The Giant Noodle
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 7,332
- Reaction score
- 2,011
- Location
- Northern Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
This is horrible. I mean REALLY horrible. The Ocean will be poisoned
This is horrible. I mean REALLY horrible. The Ocean will be poisoned
This is horrible. I mean REALLY horrible. The Ocean will be poisoned
Now for the serious response :
This makes me absolutely sick, what the hell are these people thinking, dumping radioactive water into the oceans.
You should go out and get some sushi or whatever fish you can get now because within a year or so I don't think you'll be able to get fish that isn't contaminated, of course we'll be told that it's safe and by the time the health effects become apparent a sufficient amount of time will have passed so that these can be attributed to something OTHER THEN the radiation.
So, is anyone else less then convinced that Chernobyl was a bigger disaster??
So, is anyone else less then convinced that Chernobyl was a bigger disaster??
You've GOT to be kidding. Oh wait... you were 3 when it happened. Sorry I forgot.
you are at least correct in the sense that I was too young to know
mcfly said:since you were wrong again at guessing my age
Yup, so instead of educating yourself with this fantastic resource you are using to type, let's just speculate instead.
We'll start off easy.
Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"An explosion and fire released large quantities of radioactive contamination into the atmosphere, which spread over much of Western Russia and Europe."
"The battle to contain the contamination and avert a greater catastrophe ultimately involved over 500,000 workers and cost an estimated 18 billion rubles, crippling the Soviet economy."
"These events exposed the graphite moderator of the reactor to air, causing it to ignite.[2] The resulting fire sent a plume of highly radioactive smoke fallout into the atmosphere and over an extensive geographical area, including Pripyat."
"350,400 people were evacuated and resettled"
"reactor four suffered a catastrophic power increase, leading to explosions in its core. This dispersed large quantities of radioactive fuel and core materials into the atmosphere[8]:73 and ignited the combustible graphite moderator. The burning graphite moderator increased the emission of radioactive particles, carried by the smoke, as the reactor had not been encased by any kind of hard containment vessel."
"A second, more powerful explosion occurred about two or three seconds after the first; evidence indicates that the second explosion resulted from a nuclear excursion."
"The operators were given respirators and potassium iodide tablets and told to continue working."
"The fallout was detected over all of Europe except for the Iberian Peninsula."
"A large area in Russia south of Bryansk was also contaminated, as were parts of northwestern Ukraine. Studies in surrounding countries indicate that over one million people could have been affected by radiation."
"Official figures in southern Bavaria in Germany indicated that some wild plant species contained substantial levels of cesium"
"The Chernobyl nuclear power plant is located next to the Pripyat River, which feeds into the Dnipro River reservoir system, one of the largest surface water systems in Europe. The radioactive contamination of aquatic systems therefore became a major problem in the immediate aftermath of the accident"
" The contamination of fish caused short-term concern in parts of the UK and Germany and in the long term (years rather than months) in the affected areas of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia as well as in parts of Scandinavia."
"significant transfers of radionuclides to groundwater have occurred from waste disposal sites in the 30 km (19 mi) exclusion zone around Chernobyl"
"Of the 440,350 wild boar killed in the 2010 hunting season in Germany, over 1,000 were found to be contaminated with levels of radiation above the permitted limit of 600 bequerels, presumably due to residual radioactivity from Chernobyl."
"The after-effects of Chernobyl were expected to be seen for a further 100 years"
See how easy that is to learn something?
Ya, and I was already aware of all that... I was hoping that you weren't going to stop half-way and actually make the comparison by what measure that Chernobyl is still a bigger disaster then Fukushima as you've implied?
You were the one that made the assertion bud. How about YOU tell us how dumping radioactive water into the ocean makes Fukushima a bigger disaster than Chernobyl.
So, is anyone else less then convinced that Chernobyl was a bigger disaster??
Chernobyl was the biggest disaster.
How many people has Fukushima killed so far?
How many is it likely to kill? While the ocean isn't an ideal dump for rad waste, the ocean has one hell of an ability to dilute poisons.
But they should be making every effort to trap and filter as much effluent as possible from those reactors, just on general principles.
I think it was reported that 1 person died in one of the explosions...
Well, there's the cloud of I-131 and C-137 and a whole laundry list of other toxins that are spreading around the world... that's one level of exposure.
Also, much of the fallout lands in the ocean, so in about 6 months it will have the chance to spread through the oceans and will be necessary to test ALL fish for radioactivity (mind you on the gulf of Mexico precedent with 'corexit' http://lmrk.org/corexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf it will just be declared safe anyway)
Furthermore, since the overall additional exposure for anyone outside of Japan will be relatively small, it will still be potentially decades before the increase in cancers are noted,
Now, I suppose it should also be asked of what numbers are you using for the casualty list from Chernobyl?? There's 4000, 250000 or 958000...
so, I think we should find a way to determine which numbers to use in comparison.
One.
And so this is worse than Chernobyl?
You mean the cloud that can only be detected with incredibly sensitive detectors and which pose no sensible threat to anyone?
strange how he never seems interested in looking at, you know, the actual physical data.
What?... mcfly not looking at the actual physical data? I am shocked.
yes. you can. because those safety regulations are deliberately kept way low of the actual level of damage in order to mandate compliance at extreme safety levels.
the water that in that ocean? enjoy.
or, from the IAEA:
...On 7 April, low levels of deposition of both iodine-131 and cesium-137 were detected in 5 and 4 prefectures respectively. The values reported for iodine-131 ranged from 3.8 to 20 becquerel per square metre, for cesium-137 from 9.7 to 25 becquerel per square metre.
Gamma dose rates continue to decrease. For Fukushima, on 7 April a dose rate of 2.3 µSv/h, for the Ibaraki prefecture a gamma dose rate of 0.16 µSv/h was reported. Dose rates reported for the Eastern part of the Fukushima prefecture, for distances of more than 30 km to Fukushima-Daiichi, range from 0.2 to 28 µSv/h.
As part of a new measurement program carried out by MEXT in cooperation with universities, gamma dose rates have also been measured in 26 cities in 13 prefectures for the period 5 to 7 April. In 19 cities, all measurements are below 0.1µSv/h. In a further five cities, some measurements are up to 0.21µSv/h. In the city of Tsukuba in the prefecture of Ibaraki, dose rates are in the range 0.17 to 0.2 0 µSv/h. In Fukushima City, the range is 0.42 to 0.5 µSv/h. typical normal background levels are in the range 0.05 to 0.1 µSv/h.
As of 6 April, iodine-131 and cesium-137 was detectable in drinking water in a few prefectures at levels far below those that would initiate recommendations for restrictions of drinking water. As of 7 April, one restriction for infants related to I-131 (100 Bq/l) remains in place as a precautionary measure in only one village of the Fukushima prefecture...
One.
And so this is worse than Chernobyl?
You mean the cloud that can only be detected with incredibly sensitive detectors and which pose no sensible threat to anyone?
You MUST be aware that TWO US nuclear powered submarines, the Thresher and the Scorpion, sank and took their reactors with them, right? And that the Russians have lost several boats as well?
Is anyone testing the fish using the Glow-In-The-Dark test kit because half a dozen broken reactors litter the bottoms of the seas?
No.
Your use of the word "the" indicates your irrational belief that cancers will be caused, when in fact it is extremely unlikely that any statistical increase in cancer incidence outside of Japan will be noted as a result.
This cannot be said about Chernobyl, in part because the socialists running the Soviet Union LIED about the problems and prevented neighboring countries from taking precautions.
Not any.
It wasn't necessary. You provided the number (1). That's all that was necessary to know that the Fukushima incident is less catastophic than Chernobyl.
Really? You think somehow Fukushima, with it's single direct casualty, will compare unfavorably with Chernobyl, with it's hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of deaths? You choose the metric, the outcome is plain to the rest of us.
Yours first because of the antagonism...
1 - You never addressed my question, you simply called it an assertion and ignored it. So you have yet to make a single ACTUAL point here yet grandstand like you know what you're talking about. Which you clearly don't since you haven't even been able to answer a simple question.
2 - I only had time to address a single post this morning, so, don't take that as not looking at physical data, for me to ADDRESS the physical data I have to look at that and other sources to see how well it is corroborated.
3 - You're only shocked cause you speak out of this arrogant ignorance where you ignore facts that you choose and pretend like that causes you a win...
1. I addressed your question. You asked "So, is anyone else less then convinced that Chernobyl was a bigger disaster?" I disagreed, and then posted all of the reasons why Chernobyl was the bigger disaster.
2. I wasn't just talking about this one time. You make it a habit to not look at the actual data, and instead resort to getting your info from that alarmist puke Jones and his radio show. You then parrot whatever his new flavor of the week is, thinking that nobody can see that is what you're doing.
Actually, you posted a wiki page about Chernobyl WITH NOTHING to explain the comparison, then you announced my question was a statement... So fail 1.
Oh, all those times that I've never sourced Jones (unless it was specifically on a subject related)... can you back up that statement beyond that?
Mcfly, I posted all of that AS the comparison. NONE of that happened with Fukushima. Comprende?
Yup. Jones' new flavor of the week is crying about how this is the biggest disaster EVER and we're all DOOOOOMED. Then you come in here saying the same. Not surprising at all.