Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

  1. #11
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,092

    Re: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    I was almost about to say biased American media, when I remembered this morning on Sky News that they too tried to push this view until an invited British nuclear expert totally shot down their attempt to dramatise the situation. Funny enough the rest of the day the story died out to royal weddings and what not.

    Yes the Japanese raised their level to the highest on IAEA level, but what is that level exactly?

    The nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi is now rated as a level 7 "Major Accident" on INES. Level 7 is the most serious level on INES and is used to describe an event comprised of "A major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures"
    We have known that for weeks now. Hell most of the release of radioactive material was deliberate by the engineers.

    This accident is still in no freaking ****ing and random swear word anywhere NEAR Chernobyl, both in amount of radiation and area covered by the fall out. It is especially the fall-out that is the problem. To this day, the radiation levels in places like Copenhagen, Stockholm and other places are above normal, and that is over 1000 kms from Chernobyl. Hell the radiation levels in Stockholm are higher than they are in Tokyo, which is what.. 80 miles away or something like that. And most important, the Chernobyl disaster was a full explosion of the reactor and it spread high dosis radiation from Chernobyl across Europe and all the way to the East Coast of the US. The Japanese reactor building did explode but it was no where similar to Chernobyl as all the reactor cores were and still are pretty much intact physically.

    When people and animals start having symptoms over 500+ kms away, then I will start to call it half a Chernobyl.. maybe.
    PeteEU

  2. #12
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:47 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,073

    Re: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    well, i was reading your post with interest until you reverted to your usual childish hyperbole.
    Unfortunately, it's not hyperbole. It's truly sad. This nation hasn't a spine anymore.

  3. #13
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Unfortunately, it's not hyperbole. It's truly sad. This nation hasn't a spine anymore.
    Your mention of Y2K was indeed hyperbole. Y2K was a real issue and in spite of the apparent success, entire cities were shutdown because of non-compliance. For trivia, in 300,000 years we're going to have another Y2K problem because long integers can't hold milisecond precision beyond that.

  4. #14
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    please note the link i posted with a map of our OLD reactors.
    I don't disagree on the notion of potentially improving our currently set of older reactors, and I'd be happy to see them go off line as new models go online. However, the discussion regarding nuclear energy and the use of it to me is far more based on the notion of actually significantly attempting to increase the building of NEW facilities. You'll note the number of 10 to 19 year old ones on your map is small and the number of 0 - 9 appear to be non-existant. The fact that our old buildings may be problematic shouldn't deter us from making new ones. Indeed, that just means that making new ones (and improvements to the old ones, something I don't know how much our various regulations hamper from happening) is all the more important to potentially phase out the older models.

    I think it'd be silly not to at least pause for a moment after a catastrophe like this. If ones position can't withstand moments of reflection and rechecking then I quesiton how strong of a position you honestly have. However, to me, even after that pause and second thought, the notion to continue forward with Nuclear energy is still a significant option in my mind.

  5. #15
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:47 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,073

    Re: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    Your mention of Y2K was indeed hyperbole. Y2K was a real issue and in spite of the apparent success, entire cities were shutdown because of non-compliance. For trivia, in 300,000 years we're going to have another Y2K problem because long integers can't hold milisecond precision beyond that.
    Oh crap. When's the fix scheduled to be released?

  6. #16
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I thought twice about it from this too...

    Then I remembered this was a nuclear power plant built on almost 30+ year designs sitting on the coast of a country that knows it gets semi-regular earthquakes with the chance for significantly powerful ones and that it'd been almost a quarter century since Chernobyl that we get another bad one like it, and thus is hardly a representation of the normal experience for modern nuclear power. As such, despite this, my views on going nuclear remain the same.
    From what I've read, this was a poorly designed installation. Their emergency generators were at ground level. When they lost power, they were screwed. The plant was scheduled to be shut down this year as obsolete but given a reprieve. A tsunami certainly wasn't outside the realm of possibility. Hindsight = 20/20.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  7. #17
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,075

    Re: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    I used to lean between a maybe and a no when it came to nuclear energy. Now I lean between no and hell no when it comes to nuclear energy. I really don't give a **** if those plants in Japan were built 30 years ago and there is new safer designs. It still doesn't change the fact of what can happen in a worst case scenario.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  8. #18
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

    How many people died in this once-in-a-generation meltdown, which was caused by a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami?
    How many people die EVERY WEEK in coal mines and oil fires, not to mention the indirect deaths from air pollution and conflict in the Middle East?
    Last edited by Kandahar; 04-13-11 at 04:35 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #19
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:08 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,309

    Re: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

    Murphy's Law. "If something can go wrong, it will, and at the worst possible moment!" Should I add that all nuclear reactors are located on major waterways because of their huge need for cooling water. No one speaks of the potential for downstream contamination, and that could be the Gulf Stream as easily as the Ganges. Even if only 2% of the nuke plants have major catastrophes, we'll have 5 or 6 Fukushimas, and these events are uninsurable because the Insurance company demographics say the risk is too great. "The risk is too great." Isn't that clear? This from the data analysts who make a living analyzing risk. Nuke power simply guarantees profits to Corporations that are written to eliminate liability for those that pocket the profits and you and I are not in that picture. Not exactly true as it is you and I that will ultimately bear the monetary liabilities and health and planetary burdens. Those nuclear corporate executives will be far away from any contamination and you can make book on that. Also the politicians whose shortsightedness leads to this inevitably result. Nukes are about profits, not needs. Take a good look at the sun and try not to burn your eyes while you are seeking alternative energy to solve the problem.

  10. #20
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    01-17-15 @ 02:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    629

    Re: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Murphy's Law. "If something can go wrong, it will, and at the worst possible moment!" Should I add that all nuclear reactors are located on major waterways because of their huge need for cooling water. No one speaks of the potential for downstream contamination, and that could be the Gulf Stream as easily as the Ganges. Even if only 2% of the nuke plants have major catastrophes, we'll have 5 or 6 Fukushimas, and these events are uninsurable because the Insurance company demographics say the risk is too great. "The risk is too great." Isn't that clear? This from the data analysts who make a living analyzing risk. Nuke power simply guarantees profits to Corporations that are written to eliminate liability for those that pocket the profits and you and I are not in that picture. Not exactly true as it is you and I that will ultimately bear the monetary liabilities and health and planetary burdens. Those nuclear corporate executives will be far away from any contamination and you can make book on that. Also the politicians whose shortsightedness leads to this inevitably result. Nukes are about profits, not needs. Take a good look at the sun and try not to burn your eyes while you are seeking alternative energy to solve the problem.
    Don't forget the sun runs on nuclear power too.. Nuclear energy is pretty much the power source of the universe. If we can get fusion running, that should be much safer than fission. Overall, nuclear energy is still safer than coal and oil. It's just like flying, just because there are some rare accidents, people freak out. But flying is still safer than driving, should we not fly anymore too because some planes do crash?

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •