyway?
    Glad you asked. When a "Nuke" plant stops making money for a corporation, it becomes a liability. The USA "nukes" are nearing 60 years and when the profit stops and you are a corporation, what will you do? Will you lose money day after day babysitting your dead horse? Will you be wasting corporate assets to maintain your "Dead horse?" Will you be building more fuel storage pools for fuel rods as the existing ones crack and corrode? Not very Corporate ( a legal entity to limit liability ). You could take a bad check for the "Nuke" plant from Morey HiJinks Corporation and be done with the problem. Morey scraps anything they dare get close to and abandons the plant, bankrupt, of course, after paying himself and his help. Standard Operating Procedure in USA Corporate business per usual.

  7. #47
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,718

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Glad you asked.
    And yet somehow you've managed to completely avoid answering the question.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDo...&paperID=28599

    I've mentioned this before; while Fukushima is not some cataclysmic event, to claim its "no big deal" is somewhere between ignorant and delusional.

    Yes, we are exposed to all sorts of radiation all the time, yes exposure to small amounts of radiation can cause your cells to learn how to repair that damage...there is that grain of truth.

    In the big explosion radioactive debris was found 20km away, and the smoke, dust, and flames sent all sorts of particles into the atmosphere where it's now circling the earth.

    Then you start using the numbers and projecting models where you allow yourself to make false equivalences; like the "banana equivalent dose". It tries to equate radioactive potassium to radioactive iodine, or other heavy metal radioactive particles, but your body will not handle these particles all the same way.

    It does not consider that it's not just the easily detected gamma emissions, but the alpha and beta emissions...

    Next, it would treat an X-ray of your chest as X-rays emitting from your chest if you happened to inhale a hot particle.

    Or potassium, which is maintained in certain levels in your body, where a certain percentage of the particles are emitting gamma rays every so often... Well, that's already got a mechanism to cope to that radiation.

    Whereas, if you ingest a particle of radioactive iodine, your thyroid will absorb the iodine, but then it will not be able to handle that iodine and you end up with that hot particle directly damaging your thyroid gland for a few months before the particle decays. Then years later that damage cumulates with other stressors and you get thyroid cancer...

    But if 10 years has passed since exposure, how are you going to make that connection when you have no idea that you even got exposed??

    Back to Fukushima, that's devastating for the people living in the vicinity, and will, possibly irrevocably, damage their fisheries. In America, the only risk is to those on the east coast, even in a worst case scenario, it wot be cataclysmic, but it might destroy Japan as a nation.

    That said, the nuclear industry has really only been around 50-60 years, an thousands of above and below ground tests, the background radiation of the northern hemisphere is now double the southern hemisphere. Also there have been at least 3 MAJOR incidents in the past 100 years... How many more chances are there??

  9. #49
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,718

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    Also there have been at least 3 MAJOR incidents in the past 100 years... How many more chances are there??
    Only one resulting in fatalities.

    How many people has air pollution from coal plants killed in that same period?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Only one resulting in fatalities.

    How many people has air pollution from coal plants killed in that same period?
    That's simply false... On all three counts.

    Which I could detail, but we all know your penchant for ignoring facts contrary to your opinions (like the link I provided saying there's already been a 28% surge in thyroid problems in north America that can be attributed to Fukushima.

    Even TMI had a cancer cluster of those exposed that was 7 times higher than the expected rates in the area... But of course, and as I pointed out, since the cancer might not show up for years after exposure it's easy to gloss over and pretend that no harm was done.

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •