TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Japan's Tsunami 2011
Pages (26): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 »

Haha I dont give two shits what you think of me. And this thread is beyond contaminated with your BS I dont need to be On Topic.

But yea, I don't even want to start on how little you know about Physics and what the real situation is over there.

And LOLz at grammar on a forum...LOLz in general on your Ignorance....

Seriously....Go Away...Please...

But WHY do YOU like TRANCE???

Are you still bitter that the first thread you ever created ended up being a bunch of people coming to general consensus about what a condescending jackass you are? Don't take things so seriously bro, it's just a web forum afterall

quote:

Originally posted by geroin Agreed, they could have taken some measures to at least protect the generators but the problem is, is it possible to do that when the plant is already built? do you shut it down for an upgrade or do you simply relocate to a new plant and shut this one down? it may be more expensive to upgrade than to build a new one. it reminds me of shea stadium in queens ny, instead of restoring an old stadium they just built a new (citifield) right beside it on a nearby parking lot, when it was ready they demolished shea and turned it into a parking lot. I know it's not the same but similar concept, one may be cheaper than the other.

I'm no expert on the design of that particular plant but from what I've seen and learned, the generators would not have been to difficult to upgrade for protection...

They aren't even being used unless there's an emergency...

I'd still like to know why it was so damn difficult to repair the power supply issue..

Just doesn't seem to difficult a problem...

quote:

Originally posted by VDub See?? I totally agree... His parents are probably ashamed...

ok there Homer.

Area's where a quake can do much damage to a nuclear power plant.

HAHAHAH Yea my thread blew up, and people like you hated, while people who know what I'm saying agreed, and posted on Topic. Don't be jealous becuase I come out of nowhere and get more of a response then you do posting in every single thread.....HAHAHHA Whose talking about being better...

ON TOPIC, yea that Map above is pretty crazy. New Madrid Fault?!?!

Even Crazier.....has ANYONE seen the TWIN SUNS appearing in skies Lately?!? NIBIRU?!

quote:

Originally posted by jester Map of area's where there is a high possibility of a quake like damaging a nuclear plant.

I think the US (at least from what I know) would be more prepared to handle a nuclear crisis than Japan was. We've already been through one, so there's already experience with (successfully) containing a crisis like this and preventing outside contamination. I know one of my friends who went to college about 10 minutes from a nuclear power plant received potassium iodide tablets from the school when she was a freshman. I know the people around Three Mile Island received them from the government as well.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer ok there Homer.

Way to regurgitate there Taliban...

quote:

Originally posted by Dinoz2013 HAHAHAH Yea my thread blew up, and people like you hated, while people who know what I'm saying agreed, and posted on Topic. Don't be jealous becuase I come out of nowhere and get more of a response then you do posting in every single thread.....HAHAHHA Whose talking about being better... ON TOPIC, yea that Map above is pretty crazy. New Madrid Fault?!?! Even Crazier.....has ANYONE seen the TWIN SUNS appearing in skies Lately?!? NIBIRU?!

I really hope English is your second language

The moment nuclear plant chief WEPT as Japanese finally admit that radiation leak is serious enough to kill people

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l#ixzz1Gyhq7PKk

Also 2012 isn't the end date of the Mayan calendar anymore, it is 2116. So we all might be lucky to live up to that date. I do hope I can live up to 130 y.o.

quote:

Originally posted by VDub I'm no expert on the design of that particular plant but from what I've seen and learned, the generators would not have been to difficult to upgrade for protection... They aren't even being used unless there's an emergency... I'd still like to know why it was so damn difficult to repair the power supply issue.. Just doesn't seem to difficult a problem...

regardless though of what they could have done the fact is that the plant was not ready for location is was situated at.

In 1988 in Armenia in the city of Spitak there was a 6.9 earthquake. Almost every single building collapsed including hospitals, schools etc. This is a mountaneous region so you can imagine how massive this is..
The only thing remained was the Metsamor nuclear power plant. Although shut down later on after and reopened again it provided energy and electricity during the rescue efforts as it still operated perfectly fine. It was built to withstand a 9.0 surface magnitude earthquake. it was built in 1973 but it was shutdown a few years ago, why? it was too fucking old. They are building a new one with new technology, the same 9.0 maximum earthquake probability because of possible events reoccurring in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by jester The moment nuclear plant chief WEPT as Japanese finally admit that radiation leak is serious enough to kill people Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l#ixzz1Gyhq7PKk

what about now Nick?

quote:

Originally posted by jester The moment nuclear plant chief WEPT as Japanese finally admit that radiation leak is serious enough to kill people Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l#ixzz1Gyhq7PKk Also 2012 isn't the end date of the Mayan calendar anymore, it is 2116. So we all might be lucky to live up to that date. I do hope I can live up to 130 y.o.

Every country should start investing more and more into nuclear energy after this disaster since it is clearly the way to go.

Yes, a freak occurrence in one of the most volatile regions in the world that caused one of only a handful of nuclear crises in history should absolutely lead every country around the world to abandon their nuclear programs. Simply brilliant.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Yes, a freak occurrence in one of the most volatile regions in the world that caused one of only a handful of nuclear crises in history should absolutely lead every country around the world to abandon their nuclear programs. Simply brilliant.

You wouldn�t be saying this if this was going on in your own backyard now would you? This is HUGE disaster and it can happen again at anytime and anywhere. Many will have to suffer many years to come because our governments told us that there was nothing to worry about. Don�t be so ignorant kid.

"a freak occurrence in one of the most volatile regions in the world"

an oxymoron?

quote:

Originally posted by jester The moment nuclear plant chief WEPT as Japanese finally admit that radiation leak is serious enough to kill people Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l#ixzz1Gyhq7PKk Also 2012 isn't the end date of the Mayan calendar anymore, it is 2116. So we all might be lucky to live up to that date. I do hope I can live up to 130 y.o.

Huh??

When and how did that change??

quote:

Originally posted by geroin "a freak occurrence in one of the most volatile regions in the world" an oxymoron?

Not necessarily. Earthquakes are common in the area. Volcanoes are too, and so are tsunamis. A combination of an incredibly powerful earthquake and an abnormally large tsunami is still a freak occurrence in my book.

Regardless, what happens in Japan shouldn't affect the nuclear policies of other countries around the world. As the US energy secretary has said, if anything, this is an opportunity to learn. Japan, unfortunately, is not in an ideal region for something as potentially dangerous as nuclear reactors, but just because something is potentially dangerous doesn't mean it should be abandoned. Nuclear energy has the potential to be invaluable as our natural resources steadily decline, and it would be silly to abandon for countries around the world to abandon their nuclear programs based on what has happened here in Japan.

Accidents happen, disasters happen, etc. People learn from them and move forward. Look at the city of New Orleans. It actually lies below sea level, and is in an area prone to hurricanes. That doesn't mean that nobody should ever live in New Orleans due to the risk.

This disaster is horrible, and we can all agree on that, but to say that it should lead other countries' nuclear programs to do anything but learn from it and move forward would be a mistake.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer You wouldn�t be saying this if this was going on in your own backyard now would you? This is HUGE disaster and it can happen again at anytime and anywhere. Many will have to suffer many years to come because our governments told us that there was nothing to worry about. Don�t be so ignorant kid.

The government's lack of response/lack of providing accurate information is the worst part of this. If they had evacuated a large enough area in the first place, the only people who would be seriously at risk would be the workers trying to contain it.

So to answer your question, yes I would be saying this if it was in my own backyard. You forget that out of the 3 worst nuclear disasters in history, one of them was in the United States. Granted I wasn't alive when it happened, it's not a cause to fear nuclear energy. If governments are responsible with it and take every step to try and ensure its safety, an accident shouldn't cause this much wavering about the benefits of nuclear energy.

Again, yes this is clearly very horrible, but you're forgetting about the amount of power that nuclear plants have provided to Japan for 40 years. You're forgetting that it has the capability of being the largest energy source in the world, with very little environmental concerns as opposed to the burning of fossil fuels. There is just so much potential in nuclear research and the harvesting of nuclear energy that we shouldn't just abandon ship because of one disaster.

Saying "it can happen anytime and anywhere" is the kind of fear mongering that leads people in the wrong direction. In the entire history of nuclear energy programs in the world (with the exception of the current one, which was caused by a natural disaster), there have only been 2 serious accidents which could have had an impact on human health, and only one of them actually did. Yes, perhaps Japan is not in the greatest position for having nuclear power plants, but you forget that they need them. They are far more cost effective at producing the amount of power that they do than it would be for them to import more fossil fuels or invest in other alternative forms of energy which produce far less power.

Like I said, this is an opportunity to learn. Maybe nuclear programs need to change the way they operate, or even be rebuilt, but not abandoned.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Not necessarily. Earthquakes are common in the area. Volcanoes are too, and so are tsunamis. A combination of an incredibly powerful earthquake and an abnormally large tsunami is a freak occurrence in my book. Regardless, what happens in Japan shouldn't affect the nuclear policies of other countries around the world. As the US energy secretary has said, if anything, this is an opportunity to learn. Japan, unfortunately, is not in an ideal region for something as potentially dangerous as nuclear reactors, but just because something is potentially dangerous doesn't mean it should be abandoned. Nuclear energy has the potential to be invaluable as our natural resources steadily decline, and it would be silly to abandon for countries around the world to abandon their nuclear programs based on what has happened here in Japan. Accidents happen, disasters happen, etc. People learn from them and move forward. Look at the city of New Orleans. It actually lies below sea level, and is in an area prone to hurricanes. That doesn't mean that nobody should ever live in New Orleans due to the risk. This disaster is horrible, and we can all agree on that, but to say that it should lead other countries' nuclear programs to do anything but learn from it and move forward would be a mistake.

"volatile" cannot be used in that context as it's a word that describes finances not disasters.

"A combination of an incredibly powerful earthquake and an abnormally large tsunami is a freak occurrence in my book."

No it's not, we're talking about Japan right? a country that invented the word tsunami and has had more tsunami's than any other country in the world.


In terms of nuclear energy and abandoning it. No one says to abandon it immediately, that is impossible. What i suggested was to slowly start investing and looking into alternative means of energy that are less harmful and potentially deadly.

Accident do happen but you don't understand the difference between reversible and irreversible accidents. In a case with New Orleans even though many died unfortunately we can go back there and rebuild. If there is a nuclear disaster you cannot do anything about it, you have to abandon the region completely or you may die. Plutonium for example that is used in many plants has a half-life of 200 years and if released in atmosphere accidentally is deadly.
The main concern with nuclear disasters is that they don't affect just that one region, overtime is spreads to multiple countries and eventually affects everyone depending on the scale of the disaster.

quote:

Originally posted by geroin what about now Nick?

First of all, that article was written by an imbecile...

quote:

Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency admitted that the disaster was a level 5, which is classified as a crisis causing 'several radiation deaths' by the UN International Atomic Energy.

Who's died from radiation??

Also, I don't know what you want me to say. I'm going by the same information that you are. I'm just looking at it with an optimistic and logical attitude....

It's not over yet Gera...

Nobody has received any lethal radiation yet..

I do worry about the 50 engineers though...

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Accidents happen, disasters happen, etc. People learn from them and move forward. Look at the city of New Orleans. It actually lies below sea level, and is in an area prone to hurricanes. That doesn't mean that nobody should ever live in New Orleans due to the risk. This disaster is horrible, and we can all agree on that, but to say that it should lead other countries' nuclear programs to do anything but learn from it and move forward would be a mistake.

+10000000

And this may have been the first decent post you've done..

Did you just get laid??

lol...

didnt look to see if this has been posted...worth the repost anyways..lol

quote:

Originally posted by geroin "volatile" cannot be used in that context as it's a word that describes finances not disasters. "A combination of an incredibly powerful earthquake and an abnormally large tsunami is a freak occurrence in my book." No it's not, we're talking about Japan right? a country that invented the word tsunami and has had more tsunami's than any other country in the world. In terms of nuclear energy and abandoning it. No one says to abandon it immediately, that is impossible. What i suggested was to slowly start investing and looking into alternative means of energy that are less harmful and potentially deadly. Accident do happen but you don't understand the difference between reversible and irreversible accidents. In a case with New Orleans even though many died unfortunately we can go back there and rebuild. If there is a nuclear disaster you cannot do anything about it, you have to abandon the region completely or you may die. Plutonium for example that is used in many plants has a half-life of 200 years and if released in atmosphere accidentally is deadly. The main concern with nuclear disasters is that they don't affect just that one region, overtime is spreads to multiple countries and eventually affects everyone depending on the scale of the disaster.

Volatile was describing the region, not the disaster. Regardless it has numerous meanings, not limited to finances.

While I do agree that other forms of alternative energy should be explored, nothing that we've even theorized so far could even come close to producing the amount of energy that a nuclear reactor does.

I do understand the difference between reversible and irreversible accidents, but you're using a lot of ifs in your last paragraph. The negatives for nuclear energy is the potential of harm, not the imminent threat of harm. With proper containment practices, much like your country's own CANDU system, a meltdown is virtually impossible, which brings me back to my previous point that the only thing that this terrible tragedy should lead to is nuclear programs learning from mistakes (whether they be in the design of the reactor, public policy regarding accidents, containment, or anything else).

quote:

Originally posted by VDub +10000000 And this may have been the first decent post you've done.. Did you just get laid?? lol...

Yes. Your mom is a freak

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Volatile was describing the region, not the disaster. Regardless it has numerous meanings, not limited to finances. While I do agree that other forms of alternative energy should be explored, nothing that we've even theorized so far could even come close to producing the amount of energy that a nuclear reactor does. I do understand the difference between reversible and irreversible accidents, but you're using a lot of ifs in your last paragraph. The negatives for nuclear energy is the potential of harm, not the imminent threat of harm. With proper containment practices, much like your country's own CANDU system, a meltdown is virtually impossible, which brings me back to my previous point that the only thing that this terrible tragedy should lead to is nuclear programs learning from mistakes (whether they be in the design of the reactor, public policy regarding accidents, containment, or anything else).

"Volatile was describing the region, not the disaster. Regardless it has numerous meanings, not limited to finances."

yes it does have many meanings but if you're using it as a "risk measurement" (ie. volatile region) it is wrong.

There are tons of other ways to produce alternative fuel/energy. In fact the only reason the nuclear technology/energy is still in place in many countries is because of the real nuclear attack threat. The technology that is used in power plants today resembles the military production almost to a tee, this is the reason why US is against Iran gaining access to the technology and building theirs even though it seems like they are doing it for "Energy" reasons.

Obviously i cannot say that everyone will be harmed but there is a always probability and that is enough concern for me. With so much money being invested into nuclear technology the same could be used for something else but it's not going to happen just like us using gas to drive, it's all business/money/politics.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.