Fukushima, No Cause for Alarm

Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
Ah I see. So only liberals can be assholes is what you are saying. Basically calling me an asshole for asking about your views on the damage the radiation will cause if they can't keep cooling the rods.

So the Japanese are just building a 400 million dollar ice wall for funsies? Those silly asians.
Click to expand...
Well, China is throwing fits in the Diplomatic channels.

Think of the idiots that are Sky Falling AGW panics and exposed to this topic. Well what would be the motive for down playing a nuke accident that is already level 3?

Is it Big Oil they queer their minds about. Of course.

The way out of Big Oil, is AGW and Nuke Power. They have to support this horror.

TOO FUNNY
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Well, China is throwing fits in the Diplomatic channels.

Think of the idiots that are Sky Falling AGW panics and exposed to this topic. Well what would be the motive for down playing a nuke accident that is already level 3?

Is it Big Oil they queer their minds about. Of course.

The way out of Big Oil, is AGW and Nuke Power. They have to support this horror.

TOO FUNNY
Click to expand...
not joining in your hysterics is down playing it?

being realistic is down playing it?
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
ricky1lung said:
Im just wondering what the general consensus on nuclear power is now.

Chern wasn't enough of a disaster to kill the nuclear power profit train, now the force of
nature takes out another facility and is showing a larger scale of harm.

When does the potential of disaster out weigh profits?

The ease of disaster is actually too easy, from computer virus to severe storms, why would anyone want to be powered by
or living in proximity to nuclear power. Really what do you gain by promoting the power when it can be produced by other means.
Click to expand...
You need them for weapons and nuke boats. They are not the greatest power generators, considering the long term poison production.

And in the USA, we are still running quite a few.

No AGW, means we don't have to rush into more NUKES. That really browns the stains.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
You need them for weapons and nuke boats. They are not the greatest power generators, considering the long term poison production.

And in the USA, we are still running quite a few.

No AGW, means we don't have to rush into more NUKES. That really browns the stains.
Click to expand...

nuclear is the cleanest/ least enviromental impact power source we have


its just some people are shit scared of what they dont understand
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
I can ignore the road kill. Always have. I avert my eyes, since I was a kid. Plenty of meat available if we ignore the skids marks also. If Fukushima blows the same day the Climate Report is announced it would be a cruel blow to all Stains.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201308240067
Concentrations of radioactive tritium in seawater from the port of the stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant have risen between eight and 18 times in one week, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Aug. 23.


It seems highly likely that the contaminated water is spreading into the sea beyond the port.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
I can ignore the road kill. Always have. I avert my eyes, since I was a kid. Plenty of meat available if we ignore the skids marks also. If Fukushima blows the same day the Climate Report is announced it would be a cruel blow to all Stains.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201308240067
Concentrations of radioactive tritium in seawater from the port of the stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant have risen between eight and 18 times in one week, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Aug. 23.


It seems highly likely that the contaminated water is spreading into the sea beyond the port.
Click to expand...
The first is that the Pacific Ocean is big enough for this level of release not to represent the global catastrophe that some are predicting. Let’s get some scoping perspective on this. The volume of the North Pacific is 300 million cubic kilometers. The total inventory of the four Fukushima Daiichi reactors, including their spent fuel pools, is 732 tons of Uranium and Plutonium fuel which is largely insoluble in sea water. The inventory in terms of the medium half-life nuclides of radiological significance Cs-137, Cs-134 and Strontium-90, is 3 x 1018 becquerels (Bq) each. Adding these up gives about 1019 Bq. If we dissolve that entire amount into the Pacific, we get a mean concentration of 33 Bq per cubic meter - not great, but not lethal. Of course this is ridiculous since the catastrophe released less than 1017 Bq of these combined nuclides and even if all of this ends up in the sea (which it may do), the overall dilution will result in a concentration of 1 Bq per cubic meter. So the people in California can relax. In fact, the contamination of California and indeed the rest of the planet from the global weapons test fallout of 1959-1962 was far worse, and resulted in the cancer epidemic which began in 1980
Click to expand...


http://rt.com/op-edge/tepco-fukushima-sea-water-reactor-194/
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Oh course we are not talk about anything but possiblities. But, we can ignore the hand waving of Agenda.

Agenda claims AGW with no evidence

Agenda claims nuke plants are safe and clean. What about those tons of Radio-poisons that are stored on site?
And the new tons next week, and every time any plant on earth changes the fuel rods. More tons of hot shit.

The not quite so hot shit, cloths, tools, benches, appliances, etc, are also stored on site.

And here we have reactors that were damaged by GAWD, and will never operate again. They sit for earthquake and tsunami. And they sit and wait for the Dark Heart of Man to terrorize us.

They may, in just a few years blow up, and there is nothing to be done about that. Painted into a corner.

But, Nukes are SAFE.....the Stains say so. The Stains will object but never reference anything.

The Stains lack the math and the brains to understand it.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
****snipped unsupported rant ****
Click to expand...
assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

no form of power generation is 100% safe

however nuclear is the best of a bad bunch (by a long way)

there is a big problem with the old style nukes that were designed to produce weapons grade material alongside power

however burner/ breeder reators can use that waste

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


now if it wasnt for hysterical luddites we could start going about fixing the problem
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
Well I never said the world would end. I simply popped in the thread because people were finally talking about fukushima again.

So because America is not in danger, it is not worth discussing?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go that far. I live 3 days away on the Jet Stream. We had house parts and other tidal debris show up here within 2 months.

The world doesn't end in extinction events. It just keeps on spinning.

It is funny for the AGW side that they claim that Man can kill the climate when we cannot.

And they claim that Nuke Power won't poison the planet, but it already is.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
I wouldn't go that far. I live 3 days away on the Jet Stream. We had house parts and other tidal debris show up here within 2 months.

The world doesn't end in extinction events. It just keeps on spinning.

It is funny for the AGW side that they claim that Man can kill the climate when we cannot.

And they claim that Nuke Power won't poison the planet, but it already is.
Click to expand...
2 months? lying again doer?
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Well, let us scope the problem.

No provable AGW, but they want these poison generators to increase poison output to kill Big Oil....nothing else matters.

Poison? Yes, heavy metal? The heaviest. Persistent poison? Yes. Hundreds of thousand of years, ALREADY.

Can be neutralized? NO.

A type of poison that can kill from a distance, and slowly....oh yes. Used already for Terror? Yes.

Well, there can't be that much, can there? Say wha???? I get the facts were they are. This tries to equate
the volume, only, of waste, compared to other fuel and say the volume is smaller. Retards' arguments.

Sophistry, of course. The volume does not matter, only there persistence. And that means that equate these radiation threats to CO2 and AGW.

FALSE! See how the stupid can claim equivilance and fight Big Oil only after they invent the argument to prop up Nuke waste.

[h=2]How much waste is produced?[/h] As already noted, the volume of nuclear waste produced by the nuclear industry is very small compared with other wastes generated. Each year, nuclear power generation facilities worldwide produce about 200,000 m[SUP]3[/SUP] of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste, and about 10,000 m[SUP]3[/SUP] of high-level waste including used fuel designated as waste[SUP]1[/SUP].


In the OECD countries, some 300 million tonnes of toxic wastes are produced each year, but conditioned radioactive wastes amount to only 81,000 m[SUP]3[/SUP] per year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top