quote:

Originally posted by kimojai so sad, but the most terrible thing is the nuclear disaster.

Actually I'd say its the tsunami, since you know, it has actually killed people.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Why would you attack me over this, it just makes you look like a fucking retard... Well more of one, if thats even possible.

I'm just curious what's got to happen before you concede that it's pretty bad. I mean there has been 3 explosions, the reactor is on fire, its leaking radiation, and a meltdown has occurred.

It's so over

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow I'm just curious what's got to happen before you concede that it's pretty bad. I mean there has been 3 explosions, the reactor is on fire, its leaking radiation, and a meltdown has occurred.

Yea, its bad, but people are making it out to be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay worse than it is or will be, including you.

I don't think I ever said the situation wasn't bad...

They are evacuating the personnel from the plant apparently, or they have been told to leave.

This is not unexpected, the local area was expected to become incredibly hot. The reactors though appear to be in a stable and safe configuration for now. Remember, even though local radiation might be incredibly high, the danger of a mass spreading of radiation is still very low. Chernobyl was disaster because there was a massive explosion where dust and debris kicked up along with the exposed core, and debris and dust blowing away from the site in the following days, created the radiation hazard across Northern Europe.

Its probably a good thing that the outer containment structures blew when they did, not after a core exposure.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Yea, its bad, but people are making it out to be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay worse than it is or will be, including you. I don't think I ever said the situation wasn't bad...

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Exactly. If there hasn't been a full on meltdown and compromise of the containment vessels by now, the chances of it are even slimmer than they were at the start of the crisis, which was very slim even then.

You're the idiot. You regurgitated what the "experts" on tv were saying. It was obvious to me that the Japanese government was down playing it so as not to create a panic. The plant techs didn't even know the condition of the core, so why would experts else where know, more importantly why would you know. I was smart enough not to make predictions and I knew there was a lot of unknowns to be making judgments.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow You're the idiot. You regurgitated what the "experts" on tv were saying. It was obvious to me that the Japanese government was down playing it so as not to create a panic. The plant techs didn't even know the condition of the core, so why would experts else where know, more importantly why would you know. I was smart enough not to make predictions and I knew there was a lot of unknowns to be making judgments.

If you know anything about nuclear reactors, even very basic operating principals, you'd understand what I am saying, but no, apparently you don't.

The reactor is designed to fail gracefully and so far that is what its doing. Yea its horrible and scary, omg fires and explosions, but if you look at it from a rational engineering standpoint you'd understand that things are about as bad as they can get right now, and I mean that in a way to suggest that its limited to what is happening right now.

No one ever denied that there would be large radioactive increases in the immediate local area, no one ever said there wouldn't be some radiation released, no one ever said there wouldn't be explosions or fires in the fuel pools. No one said that, what everyone who has a clue has been saying is that there is a bad situation, but do not blow it out of proportion and cause panic.

The amount of radiation extending into populated areas, that haven't been evacuated is minimal, short term, and not a threat, especially if people keep inside. The reactors, even if they have undergone a partial meltdown are COOLING DOWN NATURALLY because they are no longer producing a fission reaction. Even if some of the fuel rods have been exposed, the ceramic fuel pellets are more than likely still intact and still in configuration. If the core breaches on the bottom, the molten fuel will pool across an area that prevents it from sustaining a fission reaction, and will also be easier to cool, since it is no longer inside a pressure vessel. Yes radiation will be a huge issue, the area will probably be closed off and abandoned for decades, but it will be a small, small area.

This is fact, this is what is going to happen, why you doubt this I do not know...

^^^^ but building a nuclear plant in a region that is prone to earth quakes .. boils down to plain stupidity yet the number of live nuclear bomb tests far outweight the number of nuclear plant accidents ..

I'm with nou on this one...

quote:

Originally posted by colin traveller ^^^^ but building a nuclear plant in a region that is prone to earth quakes .. boils down to plain stupidity yet the number of live nuclear bomb tests far outweight the number of nuclear plant accidents ..

Building a nuclear plant in a region prone to earthquakes is fine. If this had just been an earthquake there would be no crisis. The issue came at Fukushima #1 when the tsunami hit and flooded out the generator rooms, which were built at ground level. The sea-wall built to protect against a tsunami were not meant to protect against one so large (remember this earthquake is considered a 1 in 10,000 year event, as in, this is not something anyone was predicting, even after expanding out and revising to over-compensate in designing that sea-wall).

There are dozens and dozens of nuclear plants built in and around fault lines, and they will be perfectly fine if their back up generators work and the plants initiate automatic shutdown procedures (like the Japanese plants did!). As long as the cooling systems stay intact the reactors are fine, they will cool down to the point where they are no longer a risk, and then the plants can start back up again.

You point on nuclear weapons. The US, Russians, British, Chinese and French all conducted atmospheric nuclear tests for MANY years, detonating thousands of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, a lot of the very inefficient and producing lots of fallout. The amount of heavy radiation released by nuclear testing is so much more than anything we will see here. Fortunately most of it was dispersed over time and caused limited damage, but remember that a crew of a Japanese fishing vessel was killed by fallout from the unexpected yield and winds of the Castle Bravo test. Also towns in Utah and eastern Nevada were heavily covered in radiation from testing at the Nevada test site. What happened in the Soviet testing areas was even worse, often people were still living within close distances of the blast ranges, having their windows blown out and being covered in radioactive fall out.

Again, all of this is worse than what is going to happen at Fukushima #1.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby If you know anything about nuclear reactors, even very basic operating principals, you'd understand what I am saying, but no, apparently you don't. The reactor is designed to fail gracefully and so far that is what its doing. Yea its horrible and scary, omg fires and explosions, but if you look at it from a rational engineering standpoint you'd understand that things are about as bad as they can get right now, and I mean that in a way to suggest that its limited to what is happening right now. No one ever denied that there would be large radioactive increases in the immediate local area, no one ever said there wouldn't be some radiation released, no one ever said there wouldn't be explosions or fires in the fuel pools. No one said that, what everyone who has a clue has been saying is that there is a bad situation, but do not blow it out of proportion and cause panic. The amount of radiation extending into populated areas, that haven't been evacuated is minimal, short term, and not a threat, especially if people keep inside. The reactors, even if they have undergone a partial meltdown are COOLING DOWN NATURALLY because they are no longer producing a fission reaction. Even if some of the fuel rods have been exposed, the ceramic fuel pellets are more than likely still intact and still in configuration. If the core breaches on the bottom, the molten fuel will pool across an area that prevents it from sustaining a fission reaction, and will also be easier to cool, since it is no longer inside a pressure vessel. Yes radiation will be a huge issue, the area will probably be closed off and abandoned for decades, but it will be a small, small area. This is fact, this is what is going to happen, why you doubt this I do not know...

Here's how I qualify bad. No nuclear reactors have been built in the USA since 3 mile island. This is far worse than that. A number of experts are rating this 5-6 on a scale of 7 (seven being the worst). So whether or not there is fallout reaching the USA or any of the other qualifiers you have listed is a moot point. No one knows about the integrity of the containment wall now or going forward.

Please keep blabber on.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow Here's how I qualify bad. No nuclear reactors have been built in the USA since 3 mile island. This is far worse than that. A number of experts are rating this 5-6 on a scale of 7 (seven being the worst). So whether or not there is fallout reaching the USA or any of the other qualifiers you have listed is a moot point. No one knows about the integrity of the containment wall now or going forward. Please keep blabber on.

That scale right now is very relative to the people observing and when and where they are.

Yes, this is worse than 3 Mile Island, but I don't know how no plants being built after relates, besides maybe to your stupidity and uneducated fear of nuclear power.