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 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

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

  1. #1
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,292

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

    TBO.com | AP Wires

    Japan delaying cleanup of towns near nuclear plant
    "Radiation cleanup in some of the most contaminated towns around Fukushima's nuclear power plant is behind schedule, so some residents will have to wait a few more years before returning, Japanese officials said Monday. Environment Ministry officials said they are revising the cleanup schedule for six of 11 municipalities in an exclusion zone from which residents were evacuated after three reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant went into meltdown following the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami. The original plan called for completing all decontamination by next March."

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...TEMPLATE=TEPCO

    TEPCO doesn't have enough money to fix this.

    The Japanese public will be required to pay for this.

    Million and millions of gallons of radiated water stored in fragile tanks.

    Possible fission reaction ongoing in melted core/s revealed by cesium and other readings in leaking groundwater.

    Damaged fuel storage pool with thousands of fuel rods and susceptible to another earthquake or tidal wave.

    Should these towns be re-opened with the Fukushima meltdown still out of control?

    Should the exclusion zone be enlarged?

    Is the fuel rod threat in the storage pool enough threat to stop re-opening the towns?

    Are the melted fuel cores, especially the one that has melted through containment enough threat to stop re-opening the towns?

    Japan, a super high tech Nation, has asked for International help and who will be able to help?

    Radiation contaminated water in huge quantities seeps into the Pacific daily and does this worry you?

    All "Nuke" plants are on major waterways and does this worry you?

    Should all "Nuke" plants be made illegal?
    Last edited by DaveFagan; 10-21-13 at 09:27 AM. Reason: format

  2. #2
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

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

    I went with IDK because I don't know enough. Even areas with low levels could still have high level hotspots. I am inclined to say keep the towns closed for as long as possible.

  3. #3
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,292

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    I went with IDK because I don't know enough. Even areas with low levels could still have high level hotspots. I am inclined to say keep the towns closed for as long as possible.
    My own concern is that the threat of more contamination is real and understated. Melted cores, groundwater, earthquakes, Mother Nature, temporary measures of containment, ongoing threats with huge implications (fuel pools, molten cores through containment, human error, etc.), and a look askance at Chernobyl to give reality a jump start. I wouldn't live within 200 miles of Fukushima.

  4. #4
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    My own concern is that the threat of more contamination is real and understated. Melted cores, groundwater, earthquakes, Mother Nature, temporary measures of containment, ongoing threats with huge implications (fuel pools, molten cores through containment, human error, etc.), and a look askance at Chernobyl to give reality a jump start. I wouldn't live within 200 miles of Fukushima.
    Perhaps, but Japan is a relatively small place to have to deal with widespread contamination. I suspect the whole mainland will be contaminated by this before it is over.

  5. #5
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,292

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    Perhaps, but Japan is a relatively small place to have to deal with widespread contamination. I suspect the whole mainland will be contaminated by this before it is over.
    I admit to an anti nuclear bias for reasons of common sense. About 1953 in grade school, GE initiated a huge TV campaign to promote Nuclear energy and the question always was, "what about the nuclear waste?" GE always stated that their engineers expected to solve that problem within six months. We, as children, voted in classrooms to wait the six months before initiating Nuke plant construction. Common sense. I also have a pro Japanese bias because I was stationed there in the 1960s and found the people to be honest, industrious, family oriented, and ambitious. I guess the ambition is what bit them. It's all simply about money for those that already have the money, insulated from liability by Corporate law. Screwers and screwees and guess where we are?

  6. #6
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,742

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I admit to an anti nuclear bias for reasons of common sense. About 1953 in grade school, GE initiated a huge TV campaign to promote Nuclear energy and the question always was, "what about the nuclear waste?" GE always stated that their engineers expected to solve that problem within six months. We, as children, voted in classrooms to wait the six months before initiating Nuke plant construction. Common sense. I also have a pro Japanese bias because I was stationed there in the 1960s and found the people to be honest, industrious, family oriented, and ambitious. I guess the ambition is what bit them. It's all simply about money for those that already have the money, insulated from liability by Corporate law. Screwers and screwees and guess where we are?
    I admit to a pro nuclear bias because I have a better understanding of nuclear physics and the effects of these levels of radiation on people.
    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.

  7. #7
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,292

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I admit to a pro nuclear bias because I have a better understanding of nuclear physics and the effects of these levels of radiation on people.
    It's OK. No law against being wrong. Any increase in background radioactivity will result in an increase in cancer. Probably way too complex to understand, eh?

  8. #8
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I admit to an anti nuclear bias for reasons of common sense. About 1953 in grade school, GE initiated a huge TV campaign to promote Nuclear energy and the question always was, "what about the nuclear waste?" GE always stated that their engineers expected to solve that problem within six months. We, as children, voted in classrooms to wait the six months before initiating Nuke plant construction. Common sense. I also have a pro Japanese bias because I was stationed there in the 1960s and found the people to be honest, industrious, family oriented, and ambitious. I guess the ambition is what bit them. It's all simply about money for those that already have the money, insulated from liability by Corporate law. Screwers and screwees and guess where we are?

    I have an anti-sitting in the dark and anti-big utility bills bias. Anything that solves those or balances them out, is fine with me.

  9. #9
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    It's OK. No law against being wrong. Any increase in background radioactivity will result in an increase in cancer. Probably way too complex to understand, eh?
    Not a significant one, unless there is a significant increase in the background radiation. And we are talking at least hundreds of millirem increase in that background radiation level.

    Even those of us working in nuclear power, receiving about twice the normal amount of radiation per year or more, and that being in more acute doses, only increase our chance of cancer by .04%. That increase doesn't even come close to other potential things that people do that can increase their risk of cancer.

    A little info for those concerned about cancer risks from Fukishima.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamescon...ot-a-big-deal/

    "Background doses going from 250 mrem (2.5 mSv) to 350 mrem (3.5 mSv) will not raise cancer rates or have any discernable effects on public health. Likewise, background doses going from 250 mrem (2.5 mSv) to 100 mrem (1 mSv) will not decrease cancer rates or effect any other public health issue."
    Last edited by roguenuke; 10-21-13 at 10:32 PM.
    "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.

  10. #10
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,292

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Not a significant one, unless there is a significant increase in the background radiation. And we are talking at least hundreds of millirem increase in that background radiation level.

    Even those of us working in nuclear power, receiving about twice the normal amount of radiation per year or more, and that being in more acute doses, only increase our chance of cancer by .04%. That increase doesn't even come close to other potential things that people do that can increase their risk of cancer.

    A little info for those concerned about cancer risks from Fukishima.

    Like We've Been Saying -- Radiation Is Not A Big Deal - Forbes

    "Background doses going from 250 mrem (2.5 mSv) to 350 mrem (3.5 mSv) will not raise cancer rates or have any discernable effects on public health. Likewise, background doses going from 250 mrem (2.5 mSv) to 100 mrem (1 mSv) will not decrease cancer rates or effect any other public health issue."
    What'd he say about those radioactive fish in California. No fishing along Northern Japan coast? In recognition of reality, I see more radioactive contamination in our future, not less, and it is all "for profit."

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •