View Poll Results: Considering the ongoing threats of more contamination, should they be re-opend?

Voters
12. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES!

    1 8.33%
  • NO!

    7 58.33%
  • I DON"T KNOW!

    4 33.33%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41

Thread: Considering the ongoing threats of more contamination, should they be re-opend?

  1. #31
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,030

    Re: Considering the ongoing threats of more contamination, should they be re-opend?

    Here is a major issue with people believing what they are reading about this. Many of the people "discussing" Fukushima have no fricking clue about radiation or how nuclear reactors work, including terminology.

    Example: (This is the first result on the search for Fukushima cores I got)

    3 Fukushima reactor cores melted into the earth, and are still missing

    This guy has no fricking clue.

    "They could go critical (atom-bomb style)." - This is proof he has no idea what he is talking about because "critical" in nuclear power is good. It means the dang thing is on and working. It is not generally bad. (Although it, admittedly, would not be good for Fukushima, but it also wouldn't be likely either.) And it is in no way "atom-bomb style". Heck, I heard "the reactor is critical" so often during my time on the ship that I had to eventually force myself to listen for so I could record the time in my logs when it happened, and it was "hey, we'll have steam soon, good, more work". "Supercritical" is the bad one when it comes to nuclear reactors.

    Nuclear reactor physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #32
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,307

    Re: Considering the ongoing threats of more contamination, should they be re-opend?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Here is a major issue with people believing what they are reading about this. Many of the people "discussing" Fukushima have no fricking clue about radiation or how nuclear reactors work, including terminology.

    Example: (This is the first result on the search for Fukushima cores I got)

    3 Fukushima reactor cores melted into the earth, and are still missing

    This guy has no fricking clue.

    "They could go critical (atom-bomb style)." - This is proof he has no idea what he is talking about because "critical" in nuclear power is good. It means the dang thing is on and working. It is not generally bad. (Although it, admittedly, would not be good for Fukushima, but it also wouldn't be likely either.) And it is in no way "atom-bomb style". Heck, I heard "the reactor is critical" so often during my time on the ship that I had to eventually force myself to listen for so I could record the time in my logs when it happened, and it was "hey, we'll have steam soon, good, more work". "Supercritical" is the bad one when it comes to nuclear reactors.

    Nuclear reactor physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The cores at three plants at Fukushima have melted the fuel rods and control apparatus and gone through the metal containment vessels into the supporting basement infrastructure. The molten fuel cores are working on the basement reinforced concrete at this time and specific isotopes being measured offshore indicate that the contamination is reaching underground springs (flowing water) and flowing into the Pacific Ocean big time. That indicates cracks or breaks of some nature in the concrete. Just use your imagination to figure how they will contain these "coriums" at this time. They can't even get equipment into the meltdown buildings to make measurements. TEPCO is constructing water storage tanks as fast as possible, trying to buy more acreage for storage tanks and admitting that eventually they must dump "slightly" decontaminated water into the Pacific. That simplifies to read, "you can't keep building storage tanks for contaminated water forever." This is their best case scenario providing no more quakes or tsunamis.

  3. #33
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,030

    Re: Considering the ongoing threats of more contamination, should they be re-opend?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    The cores at three plants at Fukushima have melted the fuel rods and control apparatus and gone through the metal containment vessels into the supporting basement infrastructure. The molten fuel cores are working on the basement reinforced concrete at this time and specific isotopes being measured offshore indicate that the contamination is reaching underground springs (flowing water) and flowing into the Pacific Ocean big time. That indicates cracks or breaks of some nature in the concrete. Just use your imagination to figure how they will contain these "coriums" at this time. They can't even get equipment into the meltdown buildings to make measurements. TEPCO is constructing water storage tanks as fast as possible, trying to buy more acreage for storage tanks and admitting that eventually they must dump "slightly" decontaminated water into the Pacific. That simplifies to read, "you can't keep building storage tanks for contaminated water forever." This is their best case scenario providing no more quakes or tsunamis.
    They screwed up. They are not us. Heck, they aren't even doing those same things anymore. It is called "a learning experience", just as we had with TMI and the world had with Chernobyl. A learning experience that really is just a reinforcement of many things that many other nuclear-power using places already foresaw and this just reinforced that these are issues that need to be dealt with. Nuclear power is still a lot safer than many other current major forms of fuel. You are complaining about the safety of something that already showed the problem. It happened. And it in all likelihood will not happen again, particularly in that same way.

    Of course nothing you said in any way refutes what I did. None of that stuff has anything to do with whether or not the problem is so big we can't deal with it or it is going to cause devastating problems to the rest of the world. It doesn't in any way refute that many of the people you are believing have any real clue about what is going on, since I showed that many of them are not even capable of using proper terminology in reference to nuclear reactors and their operations.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #34
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,307

    Re: Considering the ongoing threats of more contamination, should they be re-opend?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    They screwed up. They are not us. Heck, they aren't even doing those same things anymore. It is called "a learning experience", just as we had with TMI and the world had with Chernobyl. A learning experience that really is just a reinforcement of many things that many other nuclear-power using places already foresaw and this just reinforced that these are issues that need to be dealt with. Nuclear power is still a lot safer than many other current major forms of fuel. You are complaining about the safety of something that already showed the problem. It happened. And it in all likelihood will not happen again, particularly in that same way.

    Of course nothing you said in any way refutes what I did. None of that stuff has anything to do with whether or not the problem is so big we can't deal with it or it is going to cause devastating problems to the rest of the world. It doesn't in any way refute that many of the people you are believing have any real clue about what is going on, since I showed that many of them are not even capable of using proper terminology in reference to nuclear reactors and their operations.
    Here's a link where I find information. Since Shinzo Abe made it illegal to report on Fukushima, news has dried up, but this source is accurate. Humans can not imply that they will be responsible for a waste that lasts thousands of years. Corporations are "fictitious entities" that can and do bankrupt when liabilities exceed assets and nukes will ultimately always lead to that financial condition. POW! Bankrupt and now the waste is your collective (socialized liabilities) responsibility and the executives have disappeared with their "privatized" profits.

    Fukushima 2013 « nuclear-news

    Radiation increase a thousand fold in Fukushima groundwater
    Shock revelations about US sailors exposed to Fukushima radiation
    Cancer is clearly increasing in Fukushima children,

  5. #35
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,030

    Re: Considering the ongoing threats of more contamination, should they be re-opend?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Here's a link where I find information. Since Shinzo Abe made it illegal to report on Fukushima, news has dried up, but this source is accurate. Humans can not imply that they will be responsible for a waste that lasts thousands of years. Corporations are "fictitious entities" that can and do bankrupt when liabilities exceed assets and nukes will ultimately always lead to that financial condition. POW! Bankrupt and now the waste is your collective (socialized liabilities) responsibility and the executives have disappeared with their "privatized" profits.

    Fukushima 2013 « nuclear-news

    Radiation increase a thousand fold in Fukushima groundwater
    Shock revelations about US sailors exposed to Fukushima radiation
    Cancer is clearly increasing in Fukushima children,
    I know enough about radiation to understand what is going on. I also know that those sailors are full of it, in all likelihood. There are radiation detectors all over a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. In fact, we have personal ones that measure how much radiation we are exposed to. We are only allowed so much exposure. Their levels of radiation exposure are clearly documented and many of the "symptoms" I have seen they are claiming aren't even symptoms of radiation sickness. (Heck, technically it wouldn't even be radiation sickness, just exposure.)

    Sure there are plenty of problems and people are hurting, dying because of this. But that happens with pretty much any form of power generation. We work to make things better, safer. We don't discard an entire form of power generation simply because we have an accident that is in fact already being safeguarded against happening again by any place that actually cares about such safeguards. In fact, most people already made those considerations before Fukushima.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  6. #36
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,307

    Re: Considering the ongoing threats of more contamination, should they be re-opend?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    I know enough about radiation to understand what is going on. I also know that those sailors are full of it, in all likelihood. There are radiation detectors all over a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. In fact, we have personal ones that measure how much radiation we are exposed to. We are only allowed so much exposure. Their levels of radiation exposure are clearly documented and many of the "symptoms" I have seen they are claiming aren't even symptoms of radiation sickness. (Heck, technically it wouldn't even be radiation sickness, just exposure.)

    Sure there are plenty of problems and people are hurting, dying because of this. But that happens with pretty much any form of power generation. We work to make things better, safer. We don't discard an entire form of power generation simply because we have an accident that is in fact already being safeguarded against happening again by any place that actually cares about such safeguards. In fact, most people already made those considerations before Fukushima.
    Please respond to this.

    "Humans can not imply that they will be responsible for a waste that lasts thousands of years. Corporations are "fictitious entities" that can and do bankrupt when liabilities exceed assets and nukes will ultimately always lead to that financial condition. POW! Bankrupt and now the waste is your collective (socialized liabilities) responsibility and the executives have disappeared with their "privatized" profits."




    ]

  7. #37
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,030

    Re: Considering the ongoing threats of more contamination, should they be re-opend?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Please respond to this.

    "Humans can not imply that they will be responsible for a waste that lasts thousands of years. Corporations are "fictitious entities" that can and do bankrupt when liabilities exceed assets and nukes will ultimately always lead to that financial condition. POW! Bankrupt and now the waste is your collective (socialized liabilities) responsibility and the executives have disappeared with their "privatized" profits."


    ]
    You mitigate the production of waste. Thorium reactors, from what I have been seeing about them, seem like a pretty good way to do that. Look to be much more efficient and less waste-producing.

    But the waste is there and not nearly as horrible as some are making it out to be. Plus, plenty of waste generated by other fuels as well. And radiation is part of life here on Earth. It is all around us. It is in fact a part of our natural life processes. Too much is absolutely bad, but that is pretty much fearmongering if you are trying to use it to keep people from using nuclear power.

    Now, sure we need to hold any corporations who run these facilities responsible for cleaning up any messes they make completely, but it is stupid to hold all nuclear power industries/operations responsible for the screw ups of a few.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #38
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,307

    Re: Considering the ongoing threats of more contamination, should they be re-opend?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    You mitigate the production of waste. Thorium reactors, from what I have been seeing about them, seem like a pretty good way to do that. Look to be much more efficient and less waste-producing.

    But the waste is there and not nearly as horrible as some are making it out to be. Plus, plenty of waste generated by other fuels as well. And radiation is part of life here on Earth. It is all around us. It is in fact a part of our natural life processes. Too much is absolutely bad, but that is pretty much fearmongering if you are trying to use it to keep people from using nuclear power.

    Now, sure we need to hold any corporations who run these facilities responsible for cleaning up any messes they make completely, but it is stupid to hold all nuclear power industries/operations responsible for the screw ups of a few.
    It is immoral and unethical to even suggest that a "Corporation" with a finite life span in a Nation that has only existed for a couple hundred years can be presumed to be responsible for a waste product with many thousands of years of liability. That is the major flaw of "Nuclear." It is real, fatal, and inevitable. I'm not picking on you. I was an AX2 many years past. Aircrewman, etc. Vietnam and most of Asia by air.

  9. #39
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Considering the ongoing threats of more contamination, should they be re-opend?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    It is immoral and unethical to even suggest that a "Corporation" with a finite life span in a Nation that has only existed for a couple hundred years can be presumed to be responsible for a waste product with many thousands of years of liability. That is the major flaw of "Nuclear." It is real, fatal, and inevitable. I'm not picking on you. I was an AX2 many years past. Aircrewman, etc. Vietnam and most of Asia by air.
    The toxic byproducts of that computer you're using right now never become safe.
    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. #40
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,307

    Re: Considering the ongoing threats of more contamination, should they be re-opend?

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The toxic byproducts of that computer you're using right now never become safe.
    That's true, but they are not reaching/leaching/flowing in such a manner that their inherent toxicity is negligently dangerous for half a million years. I think I would have to eat my computer to cause or suffer ill effects. The particular toxins can be handled "responsibly." Responsibility is the key word.

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
  •