Oh, so there MAY be a "Core Breach"? I gotta sit down...

[PCIntern]

I'm shocked that this could possibly happen, what with all those experts on CNN and MSNBCLOCKUP telling me that everything seemed to be getting much better...and this propagandizing started, not yesterday, not the day before, or the day before that, but about 6 hours AFTER the Tsunami. So, as we say in the game of Bridge, let's review the bidding:

1. Reactors are fine
2. A small burp of steam from the reactors
3. Some steam but not too much and certainly no radiation
4. Some steam, a little smoke, and maybe a little radiation
5. Outer building explodes in a giant cloud, no problems foreseen with the containment
6. Other buildings explode, but it's all meaningless because it's just the 'structure' and we've seen this before...(What's the matter, you've never seen a nuclear reactor structure explode? Sure you have - you just saw that happen a few hours ago - nothing to worry about.)
7. Maybe a little radiation, people evacuated a few kilometers, but just precautionarily.
8. Other countries tell their citizens to move a few MORE kilometers away - as my dear, departed grandmother used to ask, "Can it hoit?"
9. Radiation detected all over the place, but no more than if you too one dental radiograph every 57 years.
10. Radiation making its way to America, but it's just a wee little bit, so don't start worrying.
11. Infants in Japan not allowed to drink tap water due to radiation. A hundred miles away or more...what does this mean? Absolutely nothing. Can toddlers drink the water? Can adolescents?
12. Talk of evacuating Tokyo, or, as my father used to spell it, Tokio.
13. Neutrons reported implying core exposure through containment, situation grave. Their word. Optimism in short supply.

*****************

Now what do you think happens next? Still think it's all gonna be OK? That you'll awaken and it's just a dream? Where TF are 70+ million Japanese going to go and how are they going to get them there? As I had predicted, this is an evolving catastrophe. It's going to get a whole lot worse exponentially now. This is quite possibly the beginning of the worst disaster to affect mankind in recent millennia. And you know what? If you're an optimist, I wish you well and would hope and pray that you're right...but I don't think so.

[Vincardog]

1. Want to bet on the Japanese government plans to build MORE Nuclear reactors?

[RegieRocker]

6. I do not gamble on stupidity. Too much chance.

[tavalon]

77. Will that be before or after they have mothball Japan?

Japan isn't a huge country, and if it's worse than they've told us and of course it is, there is little reason to expect that much of Japan will be saved.

[WinkyDink]

91. No. But WE WILL.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

106. Japanese politics move slowly at times.

It took them 45 years to get the largest political party out of the leadership. Honor, integrity and shame play huge roles. (I wish we had some of that on this side of the Pacific).

For years, both insiders and outside experts were questioning the safety of these reactors, their location, and their inherent design issues. Each time, the government bowed to the Company expertise, which brazenly said, "No worries."

Now, a fledgling Prime Minister sees his country struggling to survive and recover from the largest earthquake in memory. A huge, deadly Tsunami. Those would have been bad enough, and they would have destroyed many more experienced leaders. To add to that, he learns that experts and the Company have systematically lied and misled not only the government, but the people. Other than being forced to live inside the brain of Michelle Bachmann, I cannot conceive of a worse job in the world than Japan's Prime Minister.

three things will happen. 1. He will do everything possible to fix this problem. Then, exhausted, broken, and emotionally drained, he will retire.
2. the top bosses of the power company will do everything possible to solve this problem, then resign in shame. I would not put it past one to commit suicide.
3. The nation will close out its nuclear era and begin research into new, safer, and eventually, extremely profitable methods of generating energy.

There will be no more reactors in Japan within 4 years.

[russspeakeasy]

132. Japan and Germany to do away with nuclear. We are so far

behind in our thinking. 
Next we will be able to call the coal company to fill our
cellars.

[Flagrante]

117. This about sums it up.

/seen on Bartcop

[Marblehead]

2. couldn't agree more

especially after watching 3 of the 4 reactors blow sky high. #3 blew thousands of feet into the air, the one with mox fuel.

[WheelWalker]

4. It did. That was a hell of a column out of #3.

I said so at the time. There was mega heat involved in that explosion.

[truedelphi]

184. Ssh. Don't let anyhone know you think that.

It was merely STEAM, I tell ya. Mere Steam.

And even if radioactive, it doesn't get into the atmosphere, and if it does, it is safe once it travels over the ocean/.

Same legalese thinking as the old canard "My dog could not have possibly bitten you. Fact one: I don't have a dog. Fact two: the one I have, its teeth are very bad and couldn't possibly hurt you."

[gateley]

3. Do you know if they're trying to "save" any/all of the reactors, or are there things

they have to do to get it ready to 'kill' it (a la Chernobyl)?

I agree with your entire post.

Don't know if it'll be the worst disaster, but it's got the makings of being pretty fucking bad (we may outdo ourselves, yet!) :hi:

[northernlights]

34. once they started dumping seawater, they were scrapping it

They can't bury them yet, a la Chernobyl, because they have to stop the reactions first. If they bury them now, they will melt down, drill down a la China Syndrome, hit the water table and create a massive radioactive steam eruption. Or so I have read in a number of places.

[gateley]

57. Wow. You can't even kill them at will! Do you know WHY they haven't stopped

the reactions? Is there something they can't do that they should be doing in order to stop them?

And, can it potentially keep going and going and going...? I'm not expecting you to know all the answers, but just if you've seen these questions addressed during your readings. :hi:

Thanks!

[northernlights]

101. I don't know what else they could be doing...

but I am not an engineer or a physicist. I haven't read anything else that they could be doing -- some people have asked why they don't pour liquid nitrogen on to cool them. I don't know if that would be possible, although I expect they would have already thought of that. Maybe something in the chemistry? Who knows?

Yes, this can potentially keep going and going. The worst case scenario -- a complete meltdown -- is still possible from what I've read. In that case, massive release of radiation. Depending on the wind direction, either over Tokyo and 40M+ people, or over the Pacific toward California, and I would guess a massive dead zone (in the Pacific). I would think by the time it reached California (2,000 miles?) it would be significantly dispersed and reduced by that.

I'm stocking up on tuna fish now while it's still available.

[gateley]

155. "I'm stocking up on tuna fish now while it's still available."

Yeah, now the mercury concerns about tuna seem pffft!

A friend of mine who has been a stew for United since we were like 20 called me today as she was checking into her flight to Narita. She said, I've been trying to hold this Narita trip for 35 years, now suddenly I'm in! Those who were ahead of her seniority-wise either bailed or took their names off the list. She's been there a few times since the quake and said she's gotten used to the aftershocks (the magnitudes of which we here in Seattle would consider big fucking quakes!) but is concerned about the radiation. I am, too, and I'm not going to Japan a couple of times a month!

Thanks for the additional info - glad you're not an engineer or physicist because I probably wouldn't understand what you were talking about anyway! :hi:

[bengalherder]

36. You bring up a dark point.

I've been reading some interesting articles on Chernobyl in light of current events. Seems that the situation was allowed to worsen for awhile, because they were trying to continue using the other reactors despite the damage. There are still two of the six japanese reactors working, and last I knew they were keeping them running.

As long as they think they can *fix* it and as long as they can rationalize trying to keep the last two on line...that's how long it will be until they bury them.

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/

[caraher]

49. Only partly true

Reactors 5 and 6 were not in operation when the quake struck and are not now operating. I don't know whether TEPCO envisions operating them in the future alongside the presumably entombed remains of reactors 1-4 or not, but I don't think that calculation is likely to be affecting their efforts to get things under control.

[jtuck004]

60. Chernobyl was discovered by radiation monitors in Scandinavia

which detected the increase. Tracking back they opened up the explosion which had occurred the previous day to the world.

There were four reactors, and only 1 blew up. They needed the electricity, so they kept running the other 3. After
the initial explosion the graphite that lined the core of the reactor was on fire, and that carried radioactive smoke that chased
the initial fireball. (Though Fukushima has 4 times the fuel it does not have the graphite to burn and spread it further). The
firemen that were sent to try and put out the graphite with water had no success, and it killed them. That was when the sand/boron,
mix was dropped, mostly to put the fire out. The other reactors were operating normally and continued to until about 2000 when they
decommissioned the last one.

At this link: http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/rert/chernobyltour/index.html , there is a presentation of an EPA employee who visited
the plant and took pictures inside the sarcophagus with the engineers who still worked at the site.

[intaglio]

98. And if I recall correctly killed most of the helicopter pilots

I'm old enough to recall the British Government hyping nuclear power generation with the it would produce electricity "to cheap to meter!"

Sounds a bit sick now.

[PatSeg]

123. Yeah, nuclear energy is "cheap"

as long as it gets government subsidies. That government money should be going for safe alternative energy, but wind and solar evidently don't have powerful lobbyists in DC.

[jtuck004]

162. Well, if that's all they think is lacking, they should get some. Or

maybe it's not the solution everyone would like to dream it is.

[closeupready]

5. Right, when nuclear regulatory officials say "May" in this context, they mean "Is", probably.

IMO.

During the unfolding of Chernobyl, there was also a delay in warning Europeans where fallout was settling with regard to produce and livestock that would be contaminated.

[PCIntern]

8. and TMI when there was all that dairyland here in PA

Billions of dollars of land and productivity, loaded with rads...

[WinkyDink]

93. I'm in PA; I don't recall anything like "loaded with rads" or increases in cancers.

[Divernan]

97. Data was collected but not released to the public

I posted links to all this earlier. Here's one from my journal:

The link below discusses in detail a peer reviewed article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. This journal, published by the Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science, was founded in 1945 by scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project. Based at the University of Chicago (you know, where Obama used to teach), it warns of the dangers of nuclear weapons. The author of that article criticizes the medical community for fixating on stress related health effects from the accident and not doing extensive research into cancer rates in residents beyond five miles of the plant, where wind-blown radiation may have settled. The article points out that TMI radiation traveled long distances, and both Albany, NY and Portland, Maine documented elevated radioactivity levels several days after the accident.

The author's research of public health data shows that death rates of Dauphin and Lebanon county (both areas downwind of TMI) residents who were children in 1979 continue to be well above average to this day. He noted that there were no other risk factors in these two counties, so the degree to which these higher rates evidence the latent effects of TMI should be explored.

He notes:
"Nothing exists in the literature on infant mortality, hypothyroidism in newborns, cancer in young children or thyroid cancer, EVEN THOUGH DATA FOR ALL OF THESE WERE ROUTINELY COLLECTED IN 1979. All these conditions are especially sensitive to ionizing radiation. Many prominent journals have remained silent. Why?"

He asserts that the official position of the federal and Pennsylvania governments that the accident had negligible health effects has had a chilling effect. That's very unfortunate he says, because the "effects of ionizing radiation may take decades to manifest as the onset of a disease like cancer. So monitoring of disease patterns and dose-response comparisons should continue."

"Effects of radiation may take decades to show up and scientists' understanding of the health effects from low-dose exposure continues to change . . .there were no accurate readings of radiation levels outside the pland.





http://www.efmr.org/Xtra/Manango_TM_health...
TMI Health Studies Hit (headline)

[PCIntern]

151. Oh really?

talk to some of the older docs at Hershey Medical Center...

[PhillySane]

104. SHHHHHHHH!

(you weren't supposed to tell anybody!)

[BrookBrew]

135. That is not correct. It is scare tactic and a lie, either ill informed

or intentional. Here is a study conducted with public money. The outcome does not support this statement. EDIT: 25 year study from a Public University. But but, they are shills.


http://pittsburgh.about.com/cs/history/a/tmi.htm

[truedelphi]

50. Actually if IIRC, it was scientists in Scandinavia who

Noticed some really high radiation levels on their equipment, and they didn't know why.

They contacted others, and finally the Soviet Union had to admit what was going on.

[WinkyDink]

92. Humans have proven to be extremely expendable.

[rabs]

7. Kick and rec

for cutting through the fog dispensed by the "expert" talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc.

You have described the disaster in clear, concise wording. Thanks.

[truedelphi]

9. Proud to be K & R number ten. n/t

[felix_numinous]

10. It would be great to see the international community

make plans to accommodate what may turn out to be a massive relocation. I hope they are at least thinking about it.

[PCIntern]

12. It would be more like the plot in "2012"

rich people would buy their way out...everyone else gets a radiation tan and a free copy of "On The Beach"

[truebrit71]

17. Yup. That was the one part of that movie that would be 100% accurate..

..the rest was just pure popcorn munching exploding mind-candy...and yes I bought the DVD...everyone has their own guilty pleasure..

[truedelphi]

51. You really think they would give the folks left behind a

"Free" copy? Only if their safe take-off depended on it.

[dana_b]

33. I was thinking the same thing

we need to step up for them and any country that can afford to do so should.

[csziggy]

47. I was wondering why the story about the millions of empty Chinese apartments

Made national news this week...

China's Ghost Cities - http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/watch/id/601007/n/China-s-Ghost-Cities

[WinkyDink]

94. Now THAT is an interesting line of thought......

[bengalherder]

119. Potemkin civilization

Potemkin capitalism.

Potemkin is such a great adjective because it seems to be a SOP of despots.

Thanks for that video.

[patrice]

127. +1!

[LuckyLib]

134. This is a fascinating story. China is on the road to some internal trouble, once

this overbuilding bubble bursts.

[damntexdem]

11. It just shows that the nuclear-power industry is rotten to the core.

And they've been too big for their breaches.

But this may knock them down a few pegs -- that is, if humanity escapes this with any pegs left.

[JuniperLea]

21. "Industry" is the key word here...

Anything "Industry" has vast potential for corruption.

It is rotten to the core, no question. But the spin has begun... and there are already "experts" weighing in on how this is an isolated deal and nuclear power is the safest energy we have... don't let your lying eyes fool you.

[StarsInHerHair]

166. that "disbelieve Reality at your own expense" has too much potential to be

a deadly mistake

[KamaAina]

28. "Rotten to the Core" would be an excellent title for an expose of the industry

Get it? "Core"?

[Zoeisright]

13. That is PERFECTLY put.

I wonder if TPTB think that by gradually releasing the news in small bits that gradually get worse and worse, we won't notice.

I think they're on to something.

[WheelWalker]

18. Frog in the pot phenomenon. nt

[CoffeeCat]

52. and isn't the Libya timing oh-so interesting?

The dire news is now coming out, but it's been several days that the
energy experts have known how dire it is.

And isn't it such a coincidence that when the news about Japan's reactors/radiation
is heating up--the entire story is downgraded to one small headline in the middle
of most major newspaper websites? You have to hunt to find the articles about this now.

Prior to our hasty Libyan action, the heat was on the radiation story. Articles
were being written that were contradictory, confusing and ridiculous. Many of the
articles were pure propaganda, with quotes from known nuclear-energy lobbyists. The
articles I read in the NYTimes were discredited in the comments section. Prominent
nuclear-energy experts were writing comments, leaving their names and credentials (easily
verifiable with a Google search) and explaining why the articles were a load of bunk.

They had to knock the story off the front page.

Now, Libya dominates the headlines and takes up most of the space. Articles on the
nuclear reactors are written, but the articles are smaller and less prominent. Nice
how this gives the appearance that Libya is a "big story" and the nuclear reactors
and the leaking radiation is small in significance.

Psy-ops anyone?

[DemReadingDU]

99. Indeed, I noticed this too

They don't want anyone to panic, yet. With everything going on, things must look as if they are all being controlled and managed so people keep spending money and TPTB get richer. But eventually, it all crashes.

Reminds me of the juggler spinning plates on those long poles and he goes from one plate to another to keep them all spinning at the same time. Then one plate crashes, followed quickly by the crashes of all the remaining plates.

It's like that in the real world...the earthquake in Japan, the tsunami, the nuclear reactors melting down, the weakening housing industry, fewer jobs, companies dissolved, more people unemployed and using food stamps to eat, Middle East revolutions, war in Libya, the corrupt banks, the global financial Ponzi, etc. etc. Eventually, one of these events (or a new event) can't be controlled which will cause panic and implosion throughout the world when people realize that the other events no longer can be controlled either.

But then we will hear those famous words "No one could've seen this coming".

[WinkyDink]

95. Lucky for the Bushes they own all that land/water in S.A.

[gratuitous]

14. Oh, you librul tree-hugging hippies!

Always goin' on about yer radiation and yer evacuations. I've watched the coverage on the teevee machine, and I don't see any of your so-called "radiation" anywhere in the air. And I got High-Def! Besides, Ann Coulter said radiation was good for you. Clears up the complexion or something - cold sores? I don't rightly remember; I always get a funny feeling whenever I see Ann on the teevee.

Anywho, if there was really a bunch of radiation, don't you think it would bring Godzilla out from the ocean depths? Or at least Raymond Burr? Ain't no Godzilla that I can see - you libruls prolly think there's some kind of cover up with your conspiracy theories and stuff. The only time I see Raymond Burr is on the old Perry Mason re-runs. I really thought he was going to lose today! Until that confession from the gallery, that is.

Bob Boudelang, signing off!

[bengalherder]

37. Yes, clears up those unsightly blemishes

I only wish Ann would use it herself, just to show us all how beneficial it really is.

[PoliticAverse]

40. For people who want more info/context...

http://alistofsurprises.blogspot.com/2010/05/liquid-sunshine-radiums-rise-and-fall.html

[bengalherder]

120. Thanks for posting the link

I have been immersed in all things radioactive for a few days, set off by someone's mention of the radium girls in conjunction with the triangle fire. There is much more out there. Byer's obit read "The radium was fine until his jaw dropped off". The wiki on Byers and radium jaw offer some good links to begin research on the effects of low-level radiation on humans.

I can't believe that there are some people who would dismiss a centurie's worth of experience with radiation for spins and giggles.

It is unfortunate that there is no way to make them live with the realties that they would heedlessly create.

[PoliticAverse]

126. I actually had a radium (dial? hand?) watch when I was a kid...

I used to stare at the face while under the covers at bedtime, mesmerized by it...

[StarburstClock]

15. You're actually shocked that CNN misinformed you?

I hope you're being sarcastic. I watched a guy on some propaganda channel actually say that radiation exposure isn't that bad and is easily curable with antibiotics. I wasn't shocked, those people are simply paid-off industry whores who will say anything for a buck, ANYTHING.

[PCIntern]

29. Yes (patiently)...I was being sarcastic...

I don't do the :sarcasm: thingie all that often...if it's over the top, and I've had over 10000 posts here, and whatever, then I have a certain license...IMO of course...

[WinkyDink]

96. I'd challenge him to volunteer for clean-up duty.

[Lyric]

16. I think most of us expected something like this.

Some were firmly in denial, of course, but most of us realize how this song and dance goes because we've heard it before. There's a predictable order to it.

1. Terrible crisis! Not much information. People speculate about worst-case-scenario and are assured that it's highly, HIGHLY unlikely.
2. Crisis mode lasts for a week with a media blitz and scary photos/videos/interviews, but in the background, we still hear reassuring voices telling us that the worst isn't going to happen.
3. The goalposts for "worst case scenario" are quietly moved as the situation worsens.
4. People become disaster-fatigued and the media blitz dies down. Quietly, the situation gets worse and small amounts of evidence start to leak out.
5. A significant amount of time passes, with small revelations here and there of evidence that things were much worse than they originally were presented.
6. Ten years later we find out that while the absolute WORST scenario didn't happen, it was close. But since we've been fed this in small bites, nobody panics, there's no looting, rioting, bank runs, or commodity shortages, and the billionaires don't lose a fortune in a stock market crash.

This is why I mistrust the government so much when it comes to disaster reporting. Their FIRST priority is to prevent a public panic, so it's impossible to know whether things are really okay, or whether they're just TELLING us that in order to keep everyone calm.

[ctwayne]

19. Nuclear Power Plants are Subsidized by the Taxpayers

All nuclear power plants built in the United States require US government loan guarantees and US government insurance. No one in the private sector will build a nuclear plant without putting the taxypaers on the hook if something goes wrong.
Obama has recently proposed 10s of billions in loan guarantees to jump start the nuclear industry. His Republican pals in Congress indicated that they support Obama's attempt to prop up a dying industry.

[SoCalDem]

20. I particularly noticed the "Minor Meltdown" happy-talk the day after

What gets on my last nerve is the fact that the IAEA has turned out to be a toothless tiger.. If this is the EXPERT agency in charge, why were they not put in charge on DAY ONE?

[spanone]

22. ah, don't worry, they'll put a friendly spin on it.

the nuclear industry has billions riding on this, you think they will let a few radiated japanese get in the way of profits?

the spin since this began is hard to believe.

[bengalherder]

38. They've never let irradiated japanese affect them before... n/t

[LiberalEsto]

118. Hi, I'm Nick Nuke

and I'm here to tell you that nuclear energy is clean, safe and above all, fun!

Let me introduce my good friend, Annie Atom, who will explain how Radiation is Your Friend. Hi Annie, how are you?

Annie: Hi Nick! I'm good. What's up?

Nick: Annie, can you tell the nice people out there all about Radiation?

Annie: Sure thing, Nick! First of all folks, there is absolutely no need to be worried about radiation, because nuclear radiation is Your Friend! Every day the Sun, which is a mega-huge nuclear reactor, sends us its nice warm sunbeams to brighten up our day, keep our skin tanned, and make the flowers grow!
And our perfectly safe nuclear reactors are just mini-suns. Their radiation not only helps keep our skin clear, it also makes us just GLOW all over! In fact, I'm due to go to my local nuclear energy plant to get another healthy zap of radiation so I'll be glowing at the party tonight. You look like you could use a zap too, so why don't you come along?

Nick: Any time is a great time to play with radiation, so I'm definitely with you.

(Nick and Annie go to the local nuke plant)

Annie: Hi, Dr. Ray, we're here to get our regular dose of healthy radiation!

Dr. Ray: Why it's Annie and Nick! Great to see you! Let's get started.

(Annie changes into her radiation bikini, while Nick, in the mens locker room, changes into his nuking shorts)

Annie: We're ready, Dr. Ray!

Dr. Ray: Okay, Annie, you can go into Booth Number 1 for the full Mox treatment. Don't forget to use neutrino lotion to keep your scales smooth.

Annie: You bet, Dr. Ray.

Dr. Ray: Nick, now it's your turn. Booth 3 is specially made to accommodate your extra tentacles.

Nick: Awesome! Thanks, Dr. Ray.

And so they glow, enjoying their regular dose of healthy, natural microsieverts.

Remember, radiation is NATURAL, clean, and above all, FUN!

[onethatcares]

23. jeez, your list looks vaguely similar to

the Deepwater Horizon rig oil leak propoganda.

I think I'm gonna go drinking heavily this evening because I'm tired of all the shit that's going down and I'm tired

of wondering if it'll ever change. I think drinking is my answer at this point.

[tnlefty]

24. I'm having a glass of a nice Pinot Noir, and

I'll share. I feel terrible for the people of Japan, and I'm still furious upon learning that a 31 yr. old sub contractor falsified documents about Watts Bar 2, currently under construction. :mad:

I need to calm down and chill a little. here :beer:

[onethatcares]

25. I'm not aware of what Watts Bar 2 is,

I am aware that my daughter in law, and my 2 grandkids came back to the states yesterday from an AFB in Japan. I'm leaving the base name out but you can figure out where it is.

I figure if the military is doing this without panic, there is something very bad going on.

Enjoy your wine, I'm outa here for a mindnumbing session.

Peace

[tnlefty]

26. Pardon me, I figured since the news was posted here that

more would be aware than just us Tennesseans. I live close to TVA's Sequoyah 1 and 2 nuclear reactors and both are up and running. Watts Bar is another nuclear facility and unit 1 is running and unit 2 is under construction...just what we need more nuclear reactors!!!

I'm glad the your DIL and grandkids are back. Numb away and enjoy.

[gimama]

35. must be a relief

to you ALL that they're outta there. And your Son?
Your Family will be in my thots,along with every One in harm's way tonite.

yes, lots of white-knuckling it lately..
helps to let go some & find some Balance!


:grouphug:

[onethatcares]

129. my son is on his 4th deployment

to the sandbox.

whiteknuckling isn't the word for it.

[stonecutter357]

27. onethatcares

:toast: :beer: :beer: :headbang: :beer: :beer:

[BeHereNow]

30. It's not really an answer- we are past that point. BUT....

It sure helps ease the edge off while watching the continuing
demise of "life as we KNEW it..."

I think alcohol sales have been soaring ever since
the SCOTUS installed the puppet in 2000.

BHN

[BobTheSubgenius]

45. A reasonable answer, I think.

What was the question? :D

[Urban Prairie]

31. "Now what do you think happens next? Still think it's all gonna be OK?"

I consider radiation to be very "stealthy" when it is being continually emitted and it spreads by air and by water...it could more deeply irradiate certain areas further out than the exclusion zone, yet there could be areas within it that receive much less, it could also be affected by wind currents and relative humidity, as well as air temperature layers and variations/inversions. Same with the seas surrounding Japan.

Comparing nuclear bombs with nuclear reactors, is wrong, IMO. A bomb detonation is a one time event, regardless of size in megatons and composition, with the resulting damage confined to the surface and near-surface, and the rest goes into the atmosphere as radioactive dirt/dust, and then spreads. The Chernobyl reactor explosion and fire was relatively short-lived but radioactively strong, spread quite far, and was very deadly as well, but the damaged Fukushima reactors are MORE than just one, as well as their ponds contain TONS of spent fuel, formerly in the shape of "rods", since their protective coverings have likely been corroded by seawater, and then perhaps mostly disintegrated.

Now the spent fuel, that WAS of varying age and in degrees of degradation/depletion, has probably sunk/spread to the bottom of the "ponds", and have been turned instead into large mounds or layers in tons of hot radioactive waste, emitting radiation into the air, and the sea/freshwater being sprayed onto/into the ponds, either evaporating and turning into radioactive steam, OR has drained/leaked away in the form of TONS of radioactive waste-water, that has likely been leaking into the ocean or seeping into the ground for almost two weeks now, and whatever amount(s) of radiation still being emitted has not been stopped or covered up and buried.

So until they can stop the reactors from emitting radiation, no one really knows yet what is going to happen, much less ALL of what has happened and especially to what degree and extent the radiation has spread thus far. It is like being diagnosed with skin cancer, IMO.

[chervilant]

32. Nice...

I think you could parallel this OP with a similar list of the observations we anti-nuke 'dang-nabbit libruls' have been making.

BTW, the silence about the plutonium reactor is deafening, have you noticed?

[stockholmer]

41. +1 key point

[unkachuck]

39. K&R....n/t

[Bonobo]

42. Sometimes I think Americans freak out as much as this from unresolved guilt.

"This is quite possibly the beginning of the worst disaster to affect mankind in recent millennia. "

Excuse me, but the US dropped 2 -count 'em 2- nuclear weapons on Japan and they survived and thrived.

"The worst disaster to affect mankind"? Where do you get that from?

Do you know how many Japanese died of radiation in the last 60 years after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The number can be counted in the thousands at most, and that is over a span of decades.

On the other hand, over 200,000 were vaporized when the bombs were dropped.

Just like the tsunami. It will have taken over 20,000 lives in an instant.

At least the few thousand that died of exposure-related cancer had a long span of years to live before they succumbed.

So how do you figure "The worst disaster to affect mankind"? Japan has been through much worse.

[Arugula Latte]

46. But isn't there a hell of a lot more cesium spewing from this than from Hiroshima?

It's not the same type of radiation, as far as I understand. Isn't this much worse? (i.e. think Pripyat). (On edit, I'm not saying that the initial death toll is worse than the two bombed Japanese cities, of course it's not, but I believe the potential for the land surrounding the reactors to become a toxic wasteland capable of killing thousands of people is there.)

[Kalun D]

59. Hey Bonobo

your post is bullship

comparing a bomb to a reactor melt down is apples to oranges.

""Do you know how many Japanese died of radiation in the last 60 years after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
The number can be counted in the thousands at most, and that is over a span of decades.""

Cancer deaths can't be quantified in absolutes, many forms of cancer can't be definitively traced to radiation exposure even if that's the source

"At least the few thousand that died of exposure-related cancer had a long span of years to live before they succumbed."

Chernobyl proved that many times the effects are immediate and of those that don't die within weeks or months the quality of life is quickly and irreversibly affected

Given the amount of land rendered uninhabitable and the number of deaths from Chernobyl this event could potentially be worse considering there are 4 reactors in jeopardy with much more waste fuel on site.

[AtheistCrusader]

143. These four reactors are not capable of doing what Chernobyl's reactor did.

Let's compare:

At the moment Chernobyl exploded, it was producing (last instrumentation reading) 33gw of power. (of course, it's turbines couldn't develop that much power, but that's the output of the core itself before the 22 ton lid blew off). They inserted the graphite rods, which promptly caught fire and were destroyed. The reactor was critical when the core exploded. The reactor had no encompassing containment at all. Each individual fuel rod was it's own containment. Those pretty much all blew apart and burned in open air.

Fukushima: All 3 reactors that were in operation tripped, and inserted control rods when the earthquake started. All three reactors were sub-critical before the tsunami hit. Lets assume all three reactors have partially or totally melted cores. Best known info, the primary containment (steel core containment) is intact. Best known info, the secondary containment on reactor two (the suppression pool) may be damaged. This does not mean a core meltdown *will* escape secondary containment. some particles and gaseous material may, but the bulk of the fuel really has no way to escape. Entombment is possible.


Now, a difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima in Chernobyl's favor; the spent storage pools. 4 pools are in danger, reactor #4 seemingly the worst. What happens when a fuel storage pool catches fire and burns openly? Well, once again, the Russians were pioneers in this field as well. See Chelyabinsk nuclear complex in 1957. 80 tons of fuel, blown out 20 million curies over a quarter million people. This could be, worst case scenario, a lot less of a problem in Japan, because the Japanese stored the fuel in an open-air pool, not a steel tank. The russian tank ran dry, the fuel caught fire, burned, and then when the tank failed, it exploded with a force of about 100 tons of TNT. That threw a lot of fuel quite a bit farther than anything we are likely to see in Japan. So, Japan has about 4x as much fuel at risk, but in a less dangerous way.

We've done it on a smaller scale too, at Perry in 1993.

[kristopher]

61. Do you want to build more nuclear power?

Why?

[Bonobo]

64. No.

Do you want this disaster to be worse so it can bolster your political agenda?

To me, that is the an equally fair question as what you asked me.

[kristopher]

66. I asked if you support nuclear power because you are using nuclear industry talking points.

Most people who use those talking points do so because they trust the nuclear industry.

If you do not trust the nuclear industry, and do not support nuclear power, then why are you so resistant to contradictory information from qualified sources. You present a very clear set of contradictions I'd like to understand better.

Would you address that without getting hostile?

[LAGC]

67. kristopher, not everyone who disagrees with you is a shill for the nuclear power industry.

As much as I find myself defending nuclear power, I have no stake in this conflict.

I just think, when you consider all the negatives from mass-burning coal and all the pollution it causes, nuclear doesn't seem so bad an alternative, even with the risks of freak accidents like the one now playing out in Japan.

Japan doesn't have the natural resources that China or the U.S. have. There are no large coal/natural gas reserves. So nuclear is still going to play a significant role in Japan's immediate energy future.

I agree with you that this incident may jump-start a serious move to more reliance on renewable energy sources, which is great. But expecting Japan to just shut down all its nuclear reactors RIGHT FUCKING NOW, just isn't realistic.

[kristopher]

69. Thank you for the straw man.

Nowhere have I called for shutting down all of Japans plants.

[LAGC]

71. Well, I apologize if I interpreted your stance wrong -- so its just no NEW nuclear plants then?

I just can't see why you don't understand that if renewable energy sources were really that much cheaper and feasible than nuclear power is, why all the energy companies wouldn't be climbing over each other trying to embrace it as fast as they can. I mean, it all boils down to $$$ for them. If they could make more profit by cutting their costs, believe me, THEY WOULD. In a heart-beat.

But short of SERIOUS and SUBSTANTIAL subsidies (far greater than is currently out there now) by the government for renewable energy production, energy storage, and transmission (smart-grid) infrastructure, you aren't going to see nuclear power go away any time soon.

If cost was truly no object, nuclear would be off the table. But not everyone is prepared to pay significantly more on their power bills, especially the poor. Even with the risks that some of these older nuclear power plants present.

[kristopher]

72. They are. Do you see any nucleer power plants being built without government commands?

Wind and solar are BOOMING in the private sector.
Click the link in my sig.

[LAGC]

73. We've already been over this.

Wind won't be able to provide more than 20% of our energy needs, tops. Which is great, we should definitely embrace it. I'm all for it.

But will we be able to build enough solar (including storage) capacity in time for all these older nuclear reactors that are nearing the end of their life-spans? I just don't think you can realistically say "no new nuclear plants period."

While I agree that abundant natural gas could theoretically fill the gap, it still doesn't help us with the more important goal of reducing carbon emissions and reigning in climate change.

A question for you: which is riskier to human health, the risk of a freak nuclear accident in modern reactors that are much safer than older models, or the specter of extreme weather killing and displacing many people (climate change)?

[kristopher]

74. Please support that with science. I've never seen those limits you assert in peer reviewed work

I've never seen them anywhere except as a talking point by the uninformed. The difference between us is that I support what I say with the science. You do not.

Dept of Energy Myths about Solar Electricity Jan 2003

Myths about Solar Electricity
The area required for PV systems to supply the United States with its electricity is available now from parking lots, rooftops, and vacant land.

Solar electric systems are an important part of the whole-building approach to constructing a better home or commercial building. Although these systems have delivered clean, reliable power for more than a decade, several myths have evolved that confuse the real issues of using solar electricity effectively.

Myth #1
Solar electricity cannot contribute a significant fraction of the nation’s electricity needs.

Solar electric panels can meet electricity demand on any scale, from a single home to a large city. There is plenty of energy in the sunlight shining on all parts of our nation to generate the electricity we need. For example, with today’s commercial systems, the solar energy resource in a 100-by-100-mile area of Nevada could supply the United States with all of its electricity. If these systems were distributed to the
50 states, the land required from each state would be an area of about 17 by 17 miles. This area is available now from parking lots, rooftops, and vacant land. In fact, 90% of America’s current electricity needs could be supplied with solar electric systems built on the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation’s cities.

Myth #2 ** (see footnote added by K)
Solar electricity can do everything—right now!

Solar electricity will eventually contribute a significant part of our electricity supply, but the industry required to produce these systems must grow more than tenfold over the next 10 years. In 2001, about 400 megawatts of solar electric modules were produced worldwide. According to an industry-planning document, in order to supply just 10% of U.S. generation capacity by 2030, the U.S. solar electricity industry must supply more than 3,200 megawatts per year. Most experts agree that with continued research, solar electric systems will become more efficient, even more reliable, and less expensive.

Myth #3
Producing solar electric systems creates pollution and uses more energy than the system can produce over its lifetime.

Producing solar electric systems uses energy and produces some unwanted byproducts. However, most solar electric systems pay back the energy used to produce them in about one year. Because the systems generally last 30 years, during the 30 years of a system's life, it is producing free and clean electricity for 29 of those years.
Production of solar electric systems is regulated by rigorous safety and pollution control standards. In addition, during the lifetime of a solar electric system, pollution that would have been emitted by conventional generation of electricity is avoided. For each kilowatt of solar electric generating capacity, the pollution avoided by not using fossil fuels to produce electricity amounts to 9 kilograms of sulfuric oxide, 16 kilograms of nitrous oxide, and between 600 and 2,300 kilograms of carbon dioxide per year. The annual amount of carbon dioxide offset by a 2.5-kW rooftop residential solar electric system is equal to that emitted by a typical family car during that same year.

Myth #4
Solar electric systems make sense in only a few applications.

Solar electric systems make sense nearly anywhere electricity is needed. Homes and businesses that are already using electricity from the utility, such as homes, businesses, and electric-vehicle charging stations, represent nearly 60% of the market for solar electric systems. The number of these grid-connected applications is growing because they make sense economically, environmentally, and aesthetically. Solar electric systems make economic sense because they use free fuel from the sun and require little upkeep because they have no moving parts. Every bit of electricity produced is used in the home or sold back to the electric utility for use by other customers. Solar electric systems also make sense for the environment and can blend seamlessly into the design of a building.

Myth #5
Solar electric systems are unreliable and produce substandard electricity.
Solar electric systems are some of the most reliable products available today. They are silent, have no moving parts, and have been tested to rigorous standards by public and private organizations. Many solar electric products have been tested and listed by Underwriters Laboratories, just as electrical appliances are. Warranties of 20-25 years are standard for most modules.
Solar electric systems connected to the utility grid generate the same kind of power as that from the power line. Today’s systems must meet the requirements of the National Electrical Code, the local utility, and local building codes. Once these systems are installed according to these requirements, the owner of a solar-electric-powered home has electricity of the same quality as any other utility customer.

Myth #6
It is difficult to make solar electric systems aesthetically pleasing and functional for homes and businesses.
The buildings shown here include solar electric systems serving dual functions: building structure and generation of electricity. These photos represent only a small sample of the beautiful, functional, and energy-efficient buildings being designed with solar electric components. (download for photos- link below)
In the future, people will reflect on our current solar electric technology much as we reflect on the technology of the Model T Ford: with admiration for the pioneering visionaries of the day and perhaps amusement at the technology that seems so primitive compared to what we now enjoy. Researchers believe that in the future, new physics and technologies will be developed that will greatly improve solar energy technology. As for the present day, clean, reliable solar electricity is increasingly popular with home and business owners, which helps to dispel the myths surrounding this technology.


Produced for the U.S. Department of Energy by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a DOE national laboratory
DOE/GO-102003-1671 January 2003

www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/32529.pdf


**At the time this DOE pamphlet was written, the US was the leader in PV - now we are 5th. The global solar manufacturing capacity is now more relevant since the Republicans have successfully obstructed every policy that would have helped the industry grow here. You can see from this discussion, however, that China's manufacturing capacity is expected to hit 35GW/year this year. That compares to the 3GW of manufacturing capacity identified in myth #2.

Before 2007, China wasn't even on the radar. After Fukushima, what do you think they are going to do?

[LAGC]

81. Solar's great, but how do you provide entire cities with electricity at night?

Just like wind, solar can offset base-load requirements when the wind is blowing and when the sun in shining, but what about those times when they are not?

I'm thinking the dead of winter, when everyone has their electric heaters cranked up.

I've heard natural gas as a potential solution. But that contributes to climate change.

Are you prepared to endure rolling blackouts? If not, we need a reliable 24/7/365 energy source, and we don't have too many options available right now.

Again, if costs were no issue, we could theoretically build the massive energy storage (batteries) NOW. But they are prohibitively expensive, much more than even the solar panels themselves, and have a lot of nasty chemical by-products in the manufacture as well.

I'm confident we will have some major break-throughs in this area in the next 50 years that will greatly bring down the costs, so I'm all for ALOT of R&D funding in this area. But until then, what do we do? Seems like the choice is coal, nuclear, or natural gas. Only one of those choices is carbon-free.

[spanone]

105. carbon free but deadly as hell.

[AtheistCrusader]

144. I disagree.

20% tops isn't realistic. We can float our consumption down to allow for a higher percentage of wind through conservation. We can increase wind power quite a bit with newer turbine designs that get the turbines up higher, into stronger air currents.

It smacks of a made-up random number.

[Hannah Bell]

138. but you have implied anyone who disagrees with you supports nuclear power

a/o is a shill for the nuke industry.

maybe if you'd quit doing that more civil discussions would ensue.

[Bonobo]

68. I can do it without getting hostile if you can not fling mud at me.

"Using the nuclear industry talking points" is mud-slinging.

I am resistent to disaster-porn and fear mongering of the like that I have come to expect of the mass media.

Also, organizations like Greenpeace are not above playing fast and loose with the facts in order to fit their agenda.

To believe otherwise is silly.

I live in Japan and I love Japan and I get irritated when I see people mindlessly saying that it is a cataclysm that will force Japan to be evacuated or become irradiated for 10,000 years.

I see the same type of gleeful rushing to the worst case scenario on DU in order to advance a particular ideology -as you seem to be doing - at the expense of people that actually live in Japan and will continue to do so.

So far you, it may be nice that you feel you have grabbed onto some headlines that support your position regarding nuclear power, but for me, staying calm and not panicking is equally important.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[catenary]

131. There are more than a few anti-nuclear types hoping and praying for a cataclysmic disaster

just so they can say "we told you so". Their agenda is based entirely on hysteria and rarely includes any real science. One of their most usual accusations is that anyone who doesn't equate nuclear power with Satan himself has to be a shill for or an employee of some facet of the nuclear industry (whatever that is these days).

[PCIntern]

79. OK...

name me the last disaster which rendered an enormously dense population center uninhabitable. If catastrophe occurs, and what has already happened AS REPORTED BY THE MSM is NOT YET the catastrophe, then the homes of say, 50 million people will be in jeopardy.

Your post is, with all due respect, specious and unfounded in the facts AND fails to approach the potential scenario. My obvious point was that when this 'started', this was minimized and pooh-poohed. Now we're up to "it's not quite as bad as Chernobyl" but...WE'RE NOT DONE YET. Post facto, your post might be discussable and have some merit, although I disagree with you in toto - but this is still a most-fluid situation with no end in sight AFAIC.

[Enthusiast]

109. How about the

250,000 that were killed in Tokyo by incendiary bombs?

[fascisthunter]

112. lol... nice try

again

[Catherina]

43. Rec'd with great sadness n/t

[defendandprotect]

44. Think for most of DU, BS-meters have been going off since this began.....???

And all of this will last but thousands of years --

[DeSwiss]

48. K&R n/t

[ertech]

53. plutonium

a meltdown in the reactor using plutonium is a thousand year problem.

[caseymoz]

54. Tepco is definitely taking a BP approach to crisis management.

That is, let the public know the scale of the disaster only gradually, that way you release the anger gradually, too, instead of making them want to form mobs against you. It was proven effective in the BP Gulf spill, expect government and corporations with something to hide to use it incessantly now.

One thing that's optimistic: you won't have to worry much about radiation reaching the West Coast (except Alaska)-- not by air anyway. Oceanic transport through the ecosystem might be more problematic down the road.

[truedelphi]

175. West Coast is already getting slammed by the raditation -

But lucky for us, the officials declare it to be safe.

One other thing, my favorite friend from Japan points out that no one in Japan has seen the top two people from TEPCO since this disaster started!

In the old days, those two would have committed hari kari by now, but in the new modern Japan, it is just as likely that the Bush officials who helped the TEPCO Administrators oppose the will of the Japanese people and keep the flawed reactors up and running have now helped them get a new identity in Paraguay.

[caseymoz]

178. Well, it would be safe.

You'll probably have a dozen more cancer deaths three decades because of it. Unless it actually contains iodine, cesium or (yikes!) plutonium, in which case, you have a greater problem. Those are heavy isotopes, though, I can't see them staying wind-borne for that distance. Of course, Japan will see all of those.

The one Tepco guy broke down, and I wouldn't sell a life insurance policy to him. What's so scary is, their behavior is so similar to BP's and in other ways so similar to the way power companies in the US act. In which case, I have to think that the way reactors are capitalized and centralized creates a command structure that's there to protect investments and profits instead of the public.

The reason why they were so slipshod on planning for an earthquake/tsunami is: they knew if it happened they were screwed. Any machine design where you have to douse it with water constantly to prevent widespread calamity, whether you're using the machine or not, whether it's off or on is inherently flawed. It's a bad design, a bad idea, and the people in charge of it know it is.

[truedelphi]

180. The Powers that Be count on people taking the optimistic

Attitude you're taking on the radiation.

If people in Northern Norway were affected by the heavy duty radiation from the Chernobyl incident, and there have been indie scientific papers stating that that is true, then people on the West Coast of the USA will be affected. (Norway is a nation some three thousand miles long - and Tokyo is about 5,100 miles from where I live. So the idea that an extra thousand miles will protect Northern Californians from the fallout from a bunch of reactors is not something I quite believe. There are six reactors at the Fukushima site, two or three of which the Atomic Energy Commission has stated are in various states of meltdown - that radiation will be on going, and it is a mox fuel, more dangerous than the non-mox fuel of Chernobyl.)

Northern California is far more densely populated than northern Norway - seven million people live in the SF Bay area, alone, while only three and a half million people lived in all of Norway at the time of the Chernobyl disaster.

And the whole reason why the reactors in Fukushima were still operating is because Bush officials and GE officials dicked with the political mix in Fukushima in 2006, and they had the anti-nuke mayor replaced so they could keep the nuke operations on going. The people there did not want the reactors to be kept in operation.

You might wanna check out this video - which has information from the Norsk Air Research Station. (Norwegian scientists are among the world's best - I don't care if you find the guy who is posting the information onYouTUbe flakey or not, but the research station itself
is A+ among science research centers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqP1sNPFPw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqP1sNPFPw

[caseymoz]

182. Did I say they wouldn't be effected?

I never discussed oceanic and ecosystem transfer, which might have a much larger effect in the long run. The effects I gave are just from the airborne fallout. What I meant was, you weren't going to notice mass numbers of people dropping dead from it. It'll shorten lives and meanwhile, add months or a few years on average to a person's misery during their lives. That's all in statistical terms.

I don't want to underplay the risk, but I definitely don't want to overplay it. It's hard to give people who don't know about it a clear picture of what's happening.

I'm an ex-Navy nuke from way back. (Didn't know any better then, but never completed prototype training, never went to the fleet.) I might not know the medical side, but I do know the bio-physics, that is, how radiation does its damage. Knowing about the process, I know what's possible and what's not possible.

One thing about Norway: the population is sparse. This might not make a difference until you wonder just what the survey size was and what the margin of error was. Moreover, what else happened besides Chernobyl? If you look at Norway on the map, you see ex-Soviet ports. Some Soviet era subs were very leaky, and might have been disposed of-- anywhere there.

That map from your link shows you only the predicted release of Xenon-133. A few questions: where in that video does it tell what that scale on the side means? Without knowing that, the data is utterly meaningless to the layman, who's left to make the worse guesses about the danger their facing.

Plus, it's a forecast of one isotope, Xenon 133. That chemical is a gas, unlike Cesium, Iodine, Strontium or Plutonium. It's also a noble gas, meaning the body doesn't absorb it chemically. If you inhale it, has nowhere to go but out. It has a half-life of five days, meaning that it's mostly gone by the time it reaches the coast. This also means if you face any danger whatsoever, it's gone in three weeks tops. Xenon's used in medicine where they have patients inhale it to image the lungs and assess blood flow, I conjecture, in huge concentrations compared with what is shown there.

It also decays into Cesium-133, which is a totally non-radioactive isotope of Cesium, so harmless.

[truedelphi]

183. Good information in your post. Thank you./ n/t

[Amonester]

55. It definitely is a big disaster, but still not the worst.

The worst disaster to affect mankind is the constant draining of vital resources due to an un-restrained growth of the world's population, coupled with a system of trading based on a ponzi scheme called Capital, upon which a non-existing entity called Interest is added, which leads to wealth inequalities first, and all that jazz next...

This species of ours better find a solution to that ongoing global disaster soon, because its dire consequences should be clear to all who can see: this one in Japan, the Gulf spill last summer, the wars for oil (and soon, drinkable water), climate change (which affects, alas, food sources and viable atmospheric conditions), the constant depletion of marine life due to relentless expansion of predation and the acidification of oceans, ETC. ETC. ETC.

Could someone at the U.N. (or elsewhere) start thinking about what the global solution could be, or find a way for a SUMMIT that would examine what the correct remedy is? Because, clearly, Capitalism (+its non-existing Interest ponzi scheme) s*cks big time!

Oh, and please.... HURRY UP!

[sce56]

56. "If anything can go wrong, it will" In Nuke plants Murphy was considered an Optomist!

The below graphs are from a suburb of Tokyo. The top one is right now and will refresh when you reload it. The bottom one is the pre-event normal reference from Dec.

[LAGC]

58. I'm still optimistic.

From the beginning, the MSM has been trying to sensationalize this story and exaggerate the risks because fear sells, but if there is any real leakage I doubt it will seriously affect anywhere beyond the exclusion zone. We aren't dealing with a full-scale melt-down situation here, just possible containment issues of a cooled-down core. That can be dealt with.

I mean, even with Chernobyl, they were able to build a tomb around the site and stop the greater radiation leakage. We aren't anywhere near that point in this situation. If there is a leak (from seepage from the over-filled spent fuel pools, pipes, or even the reactor itself) they can inject concrete and stop the leakage.

Radiation levels are down from their earlier highs, so it sounds like they've gotten a handle on the situation, despite all the media concern. Protecting the nearby fresh-water sources should be the top priority. I bet a year from now, even in the exclusion area, the food/water will be safe to consume.

[liberation]

62. LOL.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious.

Hilarious either way... :rofl:

[LAGC]

63. Quite serious, actually.

I think the media is making a bigger deal out of this than it really is.

[Bonobo]

65. The media blowing up a story and spreading panic to attract viewers?

Such behavior would be unthinkable in a mass media outlet!

?w=337&h=450

[liberation]

76. One of the largest nuclear plants in the world with most of its reactors compromised...

... including one operating plutonium, all siting right next to another huge nuclear central which was also damaged (you did not hear much about that one on the news), and all sitting pretty a bit under 200 miles away from one of the largest cities in the world in one of the most densely populated places on earth. If that is not a big deal to you, I just have to wonder what the effing hell is...


Anyhow, from your assumption that "in 1 year levels would be back to normal" that you have no clue how radioactive material works. In this case, ignorance really is bliss...

[LAGC]

83. This isn't like Chernobyl.

There's been no huge explosion of radioactive particles with high-concentrations traveling hundreds of miles from the disaster site.

It's more of a gradual leakage, which is largely dissipated by the environment the further you get away from the site.

Take this current CNN article on their front page right now:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/26/japan.nuclear.disaster/index.html?hpt=T2

It points out that while radiation levels in the sea-water right near the plant are 10,000 times higher than normal (which seems like a lot, but really isn't) -- if you go out to sea 30km, the radiation levels are barely above normal. The low levels of radiation escaping the plant dissipates rapidly the further you go.

Tokyo is in no danger of serious contamination.

[PCIntern]

85. You missed the point of the OP...

it's obviously getting worse faster and faster. Now maybe they can fix it, maybe they can't, They've given us no indication that they can so far, OK? You say that they say that there's not a whole lotta radiation 30 km out, and for the sake of argument, say they're telling the truth for a change. OK, that's today...what about 96 hours from now? A week ago, my saying that the containment was probably breached was met with some derision. Now who's the one saying that it is breached? The powers that Be.

this is an exponentially decaying situation...

Maybe I'm wrong...i'd really like to be...but I don't think so, at least now.

[liberation]

133. Of course this is not like Chernobyl.

For starters there are more compromised reactors involved, and as I pointed out one of the is operating using Plutonium. I don't think you really grasp the magnitude of that last item, for example.

And you keep making absolute statements like "Tokyo is in no danger of serious contamination." When the authorities have already detected increased radioactivity levels in the water supply.

But whatever, I just think it is comical to read people with very little grasp on nuclear physics make claims with such abandon about a subject and situation they know very little about. Which is why as I said, ignorance is bliss in cases like this one.

[BrookBrew]

137. What was the core of the Nagasaki bomb made from?

not MOX. What was that stuff, oh p-239. I have a very nice grip on physics but a better grip on reality.

[Hannah Bell]

139. Population Doses in Russia from Plutonium Fallout Following the Chernobyl Accident

http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/4/255.abstract

[AtheistCrusader]

148. Every uranium reactor has plutonium in it.

All fuel rods reach the same level of equilibrium over time, the fuel rods in #3 just had a head start.

You DO know why reactors like this are integral to an atomic weapons program, right?

[Botany]

88. Good Point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4787820

Because after all just because they are picking up radionuclides @ 1250 times the normal background
levels 180 miles out at sea is no reason to worry at all ....... good thing nobody or no animal depends
on fish from the oceans for food. I wish people would just understand that is all just "magic fairy dust"
and it is no worse than going outside on a sunny day.



Biological Magnification -- Refers to the process whereby certain substances such as pesticides or heavy metals move up the food
chain, work their way into rivers or lakes, and are eaten by aquatic organisms such as fish, which in turn are eaten by large birds,
animals or humans. The substances become concentrated in tissues or internal organs as they move up the chain.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_biological_magnification#ixzz1Hhh2EkgQ

Boy and don't get me started about how overblown the toxicity and the persistence of plutonium in the environment gets
talked up those uneducated no nuke people .....

[LAGC]

89. The radiation is very localized.

Still, an official with Japan's nuclear safety agency told reporters Saturday that -- while drinking such tainted seawater would be dangerous, given the radiation's potential to cause cancer -- the effect on aquatic life may be relatively minimal.

That's because the radiation tends to dilute, the farther one moves away from the nuclear plant. Data posted on the Japan's education and science ministry website showed relatively small amounts of radioactive particles several kilometers offshore.

The International Atomic Agency reported online Saturday that radioactive iodine and cesium was detected 30 kilometers (19 miles) offshore, but it said that these levels differed only slightly from the previous day.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/26/japan.nuclear.disaster/index.html?hpt=T2

As you can see, just 30km away, the levels of radiation is minimal.

That "1250 times normal" reading was taken only 300 meters off shore.

[Botany]

113. please

[jpak]

177. No its not and it's been detected in North America

yup

[Hannah Bell]

140. "radionuclides @ 1250 times the normal background...180 miles out at sea "

try 300 meters.

Radioactive iodine-131 at a concentration about 1,250 times the legal limit was detected in seawater collected Friday morning about 330 meters south of drain outlets for the troubled reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, the government said Saturday.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110326003186.htm


don't know where you got that, but the continual misreporting of such "factoids" combined with an apparent inability of some "reporters" to acknowledge error = panic-mongering.

the other poster pointed out the error. you did not correct the error. instead, you posted a map as though it were evidence your report was correct.

your report was false. you didn't acknowledge the error.

[Botany]

145. meters or kilometers is there a difference?

sorry about the error ... it was early in the AM and I read kilometers not meters
300 km x .6 = 180 miles

with the persistence of some radionuclides it is very likely that they will end up
miles from Japan and into the food chain too. One thing that scares the life out
of me is that some will end up in the flesh of the wild run pacific salmon.


but as an ecologist who a while back spent a lot of time looking into
nuclear power and the nuclear fuel cycle the under selling of the level
of damage to the reactors and the threat to the environment from the
Fukushima Daiichi power plant is huge.

I hope with every fiber of my being that I am wrong but I think the outcome
from this accident will be dire and felt for generations.

BTW where does radioactive iodine wind up in people and what can it cause?

[Hannah Bell]

146. yeah, what's the difference between a meter & a kilometer, only a thousand-fold.

you are welcome to your opinion.

don't let it interfere with your reporting of the actual facts on the ground.

thank you for acknowledging the error.

if you really don't know the answers to the questions you act maybe you should go do the research.

[Botany]

149. I know the difference between a km and m

radioactive iodine winds up in the thyroid and causes cancer .... and no doubt
you knew the answer too but you would not acknowledge it.

I have seen figures of between 5,000 to > 200,000 cases have been caused
or will be caused by Chernobyl's release of iodine 131. Fukushima Daiich
has many times more fissile than was @ Chernobyl ..... to this day I have yet to
see any accurate information on just how they will put some kind of cooling/
containment system(s) into play there which will keep the toxins in check.

Some of the radionuclides that have been detected after the accident(s) @
Fukushima Daiichi can be the result of a meltdown or some sort of uncontrolled
fission reactions ..... in particular Cesium and Iodine 131 ..... the plutonium
is also of concern too.

Again I want to be wrong about my fears of what can and will happen because
of this disaster. And the workers who stayed behind or volunteered to
go in and help are with out a doubt giving their lives to save a big part of the planet.

[Hannah Bell]

152. i'm not interested in speculation involving that range of margin of error.

i am interested in the facts on the ground.

330 meters isn't 180 miles.

thank you for acknowledging the error.

[Botany]

159. Well I do live for the the purpose of making you happy ...... so here are some

Facts on the ground (and in the air & water too)

Fukushima Daiich Power Plant has the very real potential for making
a large area of Japan uninhabitable for generations.

Fukushima Daiich is currently spewing toxins into the environment

The radionuclides from Fukushima Daiich are potentially lethal for many living things

The oceanic currents can and will spread the toxins around the Pacific

Biomagnification of some of the longer lived radionuclides pose a very real
threat to the health of many many people

The soils around Fukushima Daiich might no longer be suitable for agriculture

The situation @ Fukushima Daiich is not under control

Radioactivity has been found in the drinking water of Tokyo

U.S. Naval Ships @ > 100 miles from the Fukushima Daiich power plant
detected radiation and were moved to avoid it. Some members of the
crew had to undergo decontamination.

[Hannah Bell]

160. i really don't know why you think any of that is relevant to my posts, which were

specifically about the error in reporting you made.

all you needed to say was, "you're right, i made a mistake, i'll correct it."

instead you act like i'd said "there's no radiation at all in the ocean & even if there is it's good for you!!!!" and feel called to prove that imagined claim wrong.

[Botany]

167. what part of this did you not get?

sorry about the error ... it was early in the AM and I read kilometers not meters
300 km x .6 = 180 miles

now how many of my posted facts on the ground are wrong? post # 159

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Botany]

170. you are 100% right

.. no interest in adding to discussion but a strange urge to
control or disrupt the thread by following "their rules."

[Hannah Bell]

169. i got the correction of the error. i see no reason you needed to add the rest.

i wasn't challenging anything other than the error you made.

why do you assume i was?

[Botany]

171. Right because after all this all about Rhetoric and Semantics .....

..... and not about the Fukushima Daiich power plant.

[Hannah Bell]

179. it's about my irritation with mistaken information passed along like a giant game

of "rumor" or "telephone".

sorry that you can't accept me at my word.

[Taft_Bathtub]

75. Me too, I agree.

Serious post. The news has blown this entire thing out of proportion. I blame a for-profit media that is completely in bed with coal/oil/natural gas and an ignorant American population that lacks even basic scientific education. I can't believe how many people ask when the power plant is going to explode like an atomic bomb. Just completely baffling rubbish.

[Turborama]

78. K&R Your OP has got me worried, again. Any serious answers to my question that arose from it...

...very much appreciated: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x743773

[industry_]

80. where are you hearing this talk of evacuating tokyo?

i live in osaka and have been watching the news (mainly NHK) on a daily basis and have heard nothing of the sort.

[PCIntern]

84. See...

all along the MSM has been minimizing incidents and then quietly floating an idea..."if the containment breached XYZ wold happen, but it hasn't and there is no sign that it will." and then 3 days later: "some scientists are saying (some people say!) that there might be a small breach of the containment..." Now of course, we have huge amounts of radiation and radioactive material, which seem to coming from...(fill in the blank).

Yesterday, a few folk on the air stated something about what would have to be done or not done if Tokyo wee threatened...but there is no sign that it will have to be evacuated.

...and that's how it works.

[industry_]

86. so there actually ISN'T talk of tokyo being evacuated?

and your reference to the potential need for relocating 70 million people (which is more than half of japan's population - which specific areas would need relocating?) is all unsubstantiated what-iffing?

[PCIntern]

87. No...

it has been stated by several "experts" on TeeVee that IF there were some explosion of radioactive material, then relocation, maybe, might have to be discussed. But AGAIN, you're not following the trajectory...it gets mentioned as a 'perhaps' or a 'in the unlikely event' and then it happens...and then the next step is 'considered'. I was stating in the OP that that has been the pattern of events.

But if you're here to discuss what is actually happening, no, there's no evacuation of Tokyo at this time. Very lawyerly of you to channel the discussion in this fashion, however...do you have any other 'disputes' with my post? If so, please elaborate...

On edit: And if you carefully read my post, I said "talk" of a Tokyo evacuation, not action.

[Hannah Bell]

141. there is no evacuation of tokyo. that is the fact. your speculation is irrelevant.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bvar22]

114. You LIVE in Japan, and have "HEARD" nothing about evacuation?

That kinda proves the OP's point, don't you think?

Do you really believe that this is not being discussed at The Highest Levels?

[Hannah Bell]

142. which you & pcintern have the inside line on.

it would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

[PCIntern]

150. Ad hominem?

I don't have the "inside line", it was on the fucking TV....doesn't matter whether it's true or not, it was on the TV...don't you get it? Or you DO, but are too busy disrupting boards with your bullshit.

[Hannah Bell]

153. there was no ad hom whatsoever in my comment. the poster

implied that bonobo, who lives in japan, was "in the dark", while the poster, over here in the us, knew better what the japanese government was doing/thinking/scheming.

doubtful.

if that's ad hom, how would you categorise your post?

[PCIntern]

164. Yes there was...

you sarcastically named me personally.

[bvar22]

154. I no more have "the inside line" that YOU do.

I can't speak for PC Intern,
but I will speak for myself:

1)NOBODY knows yet how BAD the "nuclear accident" in Japan is,
or how many will die in the immediate future due to radiation exposure.

1a) Those who initially claimed that this "accident" was far worse than the government was admitting,
were 100% correct.
...and those who currently claim that the government/industry (Japan's or Ours) is STILL withholding information WILL be proven to be 100% correct.

2)NOBODY knows how many will die or experience deformities in the next 30 years because of the "nuclear accident" in Japan.

3)Everybody agrees that exposure to radiation is NOT a good thing, and does cause harm.

4)The "nuclear accident" in Japan has INCREASED human exposure to radiation.
There WILL be death, sickness, cancer, and birth deformities.

5)The Nuclear Industry has been dishonest in their marketing of the safety of this source of power.
QED

Do you disagree?

[Hannah Bell]

156. 1. agree.

1a. i disagree with the implications of: "Those who initially claimed that this "accident" was far worse than the government was admitting, were 100% correct."

- The implications being that despite having just suffered the 5th-largest earthquake in modern history, plus a huge tsunami affecting 1/3 of japan, with transportation & communications knocked out, etc. -- as well as the inherent problems in distance/time zones/translation + differences of communication style -- the japanese government knew "how bad" the disaster was in the initial days & made definitive claims about "how bad" it was that they knew to be lies, & du posters knew better.

moreover, that it is worse than initially believed says nothing about the degree of "worse" which is in fact unknown. nor does it mean that, because those believing it "worse" were correct, they should not be called on it when they misreport or exaggerate the reported facts or report prophecies as though they were already proven facts.

2. agree.

3. somewhat disagree, but the reasons are too tedious to get into & mostly irrelevant to the present situation.

4. agree radiation exposure increased. on second item i will wait for more definitive estimates of scope & degree of exposure of populations, as quality of information coming out currently is contradictory & clouded, imo.

5. agree.

[fascisthunter]

157. why the nastiness?

[Hannah Bell]

161. you mean this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=740054&mesg_id=745119

[fascisthunter]

172. you consider that to be a reason for your nastiness?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

82. I have been where you are since 3//11 and the fallout has been on us&the creatures of the Pacific

[NobleCynic]

90. The primary thing that ticks me off about this whole mess

is that Japan was warned before construction, that it would be best if all their reactors were build on the China Sea side for exactly this reason. The impact of nearly any tsunami/earthquake is massively reduced on the Western coast. There's just less ocean to worry about. But unfortunately Cold War concerns (defense of the reactors), and economic concerns trumped the scientific and environmental concerns. Like always.

[flamingdem]

100. But for now, ALL EYES ON LIBYA! Not on the worst nuclear accident ever just raised to a 6

and to a 7 by Greenpeace.org

[avaistheone1]

102. Bookmarked and highly recommended.

k&r

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

103. Know the old joke "Grandma is on the roof"? nt

[jtuck004]

110. +1 eom

[Shagbark Hickory]

107. You're watching msnBS and Cnn and you're wondering why you get bad information. LOL

:silly:

[PCIntern]

124. I'm not wondering anything of the sort...

I thought I made it clear that I found their 'reporting' hellaciously bad. Thus the post.

[fascisthunter]

158. not necessary, but I see this has become personal

which is rather weird.

[Enthusiast]

108. Build more reactors now!

Here is the U.S.A.! Yay! Safe safe safe!

Solar panels? Pie in the sky dirty hippy stuff. Windmills? "Liberals don't want them in their neighborhood -they spoil the view."

There is no alternative we must build more reactors right now. Look at France, they have more than anyone. Safe safe safe.

Hear these and other claims on the Sunday Morning talk show of your choice.

[BrookBrew]

136. They are.. dont worry.(nt)

[mistertrickster]

111. What do they call the "China Syndrome" in Japan. The America Syndrome? nt

[grahamhgreen]

115. K&R

[felix_numinous]

116. Know your nuclear industry

-enjoy

World Nuclear Association http://www.world-nuclear.org/

Nuclear Industry PR in schools http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nuclear_Industry_PR_in_Schools

Nuclear Industry secret PR strategy http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4265

It is time we walk completely around these issues and look at them from every point of view. The way that BP handled the gulf disaster was to downplay the effects of corexit, and these people are now suffering greatly without help from anyone, they are just left out of the news. They hired thugs to keep out cameras and reporters at one point.

The pattern in all disaster reporting is that information is made available in the beginning, then there is a point when information is tightly controlled. I can see why people in positions of leadership do not wish for disasters reporting to create social panic or chaos, but there is a middle ground between thugs banning reporting and sensationalist Fox-like misinformation or flat-out propaganda that costs lives. If the people of the Gulf of Mexico were informed of the toxicity of the water, they would not be sick right now.

When information is cut off from the source, this actually causes chaotic reporting, information has to flow in an accurate and life saving manner, or we will once again witness an aftermath. Dangers have to be not under reported nor over reported, and the industries themselves should not take charge of disseminating information, because there is an obvious conflict of interest that creates it's own opposition.

[WillyT]

121. HUGE K & R !!!

:kick:

[orbitalman]

122. "May" is just a synonym for "might." Scary. n/t

[TatonkaJames]

125. It's the BP Syndrome

WE have an oil rig explosion in the Gulf.
WE have an oil rig on fire and it's getting worse
WE have an oil rig that is out of control.
WE have an oil rig that is falling in to the sea.
WE have an oil rig that is leaking a LITTLE bit of oil.
WE have an oil rig that is leaking maybe 1000 gallons a day.
Other sources say it's a lot more.
No it isn't.
WE have an oil rig that is leaking about 5000 gallons a day.
Other sources say it's a lot more.
No it isn't.
WE have an oil rig that is leaking possibly 20-30,000 gallons a day.
Other sources say it's a lot more.
No it isn't.
WE have an oil rig that is leaking possibly 50 - 70,000 gallons a day.
Other sources say its a lot more.
No it isn't.
We have an oil rig that is leaking possibly 100,000 gallons a day.
Other sources say it's a lot more.
No it isn't.
We have an oil rig that is leaking maybe a million gallons a day.
Other sources say it's a lot more.
No it isn't.
And how much COREXIT HAVE THEY USED ALONG WITH THAT ?
Not much.
And so it went that the worse oil spill off US shores was forgotten by the people as they fell silent and moved on like good little soldiers do.
What ? Another war ? But we're broke !
I don't have any healthcare.
Our reps do and WE pay for it.
Whaaaa, we're a bunch of whiners.
Front Page says they're marching in a lot of nations in protest.
It seems to be successful too.
What do they do in the US ?
Talk.
BOHICA

[patrice]

128. K&R

[femrap]

130. I hope those that want to leave can come

to Ohio....we could use the brains and the jobs and the civility.

I have always admired the Japanese culture....but no geisha and women are EQUAL. Hell, we're not even equal here.

[in_cog_ni_to]

163. So....was it a safe bet to buy my Shelf-Stable Milk?

I may start working on water next. Beans and rice also.:scared:

[PCIntern]

165. WTF...

it's just so obvious what's going on, and for the sake of generating posts, it is allowed to go on, it's just unbelievable that this is what can happen on a Progressive site. Next, we'll be hearing that radiation is good for you b/c it cures acne, and...no, I better not say it.

[Junkdrawer]

176. Radiation hormesis.... (satire is dead)

Radiation hormesis (also called radiation homeostasis) is the hypothesis that chronic low doses of ionizing radiation (in addition to the natural background doses) are beneficial, stimulating hypothetical reserve repair mechanisms that protect against disease, but are not activated in absence of additional ionizing radiation. The reserve repair mechanisms are hypothesized to be sufficiently effective when stimulated as to not only cancel the detrimental effects of extra ionizing radiation but also protect from other damage (see hormesis).<1><2><3><4> This counter-intuitive hypothesis has captured the attention of scientists and public alike in recent years.<5>

....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

[sulphurdunn]

173. Nuclear reactors are built

using the same cost/benefit analysis used to determine most financial risk and profitability. The analysis is that they are to too risky to gamble on without government backed financing, loan guarantees and reduced liability exclusions. Apparently, building to survive a magnitude 10 earthquake is not cost effective even with all the subsidizes and liability exclusions, but building for 7.6 quakes is. The odds favor the 7.6 gamble... until you lose.

[spanone]

174. they don't factor in that human cheat and do shit on the cheap

[datasuspect]

181. maybe they should hire BP's PR firm

fresh shrimp for everybody!