#Login Register

  • 239 Vote(s) - 3.74 Average

The Fukushima Disaster
03-07-2017, 06:13 PM #1,621
dclements Member
Posts:293 Threads:28 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 #1,622
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:41,156 Threads:1,535 Joined:Feb 2011
It's the 6th anniversary today

04-03-2017, 07:59 PM #1,623
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,015 Threads:441 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.


I hope safety measures have been implemented on the reactors they restarted.
Random German Guy Show this Post
04-17-2017, 06:56 PM #1,624
Random German Guy Incognito Anonymous
Quote:Radiation Levels in Fukushima Reach New Heights, Scientists Claim

It is very disconcerting to learn the radiation levels inside the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant are anything but safe. In fact, the scientists tasked with monitoring the situation declared these levels are “deadly” to biotic life. According to local newspapers, the water samples show 11 sieverts per hour, which is the highest level of radiation detected in water in the containment vessel so far.

To put this number into perspective, radiation at the strength of eight sieverts will undoubtedly result in death, regardless of any treatment plans. This unit, designed to indicate the dose of radiation in a specific location, is a valuable indicator in determining how safe a location is. Right now, Fukushima is a place everyone should avoid like the plague, by the look of things. Dealing with double digits on the sieverts scale is not a positive development by any means.

Read more: https://themerkle.com/radiation-levels-i...sts-claim/
ohnobody Show this Post
04-26-2017, 01:33 AM #1,625
ohnobody Incognito Anonymous
I Know this isn't pinned nemore but...
Kinda feel it shouldn't slip off the front page, Hence the bump.
NOTE: Worth reading thru the archives!



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