Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41

Thread: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    McFly! Your Computer is emitting radiation! Run, Man, RUN!!!!!!
    Here's the main caveat that I think you're neglecting :

    Your body can cope with EXTERNAL radiation... how this disaster is different is that this radiation is contaminating the food chain.

    First, the areas that have higher levels of background radiation : The people living there have been living in those areas for generations, if nothing else life has a tremendous capacity to adapt to this, still low-level higher radiation levels. In brick houses as you point out, the radiation is emanating from the brick itself, but contained WITHIN that brick, in other words, it acts like asbestos, which causes cancer, but once it's set then there's no danger unless you start shaking it around and getting it into the air.

    Second, you're not taking into account the ways in which this contamination from these reactors works its way up through the food chain... If an area of the sea is contaminated, first small fish will be exposed and then eat contaminated algae or whatever... so they get a higher dose, THEN the bigger fish get a dose and eat more and more of these contaminated fish so they get the extra dose, and in this way the contamination works its way up the food chain.

    Just like cows will eat contaminated grass, then they will process that into the milk that you drink.

    Finally, there's also a difference between external exposure and internal exposure. Your body will absorb any radiation and it will radiate you from the inside until your body is able to process it, if your body can process the toxin at all.

    It's not about alarmist panic, it's about realizing the reality of the situation that must be coped with...

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    At least you concede to be arguing from a position of ignorance... no point in asking the other questions like How many people died directly in the explosion at chernobyl versus how many people have died from the resulting radiation?
    Is such a question necessary, since the number 1, from Fukushima, is decidedly less than whatever figure you decide is the official tally for Cherynobyl.

    The Mayor isn't going to waste time belaboring the obvious.

    Ya.. well, Chernobyl also happened over 25 years ago... so there's been that time to measure the human impact of that disaster. The reactor workers at this point are probably already dead-men walking, bless their courage, and even they are not dying yet.
    Yes, however the fact remains that the plume of RAM in the air from Fukushima is not anywhere near as serious as the flame-driven soot-laden plume that Chernobyl drove into the stratosphere for weeks. The quantity of radiation released, so far, is a full order of magnitude lower than Chernobyl.

    But we could also consider the technological improvements in areas like cancer research which will offer better chances of survival for those that will develop cancer over the coming decades.
    We could, perhaps TEPCO could pony up the money. However, that's clearly a job for private donations, not the government. However, cancer research is flush with cash and additional spending is likely to do nothing more than churn the study pool and make money disappear.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    Is such a question necessary, since the number 1, from Fukushima, is decidedly less than whatever figure you decide is the official tally for Cherynobyl.

    The Mayor isn't going to waste time belaboring the obvious.
    You mean the obvious things like :
    - A nuke plant exploding is not the same as a 'conventional explosive'
    - That you're talking about a single explosion compared to multiple explosions coming from multiple reactors. (Yes, they had containment domes around the reactors themselves, but everyone ignores the videos of the explosions, so I won't link it again)
    - That it takes a period of time (more in the length of years / decades then 4 weeks) for the overall effects.

    Your argument is like saying someone tossed a grenade and it didn't hit anyone so it's not fatal... but you're only counting 1 second out of the entire countdown.

    But no, you don't have to belabor the point, because you've said enough to show you're arguing from a position of ignorance, and viewing this from a perspective like it's a scoreboard

    Yes, however the fact remains that the plume of RAM in the air from Fukushima is not anywhere near as serious as the flame-driven soot-laden plume that Chernobyl drove into the stratosphere for weeks. The quantity of radiation released, so far, is a full order of magnitude lower than Chernobyl.
    Oh I don't suppose you'd want to back that point up either... don't worry I trust in your ignorance.

    We could, perhaps TEPCO could pony up the money. However, that's clearly a job for private donations, not the government. However, cancer research is flush with cash and additional spending is likely to do nothing more than churn the study pool and make money disappear.
    Ya, of course... profits are privatized costs are socialized. And again, black and white perspective. You do realize that there are also costs in PERFORMING the operations and all that, right??

  4. #34
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Look, what is happening at the Fukushima #1 plant is really bad; probably worse than most of us thought it would get. None of us likes the idea of extra radiation floating around in the atmosphere, even in minute quantities. However, it is overly dramatic to say that this is worse than Chernobyl. The Japanese have been far more open about this crisis than the Soviets were. We didn't know about that one until large amounts of radiation were detected in neighboring countries like Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland among others. And keep in mind while we ARE registering minute quantities of excess radiation around the world, detection instruments are far more sensitive than they were in the mid-1980s.

    I am not going to play Pollyanna and say that the Fukushima #1 plant is Disney World, but it isn't as bad as Chernobyl, either...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  5. #35
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    the upgrade to level 7 status wasn't based on any physical changes (in fact, the metrics are improving, as radiation coming from the Fukishima plant is decreasing), but rather on a decision to retroactively lump all 6 reactors together for measurement rather than each one individually.

    this is an accounting move, for cripes sakes. the actual radiation in total that has come out of Fukishima is less than 10% of that of Chernobyl.

  6. #36
    Mildly Hostile
    505's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    11-20-17 @ 03:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,363

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    ...is less than 10% of that of Chernobyl.
    But but but... it's really a hand grenade that you didn't bean anyone with, and you're only counting the first second of the ENTIRE COUNTDOWN. Are you dumb?

    Disclaimer: If you are offended by the above post, and you aren't a SJW or truther, grow a pair.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    You mean the obvious things like :
    - A nuke plant exploding is not the same as a 'conventional explosive'
    - That you're talking about a single explosion compared to multiple explosions coming from multiple reactors. (Yes, they had containment domes around the reactors themselves, but everyone ignores the videos of the explosions, so I won't link it again)
    - That it takes a period of time (more in the length of years / decades then 4 weeks) for the overall effects.

    Your argument is like saying someone tossed a grenade and it didn't hit anyone so it's not fatal... but you're only counting 1 second out of the entire countdown.

    But no, you don't have to belabor the point, because you've said enough to show you're arguing from a position of ignorance, and viewing this from a perspective like it's a scoreboard
    Actually, the Mayor is arguing from a position of experience. How many nuclear reactors have you brought to Initial Criticality? How much reactor and secondary system maintenance have you done, and how much training have you had in the fields of reactor operations and radiological controls?

    When the Mayor discusses a comparison between Chernobyl and Fukushima, the Mayor is drawing from profesional experience. When you express your angst, are you doing anything other than expressing the fears of an amateur?

    Oh I don't suppose you'd want to back that point up either... don't worry I trust in your ignorance.
    You should. The Mayor is better informed than your ignorance.

    Do you see ANY of the known nuclear operators on this board freaking out over this accident? What about Utah Bill? How's his blood pressure? Hmmm?



    Ya, of course... profits are privatized costs are socialized. And again, black and white perspective. You do realize that there are also costs in PERFORMING the operations and all that, right??
    Yes, what people do when they can't address what was said is address what they wish was said.

  8. #38
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant Noodle View Post
    This is horrible. I mean REALLY horrible. The Ocean will be poisoned

    Poor guy - what a ****ed up business situation. You know he didn't ever want to have to do things like this - he was just making power because people demanded it. Remember when Tony Hayward said "I just want my life back" - I imagine that's how this guy feels right now and he's just trying not to let it show.

    What they should do is encase the plant with concrete - infuse the fouled water with dry cement so it doesn't sluff out. And then just encase it like Chernobyl. We're smart enough to create these problems but we're not smart enough to fix them.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    Actually, the Mayor is arguing from a position of experience. How many nuclear reactors have you brought to Initial Criticality? How much reactor and secondary system maintenance have you done, and how much training have you had in the fields of reactor operations and radiological controls?

    When the Mayor discusses a comparison between Chernobyl and Fukushima, the Mayor is drawing from profesional experience. When you express your angst, are you doing anything other than expressing the fears of an amateur?
    That's fair, but I've been following this issue quite closely, you know, since I live down wind from this disaster... excuse me for being concerned.

    And my position of your demonstrated ignorance is NOT in the specific areas of the radiation, but the scope of all that's been reported on the subject, the dodging the video of the various explosions (the number 3 explosion you can see the fuel rods falling back to the ground, it was afterall where they stored the spent fuel rods), and that you are only considering the actual deaths of the actual explosion and calling all released radiation as 'safe'...

    So, I'm not calling into doubt your experience, I'm calling into doubt your analysis of this event

    But, let's draw on your expertise... YouTube - Flashing Blue Light Seen Above Exploded Nuclear Reactor

    What's it mean when this blue light is visible outside the reactors?? There were news stories about this, but now the news has been pushed back and only blogs remain in the search list.

    What is your opinion of : ??

    Finally, why would the EPA (AND the european equivalent) SUDDENLY decide that 'safe' levels of radiation should be increased??

    Is this to help in the cover-up, or they just got to doing that after, what is it, 50+ years of studies with radiation?

    You should. The Mayor is better informed than your ignorance.

    Do you see ANY of the known nuclear operators on this board freaking out over this accident? What about Utah Bill? How's his blood pressure? Hmmm?
    Here's why : Every news cast since has been 'radiation ... safe', so the issue is being SERIOUSLY downplayed, much like it was initially with Three Mile Island, and like was done with Chernobyl. The people in the nuclear industry have a vested interest in downplaying the severity of this disaster because if they accept responsibility then they open themselves up to liability...

    So, as with most issues, the media has served well as an opiate of the masses. Though, every so often a dose of reality slips through the cracks...

    Japan nuclear crisis: evacuees turned away from shelters - Telegraph
    Hundreds of people evacuated from towns and villages close to the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant are being turned away by medical institutions and emergency shelters as fears of radioactive contagion catch on.
    Ya, they are getting turned away because they are covered in nutritious and delicious radiation...

    Yes, what people do when they can't address what was said is address what they wish was said.
    You said they should pony up money for cancer research, but they aren't doing that...

    I pointed out the money would be better spent funding TREATMENT of any and all that get sick because of exposure. But, give someone like say Bill Gates (named only because of massive wealth) got exposed and got cancer, if that were to happen you'd have 3 cures for cancer within the week.

  10. #40
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,294

    Re: Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

    Quote"So, this shows that what is being dumped is above the legal limit... and while the tests show the radiation emitted in the water by half a liter of water, what's being dumped is closer to 115000 liters so far... which will be contaminating the fish that swim through that water, which will disperse throughout the oceans."End Quote

    The water dumped in the Ocean was quoted at 11,500 tons. That is actuallly several million gallons. That is very different from 115,000 liters, by a factor of about 35. I have a pond with two million gallons and thats a lot of water. One acre, 18 feet deep at the center. That was a very good post in my opinoion

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 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
  •