Japanese Tsunami - Page 33

joea · 03-27-11, 04:52 PM

lol where did you dig that up dude?

Torplexed · 03-27-11, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-25

Wow. Radiation causes Homer-san's eye pupils to dilate.

CCIP · 03-27-11, 04:58 PM

That's not homer, that's MISTA SPARKLE

TarJak · 03-27-11, 05:06 PM

Now even my dog understands what's going on over in Japan!

I-25 · 03-27-11, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCIP

That's not homer, that's MISTA SPARKLE

right on

Gargamel · 03-28-11, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TarJak

Now even my dog understands what's going on over in Japan!

wow...... just wow.....

Castout · 03-28-11, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TarJak

Now even my dog understands what's going on over in Japan!

I was actually confused at that until somewhere past the middle then oh.

Skybird · 03-28-11, 04:05 AM

German media report the Japanese government calls it a "temporary" meltdown now in number 2 (the going surely stopped in the middle of it, eh?). Also, another earthquake in Japan.

Castout · 03-28-11, 05:29 AM

They should evacuate more people really.

Gargamel · 03-28-11, 05:58 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12877198

So, apparently Tepco reported a radiation level 10,000,000x higher than normal, when the meant to say 100,000. Well, it's only a couple zeros. Good Job Tepco.

They've also switched form salt water to fresh water because the salt water was possibly harming machinery. The logistics of getting fresh water there may be fairly complicated, unless there's a nearby natural source.

tater · 03-28-11, 10:52 AM

Water also increases fission since is slows neutrons. They are adding boron to the water I think when possible to moderate neutrons. Course with heating there might be slumping, which brings the fuel closer together (spent fuel ponds).

While still an issue to be dealt with, so far, this worst nuclear disaster in a long time has killed.... no one. Put that in perspective with the vast loss of life to the quake/tsunami.

Skybird · 03-28-11, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

While still an issue to be dealt with, so far, this worst nuclear disaster in a long time has killed.... no one.

You are wrong, it already has. Just that the bodies still walk, like hens whose head was cut off. You do not stay inside a zone with a contamination of that level, and do net get affected in your health. Many of the workers there, are already sentenced to death, I'm sure. The intoxication of the environment will affect many thousands more over the coming years - just give it some time to uncover. there is now plutonium found outside the perimeter. Radiation in sweet water 300 miles away. Heavily intoxicated sea water. And at least one ongoing meltdown.

Halleluja.

Offsprings of survivors of the two atom bombs keep on to producing ill and deformed babies until today.

No one killed - really...?

tater · 03-28-11, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

You are wrong, it already has. Just that the bodies still walk, like hens whose head was cut off. You do not stay inside a zone with a contamination of that level, and do net get affected in your health. Many of the workers there, are already sentenced to death, I'm sure. The intoxication of the environment will affect many thousands more over the coming years - just give it some time to uncover. there is now plutonium found outside the perimeter. Radiation in sweet water 300 miles away. Heavily intoxicated sea water. And at least one ongoing meltdown.

Halleluja.

Offsprings of survivors of the two atom bombs keep on to producing ill and deformed babies until today.

No one killed - really...?

What is your understanding of radiation health physics?

You seem to have fully swallowed what you are being fed by journalists (known the world over as a group for their aptitude at high energy physics). There are virtually no reports that don't mix up dose rates with doses or vice versa. Some look like they don't know micro from mili. Still others don't understand the difference between contamination and exposure.

Will some of the on the scene workers suffer health effects down the road? I think that is probably certain, though much is their own fault (there was no reason for those guys to have gotten the sunburn they got (that's about as bad as their beta burn was, after all (different mechanism, similar effect), because betas are stopped by a sheet of paper. ANY protection would have protected them. Sending crews into deep puddles with ankle high boots? The cause is ultimately stupidity there. Still, they have a bad sunburn, and a similarly higher risk of a skin cancer.

The exposure levels in general are worse than average for on the scene workers, and nothing to worry about so far for everyone else. So far no non-responders have been exposed to more than what airline pilots might get at high altitude.

Nuclear power—including all the accidents—is grossly safer than coal, and it's even safer than SOLAR in terms of deaths per terawatt produced. If this accident were to kill 10X the number at Chernobyl, nuclear power would STILL be safer. Anti-nuclear hysteria is just that. It's not rational.

tater · 03-28-11, 04:44 PM

Coal (world ave) 161 deaths per TWh
Coal (USA) 15 deaths per TWh
Oil 36 deaths per TWh
Natural Gas 4 deaths per TWh
Biofuel 12 deaths per TWh
Solar 0.44 deaths per TWh
Wind 0.15 deaths per TWh
Hydro (europe) 0.10 deaths per TWh
Hydro (world) 1.4 deaths per TWh
Nuclear 0.04 deaths per TWh

10X more deaths than all nuclear accidents up to this point, and it would still be safer than SOLAR.

Why solar deaths? Some are likely from manufacturing accidents, but the vast majority are workers falling off installations that are off the ground (rooftop, etc), either for installation or maintenance). Same for wind (windmills are huge, guys fall sometimes). Coal has pollution, and mining deaths.

Can nuclear power be made even safer than what it already is (the safest power production method)? Sure. Can it be made to prevent this type of problem in ring of fire locations in the future? Certainly. It's nothing more than an engineering problem to be solved. This accident has shown numerous failures to anticipate problems. Still, it has yet to kill anyone. If it does kill, it will be in slow-motion. Is that desirable? No, but a handful of deaths in XX years to cancer are certainly not worse than many certain deaths in mining accidents, etc, ad nauseum. Just because it is theoretically possible to have a large number of deaths under a perfect storm of problems doesn't mean the method is unsafe. Plane crashes are spectacular in killing large numbers at once, yet cars are far more dangerous than airline travel.

In general people are terrible at risk assessment. The press in this case has an axe to grind, IMO, regardless of what proper risk assessment should tell us.

TLAM Strike · 03-28-11, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

Anti-nuclear hysteria is just that. It's not rational.

03-27-11, 04:58 PM	#483
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	That's not homer, that's MISTA SPARKLE __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

03-28-11, 04:05 AM	#488
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,830 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	German media report the Japanese government calls it a "temporary" meltdown now in number 2 (the going surely stopped in the middle of it, eh?). Also, another earthquake in Japan. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

03-28-11, 05:29 AM	#489
Castout Silent Hunter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Jakarta Posts: 4,794 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 6	They should evacuate more people really. __________________ My blog: http://exposingsingapore.wordpress.com/

03-28-11, 05:58 AM	#490
Gargamel Lucky Sailor Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Rome Posts: 4,273 Downloads: 81 Uploads: 0	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12877198 So, apparently Tepco reported a radiation level 10,000,000x higher than normal, when the meant to say 100,000. Well, it's only a couple zeros. Good Job Tepco. They've also switched form salt water to fresh water because the salt water was possibly harming machinery. The logistics of getting fresh water there may be fairly complicated, unless there's a nearby natural source. __________________ Luck is a residue of Design.

03-28-11, 10:52 AM	#491
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Water also increases fission since is slows neutrons. They are adding boron to the water I think when possible to moderate neutrons. Course with heating there might be slumping, which brings the fuel closer together (spent fuel ponds). While still an issue to be dealt with, so far, this worst nuclear disaster in a long time has killed.... no one. Put that in perspective with the vast loss of life to the quake/tsunami. __________________ "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." — Thomas Paine

03-27-11, 04:52 PM	#481
joea Silent Hunter Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: At periscope depth in Lake Geneva Posts: 3,512 Downloads: 25 Uploads: 0	lol where did you dig that up dude?

03-27-11, 05:06 PM	#484
TarJak Fleet Admiral Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 17,052 Downloads: 150 Uploads: 8	Now even my dog understands what's going on over in Japan!

03-28-11, 04:44 PM	#494
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Coal (world ave) 161 deaths per TWh Coal (USA) 15 deaths per TWh Oil 36 deaths per TWh Natural Gas 4 deaths per TWh Biofuel 12 deaths per TWh Solar 0.44 deaths per TWh Wind 0.15 deaths per TWh Hydro (europe) 0.10 deaths per TWh Hydro (world) 1.4 deaths per TWh Nuclear 0.04 deaths per TWh 10X more deaths than all nuclear accidents up to this point, and it would still be safer than SOLAR. Why solar deaths? Some are likely from manufacturing accidents, but the vast majority are workers falling off installations that are off the ground (rooftop, etc), either for installation or maintenance). Same for wind (windmills are huge, guys fall sometimes). Coal has pollution, and mining deaths. Can nuclear power be made even safer than what it already is (the safest power production method)? Sure. Can it be made to prevent this type of problem in ring of fire locations in the future? Certainly. It's nothing more than an engineering problem to be solved. This accident has shown numerous failures to anticipate problems. Still, it has yet to kill anyone. If it does kill, it will be in slow-motion. Is that desirable? No, but a handful of deaths in XX years to cancer are certainly not worse than many certain deaths in mining accidents, etc, ad nauseum. Just because it is theoretically possible to have a large number of deaths under a perfect storm of problems doesn't mean the method is unsafe. Plane crashes are spectacular in killing large numbers at once, yet cars are far more dangerous than airline travel. In general people are terrible at risk assessment. The press in this case has an axe to grind, IMO, regardless of what proper risk assessment should tell us. __________________ "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." — Thomas Paine Last edited by tater; 03-28-11 at 05:16 PM.