#Login Register


  • 241 Vote(s) - 3.75 Average
Home 


The Fukushima Disaster
02-11-2017, 11:28 AM #1,621
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:43,216 Threads:1,478 Joined:Feb 2011
Ask the uranium miners how clean nuclear power is
02-12-2017, 06:55 PM #1,622
Screaming Yellow Zonkers Member
Posts:2,706 Threads:265 Joined:Apr 2013
(02-08-2017, 10:23 PM)dclements Wrote:  Not all the instances of people getting acute radiation sickness are all the bad, since in a few instances it could turn out to be a good thing such as in the following article:

Mexican Cobalt-60 robbers are DEAD MEN, say authorities
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/06/...ft_mexico/

..it kind of reminds me a a video labeled 'instant karma' where a guy on a motorcycle is wearing a cam and a guy points a guy at hem in order to try and steal it. However what the guy robbing him didn't notice was a cop nearby who drew a gun on shot the guy dead before he even realized the cop was there.

Not all instances are "that bad".
Really... Then why don't you go volunteer to work in place of the robots at fukushima. Then get back to us. Your bullshit, no matter how thoughtfully worded, is still, BULLSHIT

aaah2.gif
02-12-2017, 07:00 PM #1,623
Screaming Yellow Zonkers Member
Posts:2,706 Threads:265 Joined:Apr 2013
(02-04-2017, 05:46 PM)dclements Wrote:  
(02-04-2017, 12:48 PM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  Radiation unique to Fukushima meltdown has been detected in southern B.C. salmon.

http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/184...hima-found

Consuming any Cesium-134 is unacceptable. All the words and opinions in the world will not stop cancer.
You forgot to include in your post:

"He (Jay Cullen, the guy that did the report) says the levels of the element detected were incredibly low, “10,000 times lower than the maximum allowable level in food set by Health Canada.”

There are trace amount of radioactive substances EVERYWHERE, which includes even the bananas you eat and blood coursing in your veins. If the amount is "10,000 times lower than the maximum allowable level in food" then it probable would take these trace amounts to be 10,000 to 100,000 times higher than they are before they effect you.

I'm pretty sure that Cesium-134 was one of the sample radioactive sources that me and the other students handled in the labs while taking a radiation safety class and the dose of radiation we got from it was likely higher than the radiation from the trace amounts of Cesium-134 you would get from eating the fish.

You're forgetting to mention that you work for nuclear power. Yeah you do. Go peddle your shilling somewhere where morons buy the IT'S ALL GOOD. YOU ONLY DIE A LITTLE BIT, mentality.

aaah2.gif
02-13-2017, 09:49 PM #1,624
dclements Member
Posts:244 Threads:25 Joined:Jan 2017
(02-11-2017, 11:28 AM)Octo Wrote:  Ask the uranium miners how clean nuclear power is
Well how bad is uranium mining in the context of mining any kind of material? I don't know exactly bad coal mining is but the fatality rate is much higher than a lot of other jobs out there but people still do it because they need the money even if they know that the people running such operations don't really give a rat's backside about their lives or safety.
02-13-2017, 10:26 PM #1,625
dclements Member
Posts:244 Threads:25 Joined:Jan 2017
(02-12-2017, 06:55 PM)Screaming Yellow Zonkers Wrote:  
(02-08-2017, 10:23 PM)dclements Wrote:  Not all the instances of people getting acute radiation sickness are all the bad, since in a few instances it could turn out to be a good thing such as in the following article:

Mexican Cobalt-60 robbers are DEAD MEN, say authorities
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/06/...ft_mexico/

..it kind of reminds me a a video labeled 'instant karma' where a guy on a motorcycle is wearing a cam and a guy points a guy at hem in order to try and steal it. However what the guy robbing him didn't notice was a cop nearby who drew a gun on shot the guy dead before he even realized the cop was there.

Not all instances are "that bad".
Really... Then why don't you go volunteer to work in place of the robots at fukushima. Then get back to us. Your bullshit, no matter how thoughtfully worded, is still, BULLSHIT
I don't work in nuclear power (although I wish I was qualified enough to get a job there) however my dad was in nuclear power and I know people that work in the industry. And in case you are wondering he was exposed to a dose a radiation that had the potential to kill him while cleaning up after the TMI incident, but since the dose was mostly not adsorbed (due to the source being Beta instead of Gamma) it was mostly non-life threatening; although it is plausible that if my family pursed litigation we could potentiality win a case over it. Not that we would. To be honest I wish I could ask him more questions about the industry but he passed away in the early 90's so that is no longer possible.

I may have not made a remark recently but I have mentioned in earlier posts that I'm pro-nuclear power. Although you may not believe it, I'm more than willing to listen to any real proof about the dangers of nuclear power and have even remarked that one of the best sources of the incidents and dangers of nuclear power can be found in book called the plutonium files, which can be bought on Amazon for under $20 as well as one of the best cases of what can go wrong in a nuclear plant can be found by looking up and reading about the SL-1 test reactor in which 3-4 people died from the reactor actually going super critical; which is the about absolute worst thing that can happen to a nuclear power plant.

To be honest I would be willing to share additional things I know but I believe it might not be used in any meaningful way or it would be taken out of context by those who don't really understand how a nuclear power plant work.

I have already discussed the matter with DaJavoo to enough of a degree where we both believe that nuclear technology and power is necessary for the future (since completely abandoning existing technology could or would create worse problems) but extreme regulations and safety measures may be needed in order take every precaution until technology advances enough to make it even safer than it is today.

Today people are often so scared about the dangers of everything that in doing so they have the potential of exposing themselves to even greater risks if they try to protect themselves from something that isn't even dangerous. As a kid I was aware that there was something called 'acceptable risk' in dealing with anything and everything, but I guess such a mind set no longer applies. While worrying about radiation and what some people are saying about it, have you also considered the dangers of drinking milk, water, or anything else you consume? I'm sure you try you can find enough information about it that you either no longer feel safe about eating anything or you just get tired of the subject and not think too much about it.

Why Milk is Bad for You


Also if you look into some of these situation the is the possibility that some people may be doing this more in an effort in order to make money than out of concern for people's health; such as in some of the incidents in which Greenpeace has been accused of trying to blackmail the company's they go against.
03-04-2017, 07:46 PM #1,626
dclements Member
Posts:244 Threads:25 Joined:Jan 2017
It looks like this thread has kind of died out but in cause anyone else wants to research the negative side effects of radiation and some of the mishaps of nuclear/radiation health research I suggest finding and read a book called the 'The Plutonium Files' which can be found on Amazon and sometimes on the net as a pdf.

As I mentioned before I'm pro-nuclear and have argued on the side of nuclear technology in most of this thread so I don't think it is really necessary to have to repeat what I have said. If anyone is interested in pro-nuclear arguments they can look up some of my previous posts.

The Plutonium Files
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plutonium_Files
03-04-2017, 07:51 PM #1,627
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:43,216 Threads:1,478 Joined:Feb 2011
This thread has not died. It's been pinned since the disaster as we want to not forget this ongoing disaster
03-04-2017, 09:19 PM #1,628
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:43,216 Threads:1,478 Joined:Feb 2011
I'm totally against nuclear power in its present form and I had to start a new thread voicing one of my concerns.

http://kritterbox.com/Topic-What-happens...nt-happens
03-06-2017, 07:30 AM #1,629
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,129 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
Let's look to Germany in their attempts to eliminate nuclear power and use 'safe' alternative power generation.
03-06-2017, 08:58 PM #1,630
dclements Member
Posts:244 Threads:25 Joined:Jan 2017
(03-04-2017, 09:19 PM)Octo Wrote:  I'm totally against nuclear power in its present form and I had to start a new thread voicing one of my concerns.

http://kritterbox.com/Topic-What-happens...nt-happens
If you don't mind can you specify what it is that makes you really dislike them. I can sort of agree with DaJavoo position where nuclear power plants need to be as safe as possible, that perhaps no new plants should be built until the technology makes they safer than they already are, that plants shouldn't have be built near populated areas, and things sort of along those lines, but I believe the pros outweigh the cons (or are at least equal to them) when you factor in all the the things that nuclear technology and/or nuclear medicine provide.

Or at least they do when you consider what the world would like like if we were to afraid to use nuclear technology and some countries less friendly to us where not so scared to use it themselves.
03-07-2017, 12:06 AM #1,631
dclements Member
Posts:244 Threads:25 Joined:Jan 2017
I just something that is slightly unsettling about radiation. When people are exposed to it, the exposure amount is measured in the theoretical amount of energy the body absorbs and based on that information it is estimated how they will be effected. However since there are several different types of radiation (gamma, alpha, beta, etc) it is also plausible that each different type of energy could effect us different. As far as I can tell this isn't done because there is little to no information available to compare the different effects of the different types of radiation so it is regarded as all the same.

I suppose if someone is suffering from acute radiation poisoning, it is likely that they almost all have the same effects but because each energy type is different I think there could be some difference in certain situations.
03-07-2017, 12:17 PM #1,632
DaJavoo If looks could kilt
Posts:1,863 Threads:45 Joined:Mar 2011
>>>I think there could be some difference in certain situations.<<<

DC, the difference is moot ~ radiation is f'in LETHAL to living things.

And also, please don't misrepresent me on the nuke issue. My position is this: Nuclear power needs to be replaced with viable alternatives, which are basically fossil fuel units at the present time.

Octo's recent thread on the subject (Carrington Event affect on nuclear plants) brings up the very REAL issue: WTF are we going to do with the radiated 'leftovers' we already have? Can we afford another Fukushima? That mess will be polluting the planet for a half-life of God Knows When and the rebound capacity of the planet is in doubt already, with even ONE disaster.

We're prolly already toast walking.
03-07-2017, 06:13 PM #1,633
dclements Member
Posts:244 Threads:25 Joined:Jan 2017
(03-07-2017, 12:17 PM)DaJavoo Wrote:  >>>I think there could be some difference in certain situations.<<<

DC, the difference is moot ~ radiation is f'in LETHAL to living things.

And also, please don't misrepresent me on the nuke issue. My position is this: Nuclear power needs to be replaced with viable alternatives, which are basically fossil fuel units at the present time.

Octo's recent thread on the subject (Carrington Event affect on nuclear plants) brings up the very REAL issue: WTF are we going to do with the radiated 'leftovers' we already have? Can we afford another Fukushima? That mess will be polluting the planet for a half-life of God Knows When and the rebound capacity of the planet is in doubt already, with even ONE disaster.

We're prolly already toast walking.
Water is lethal to people if they drink too much of it, but you don't see anyone freaking out too much about it; or many at least not too many people. You get more radiation from the sun, from your television, for people smoking, etc. than from living near a nuclear power plant. You also get MORE radiation and toxins from coal fired plants and ones running off fossil fuels than from nuclear power plants as well.

I think we sort of came to an agreement last time in our last argument where I felt that there was a bit too much regulation (which can make it both too expensive and at times make it less safe by making it harder to update technology) and you felt there was not enough regulation but that the technology shouldn't be scrapped all together and we sort of agreed that heavy/extreme regulation and hoping that the technology gets better in the future was sort of a middle ground between our two views since I know that nuclear power will always be heavily regulated and you realize we shouldn't or at least can not abandon the technology because what it is already being used for. Whether there are more plants or less in the future is something that is more in the regulators and those that build the plants hands but I don't think that that many will be built in the US any time in the future. Also nuclear technology isn't just used from producing power but it is used for many other applications as well (it is even used to sterilize some of the food you eat) so you should take that into account as well as your fear about nuclear power.

I am well aware that people that don't know how nuclear power or radiation works are more likely to be scared of it since they can not understand the risks involved, but being scared of nuclear power and having knee jerking reactions is no better than being scare of planes because they sometimes crash and there is often 100% fatality rate in many of the crashes.

One last thing is what radiation source your dealing with DOES make a difference in determining how much you will absorb. I know that because my dad while working at Three Mile Island during cleanup was exposed to over 100 RAD of beta radiation; which would have likely had killed him if it gamma or maybe neutrino. However beta is stopped by nearly anything including facial tissue and or our first layer of skin (it can get absorbed through open cuts or exposed tissue such as your mouth) so the actual REM that he adsorb was not life threatening; or at least not as life threatening as the kind of radiation one gets from when they adsorb a dose that causes radiation sickness. If is had been gamma it is unlikely that he would be alive if he was exposed to that much, but it is also unlikely he would have been exposed to it since their detectors could alert them to it's presence.
03-11-2017, 06:54 PM #1,634
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:43,216 Threads:1,478 Joined:Feb 2011
It's the 6th anniversary today

İmage
04-03-2017, 07:59 PM #1,635
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,129 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
Quote:A number of legal cases have already been filed against Tepco (Tokyo Electric Power) relating to the disaster, but this is the first time a court has recognised that the government was liable for negligence.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga, the government's top spokesman, declined to comment but said the ruling would have no impact on the country's nuclear power policies.

Anti-nuclear sentiment runs high in Japan, but the government has been resolute in restarting reactors that were closed in the aftermath of the disaster.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39303178

I hope safety measures have been implemented on the reactors they restarted.



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com