Fukushima, No Cause for Alarm

Doer

Well-Known Member
All this released material ADDS UP. It is not like hydrocarbon which dissipates. We release this material all the time and it only takes an extra 15% of flux above background to get to UN-inhabitable.

At least 50 accidents in the USA alone. Did anyone know that? We release 1000 year gamma emmiters all the time. Just 2 weeks ago at Susquehanna. But, they act like it is better that hydrocarbon. But, unlike the HCOx and NOx, this stuff ALL ADDS UP. Dangerous for a 1000 years or much much more. We release these gamma death ray sources and say so what! "Harmlessly into the atmosphere..." NO WAY, NEVER GOES AWAY.

This is how many killed....Zero and how much money... a lot in millions. But, not how MUCH RELEASE. And it all ADDS UP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
February 1, 2010Montpelier, Vermont, USDeteriorating underground pipes from the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant leak radioactive tritium into groundwater supplies0700
January 7, 2010Buchanan, New York, USANRC inspectors reported that an estimated 600,000 gallons of mildly radioactive steam was intentionally vented after an automatic shutdown of Indian Point Energy Center Unit 2. The levels of tritium in the steam were below those allowable by NRC safety standards.[SUP][25][/SUP]0-
March 6, 2006Erwin, Tennessee, USANuclear fuel services plant spills 35 litres of highly enriched uranium, necessitating 7-month shutdown098
August 4, 2005Buchanan, New York, USAEntergy’s Indian Point Energy Center Nuclear Plant leaks tritium and strontium into underground lakes from 1974 to 200530
June 16, 2005Braidwood, Illinois, USAExelon’s Braidwood nuclear station leaks tritium and contaminates local water supplies041
January 15, 2003Bridgman, Michigan, USAA fault in the main transformer at the Donald C. Cook nuclear power plant causes a fire that damages the main generator and back-up turbines010
February 16, 2002Oak Harbor, Ohio, USSevere corrosion of control rod forces 24-month outage of Davis-Besse reactor0143
September 29, 1999Lower Alloways Creek, New Jersey, USAMajor Freon leak at Hope Creek Nuclear Facility causes ventilation train chiller to trip, releasing toxic gas and damaging the colling system02
May 25, 1999Waterford, Connecticut, USASteam leak in feed-water heater causes manual shutdown and damage to control board annunicator at the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant07
September 9, 1997Bridgman, Michigan, USAIce condenser containment systems fail at Cook Units 1 and 2011
September 20, 1996Senaca, Illinois, USAService water system fails and results in closure of LaSalle Units 1 and 2 for more than 2 years071
September 5, 1996Clinton, Illinois, USAReactor recirculation pump fails, prompting shut down of Clinton boiling water reactor038
September 2, 1996Crystal River, Florida, USBalance-of-plant equipment malfunction forces shutdown and extensive repairs at Crystal River Unit 30384
February 20, 1996Waterford, Connecticut, USLeaking valve forces shutdown Millstone Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2, multiple equipment failures found0254
May 16, 1995Salem, New Jersey, USAVentilation systems fail at Salem Units 1 and 2034
14 January 1995Wiscasset, Maine, USASteam generator tubes unexpectedly crack at Maine Yankee nuclear reactor; shut down of the facility for a year062
December 25, 1993Newport, Michigan, USAShut down of Fermi Unit 2 after main turbine experienced major failure due to improper maintenance067
March 2, 1993Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee, USAEquipment failures and broken pipes cause shut down of Sequoyah Unit 103
February 27, 1993Buchanan, New York, USANew York Power Authority shuts down Indian Point Energy Center Unit 3 after AMSAC system fails02
February 3, 1993Bay City, Texas, USAAuxiliary feed-water pumps fail at South Texas Project Units 1 and 2, prompting rapid shutdown of both reactors03
April 21, 1992Southport, North Carolina, USANRC forces shut down of Brunswick Units 1 and 2 after emergency diesel generators fail02
November 17, 1991Scriba, New York, USASafety and fire problems force shut down of the FitzPatrick nuclear reactor for 13 months05
March 17, 1989Lusby, Maryland, USInspections at Calvert Cliff Units 1 and 2 reveal cracks at pressurized heater sleeves, forcing extended shutdowns0120
March 5, 1989Tonopah, Arizona, USAAtmospheric dump valves fail at Palo Verde Unit 1, leading to main transformer fire and emergency shutdown014
September 10, 1988Surry, Virginia, USARefuelling cavity seal fails and destroys internal pipe system at Surry Unit 2, forcing 12-month outage09
December 19, 1987Lycoming, New York, USMalfunctions force Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation to shut down Nine Mile Point Unit 10150
March 31, 1987Delta, Pennsylvania, USPeach Bottom units 2 and 3 shutdown due to cooling malfunctions and unexplained equipment problems0400
April 11, 1986Plymouth, Massachusetts, USRecurring equipment problems force emergency shutdown of Boston Edison’s Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant01,001
March 9, 1985Athens, Alabama, USInstrumentation systems malfunction during start-up, which led to suspension of operations at all three Browns Ferry Units01,830
September 15, 1984Athens, Alabama, USSafety violations, operator error, and design problems force six year outage at Browns Ferry Unit 20110
February 26, 1983Fort Pierce, Florida, USADamaged thermal shield and core barrel support at St Lucie Unit 1, necessitating 13-month shutdown054
February 12, 1983Fork River, New Jersey, USAOyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant fails safety inspection, forced to shut down for repairs032
June 18, 1982Senaca, South Carolina, USAFeedwater heat extraction line fails at Oconee 2 Pressurised Water Reactor, damaging thermal cooling system010
March 25, 1982Buchanan, New York, USADamage to steam generator tubes and main generator resulting in a shut down Indian Point Energy Center Unit 3 for more than a year056
March 20, 1982Lycoming, New York, USARecirculation system piping fails at Nine Mile Point Unit 1, forcing two year shutdown045
October 17, 1981Buchanan, New York, USA100,000 gallons of Hudson River water leaked into the Indian Point Energy Center Unit 2 containment building from the fan cooling unit, undetected by a safety device designed to detect hot water. The flooding, covering the first 9 feet of the reactor vessel, was discovered when technicians entered the building. Two pumps which should have removed the water were found to be inoperative. NRC proposed a $210,000 fine for the incident.[SUP][24][/SUP]0-
March 28, 1979Middletown, Pennsylvania, USLoss of coolant and partial core meltdown, see Three Mile Island accident and Three Mile Island accident health effects02,4005
February 4, 1979Surry, Virginia, USASurry Unit 2 shut down in response to failing tube bundles in steam generators012
June 10, 1977Waterford, Connecticut, USAHydrogen gas explosion damages three buildings and forces shutdown of Millstone-1 Pressurized Water Reactor015
November 5, 1975Brownsville, Nebraska, USAHydrogen gas explosion damages the Cooper Nuclear Facility’s Boiling Water Reactor and an auxiliary building013
March 22, 1975Browns Ferry, Alabama, USAFire burns for seven hours and damages more than 1600 control cables for three nuclear reactors at Browns Ferry, disabling core cooling systems0240
August 11, 1973Palisades, Michigan, USASteam generator leak causes manual shutdown of pressurized water reactor010
October 5, 1966Monroe, Michigan, USASodium cooling system malfunctions at Enrico Fermi demonstration breeder reactor causing partial core meltdown019
January 3, 1961Idaho Falls, Idaho, USExplosion at National Reactor Testing Station's SL-1 Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One322
July 26, 1959Simi Valley, California, USAPartial core meltdown at Santa Susana Field Laboratory’s Sodium Reactor Experiment032
November 29, 1955Idaho Falls, Idaho, USPower excursion with partial core meltdown at National Reactor Testing Station's EBR-1 Experimental Breeder Reactor I05
 

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
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.
bwahh . . . .
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
It's still just taking carbon from one source instead of another, no point saying you'll quit the drink but youre allowed to drink vodka...
don't you understand the carbon cycle?

or the difference between taking carbon from air and returning it to air and taking carbon from the ground and releasing into the air?

Those 2 things are totally the same right?
 

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Dude you have been arguing with posted a debri field that took , I think over a year to reach pacific coast

But you say 2 months, must have been some aerodynamic debri
ERROR: Checksum Fail

Run FindAnswer.!poot /wtf

loading...


Return: http://web.mit.edu/hml/ncfmf.html Oh yeah, hardening nipples...

Nothing says "winner" like some weed and Fluid Mechanics videos on a Wednesday night, am I right?

...




I am right, aren't I? I heard all the cool people are doing it now...Unless they lied to me... and by they I mean them...
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
don't you understand the carbon cycle?

or the difference between taking carbon from air and returning it to air and taking carbon from the ground and releasing into the air?

Those 2 things are totally the same right?
If you grow loads of new Ganga plants to absorb CO2, but then burn the Ganga for energy (releasing back the CO2) then you're having absolutely zero net reduction in CO2 levels due to a growing population and ever more CO2 being produced.

And technically speaking, the hydrocarbons in the ground was once in the air too ;)
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Dude you have been arguing with posted a debri field that took , I think over a year to reach pacific coast

But you say 2 months, must have been some aerodynamic debri
No, there was a big whirlwind and a Japanese house fell in my back yard. Then a puff of smoke and a green hag stood up....I tell ya, it was weird.

And she said, (in English!???!!) "If you think we are arguing about this shit, you have not been listening. What difference could it possibly make at this point."

Two years after a deadly tsunami swept ashore in Japan, killing more than 15,000 people, solemn reminders of the disaster are still washing ashore in Hawaii and along the Pacific coast of North America. The tsunami debris, sometimes identifiable by serial numbers, includes boats, docks, appliance parts and fishing buoys.


Vast expanses of floating debris have slowly been making their way across the Pacific since the powerful tsunami swept inland across swathes of eastern Japan in March. More than nine months after the disaster, oceonographers have located what is believed to be the first debris washed up onto the shores of the West Coast of the US.


Floating rubbish islands stretching dozens of miles in length have been spotted slowly edging away from Japan and towards the West Coast since the immediate aftermath of the March 11 disaster. From entire segments of wooden homes, furniture and appliances to cars and boats, the rubbish islands are creating growing concern due to environmental pollution as well as shipping hazards. The possibility of human bodies being included in the debris is also high, bearing in mind the thousands of victims of the disaster who are still missing, believed to have been swept out to sea. The main body of floating tsunami debris is expected to hit US shores in around a year, stretching the length of the coastline from California to Alaska, according to experts



So, I will correct my typo from 2 to a few, OK? Or not. Who cares?

You can argue with yourself. :)
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
If you grow loads of new Ganga plants to absorb CO2, but then burn the Ganga for energy (releasing back the CO2) then you're having absolutely zero net reduction in CO2 levels due to a growing population and ever more CO2 being produced.

And technically speaking, the hydrocarbons in the ground was once in the air too ;)
CO2 is not a pollutant. This argument to me is based solely on the fact that they can distinguish via carbon dating the Man made particles. Lucky for their politics. They could not do that with Methane so they had to switch to a human marker. They found Carbon13 or 12 or something to differentiate between volcanic carbon, for example.

So, for most non-thinks it is hard to see the leap. It is hard to see the bad science.

When we burn ganja we make "bad" CO2 and that makes us "bad" people.

Bad science says.....blame Big Oil. How can we do that? And if a bunch of people already hate big oil, it is much easier.

You take a problem and search not for reasons, but for Blame. You find two unrelated trends and relate them using bad logic.

If the earth is warming what can cause that? OK best to pick CO2 for a lot of reasons, but it was not the first choice, that was cow gas.

OK, When you find the human maker and show that is increasing then just close you eyes and link that to the warming trend.

Simple. No thought or science is required.
 

VTMi'kmaq

Well-Known Member
No, there was a big whirlwind and a Japanese house fell in my back yard. Then a puff of smoke and a green hag stood up....I tell ya, it was weird.

And she said, (in English!???!!) "If you think we are arguing about this shit, you have not been listening. What difference could it possibly make at this point."

Two years after a deadly tsunami swept ashore in Japan, killing more than 15,000 people, solemn reminders of the disaster are still washing ashore in Hawaii and along the Pacific coast of North America. The tsunami debris, sometimes identifiable by serial numbers, includes boats, docks, appliance parts and fishing buoys.


Vast expanses of floating debris have slowly been making their way across the Pacific since the powerful tsunami swept inland across swathes of eastern Japan in March. More than nine months after the disaster, oceonographers have located what is believed to be the first debris washed up onto the shores of the West Coast of the US.


Floating rubbish islands stretching dozens of miles in length have been spotted slowly edging away from Japan and towards the West Coast since the immediate aftermath of the March 11 disaster. From entire segments of wooden homes, furniture and appliances to cars and boats, the rubbish islands are creating growing concern due to environmental pollution as well as shipping hazards. The possibility of human bodies being included in the debris is also high, bearing in mind the thousands of victims of the disaster who are still missing, believed to have been swept out to sea. The main body of floating tsunami debris is expected to hit US shores in around a year, stretching the length of the coastline from California to Alaska, according to experts



So, I will correct my typo from 2 to a few, OK? Or not. Who cares?

You can argue with yourself. :)
the WHOLE damn coastline?
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
CO2 is not a pollutant. This argument to me is based solely on the fact that they can distinguish via carbon dating the Man made particles. Lucky for their politics. They could not do that with Methane so they had to switch to a human marker. They found Carbon13 or 12 or something to differentiate between volcanic carbon, for example.

So, for most non-thinks it is hard to see the leap. It is hard to see the bad science.

When we burn ganja we make "bad" CO2 and that makes us "bad" people.

Bad science says.....blame Big Oil. How can we do that? And if a bunch of people already hate big oil, it is much easier.

You take a problem and search not for reasons, but for Blame. You find two unrelated trends and relate them using bad logic.

If the earth is warming what can cause that? OK best to pick CO2 for a lot of reasons, but it was not the first choice, that was cow gas.

OK, When you find the human maker and show that is increasing then just close you eyes and link that to the warming trend.

Simple. No thought or science is required.
methane isn't being ignored

[h=1]Overview of Greenhouse Gases[/h]
[h=2]Methane Emissions[/h]

[h=5]ON THIS PAGE[/h]


Chemical FormulaCH[SUB]4[/SUB]
Lifetime in Atmosphere12 years
Global Warming Potential (100-year)21

Properties of Methane
[h=5]U.S. Methane Emissions, By Source[/h]
Note: All emission estimates from the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011.

Methane (CH[SUB]4[/SUB]) is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted in the United States from human activities. In 2011, CH[SUB]4[/SUB] accounted for about 9% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Methane is emitted by natural sources such as wetlands, as well as human activities such as leakage from natural gas systems and the raising of livestock. Natural processes in soil and chemical reactions in the atmosphere help remove CH[SUB]4[/SUB] from the atmosphere. Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO[SUB]2[/SUB]), but CH[SUB]4[/SUB] is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH[SUB]4[/SUB] on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO[SUB]2[/SUB] over a 100-year period.
Globally, over 60% of total CH[SUB]4[/SUB] emissions come from human activities.[SUP] [1] [/SUP]Methane is emitted from industry, agriculture, and waste management activities, described below.

  • Industry. Natural gas and petroleum systems are the largest source of CH[SUB]4[/SUB] emissions from industry in the United States. Methane is the primary component of natural gas. Some CH[SUB]4[/SUB] is emitted to the atmosphere during the production, processing, storage, transmission, and distribution of natural gas. Because gas is often found alongside petroleum, the production, refinement, transportation, and storage of crude oil is also a source of CH[SUB]4[/SUB] emissions. For more information, see theInventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks sections on Natural Gas Systems and Petroleum Systems.
  • Agriculture. Domestic livestock such as cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and camels produce large amounts of CH[SUB]4[/SUB] as part of their normal digestive process. Also, when animals' manure is stored or managed in lagoons or holding tanks, CH[SUB]4[/SUB] is produced. Because humans raise these animals for food, the emissions are considered human-related. Globally, the Agriculture sector is the primary source of CH[SUB]4[/SUB] emissions. For more information, see the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks Agriculture chapter.
  • Waste from Homes and Businesses. Methane is generated in landfills as waste decomposes and in the treatment of wastewater. Landfills are the third largest source of CH[SUB]4[/SUB] emissions in the United States. For more information see the U.S. Inventory's Waste chapter.
Methane is also emitted from a number of natural sources. Wetlands are the largest source, emitting CH[SUB]4[/SUB] from bacteria that decompose organic materials in the absence of oxygen. Smaller sources include termites, oceans, sediments, volcanoes, and wildfires.
To find out more about the role of CH[SUB]4[/SUB] in warming the atmosphere, and its sources, visit the Causes of Climate Change page and the Greenhouse Gas Indicators page in the Science section.
Top of page
[h=3]Emissions and Trends[/h]Methane (CH[SUB]4[/SUB]) emissions in the United States decreased by 8% between 1990 and 2011. During this time period, emissions increased from sources associated with agricultural activities, while emissions decreased from sources associated with the exploration and production of natural gas and petroleum products.
[h=5]U.S. Methane Emissions, 1990-2011[/h]
Note: All emission estimates from the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011.

Top of page
[h=3]Reducing Methane Emissions[/h]There are a number of ways to reduce methane (CH[SUB]4[/SUB]) emissions. EPA has a series of voluntary programs for reducing CH[SUB]4[/SUB]emissions. Some examples are discussed below.
Emissions SourceHow Emissions Can be Reduced
Industry
Upgrading the equipment used to produce, store, and transport oil and gas can reduce many of the leaks that contribute to CH[SUB]4[/SUB] emissions. Methane from coal mines can also be captured and used for energy. Learn more about the EPA's Natural Gas STAR Program and Coalbed Methane Outreach Program.
Agriculture
Methane can be reduced and captured by altering manure management strategies at livestock operations or animal feeding practices. Learn more about these strategiesand EPA's AgSTAR Program.
Waste from Homes and Businesses
Because CH[SUB]4[/SUB] emissions from landfill gas are a major source of CH[SUB]4[/SUB] emissions in the United States, emission controls that capture landfill CH[SUB]4[/SUB] are an effective reduction strategy. Learn more about these opportunities and the EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program.

Examples of Reduction Opportunities for Methane
Top of page
[h=3]References[/h]1. EPA (2010). Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Natural Sources . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
2. U.S. Department of State (2007). Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In: Fourth Climate Action Report to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change . U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, USA.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
the WHOLE damn coastline?
If it is a serious question, what do you even mean?

Here it is from Earth First. It is a big problem. Earth First is against GMO, totally AGW and raising the FUK alarm.
http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2013/03/19/the-truth-about-radiation-and-the-fukushima-meltdowns/
Ya'll should listen.
“A comprehensive review of available biological and biophysical data supports a “linear-no-threshold” (LNT) risk model—that the risk of cancer proceeds in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and that the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans.”

And it ALL ADDS UP.
 

VTMi'kmaq

Well-Known Member
I wasn't aware that the current could possibly blanket the entire coastline from mexico to Alaska so I apologize for not sounding more in tune with the previous discussion I was just amazed by the info you guys threw in the last 2 pages. So it was a question and an exclamation, for anyone I upset or offended I apologize now!
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
I wasn't aware that the current could possibly blanket the entire coastline from mexico to Alaska so I apologize for not sounding more in tune with the previous discussion I was just amazed by the info you guys threw in the last 2 pages. So it was a question and an exclamation, for anyone I upset or offended I apologize now!
I just want to know who is up for the discussions, that's all. The ocean currents are the most important system on earth for humans. The deep ocean ones are the least understood. It is very 3D environment just like air. And air moves in currents and layers, pockets and streams, just like the ocean currents.

Here on the West Coast of America the water is killer cold because it comes from the North and that has come from the West and it is called the Japan current from Japan. :) BTW, this map turned sideways for some reason. North is left.



 

VTMi'kmaq

Well-Known Member
seeing that displayed the way you have makes my understanding of tidal and current changes a lot more easy. That and I can truly understand why certain species of fish frequent certain areas more than others, for example where two or three currents can meet like Hawaii, I thought I saw a oceans special on an area there where the currents meet and its a smorgasboard of sealife not unlike galapogos. Or am I confused ad its the galapogos? lol?
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
seeing that displayed the way you have makes my understanding of tidal and current changes a lot more easy. That and I can truly understand why certain species of fish frequent certain areas more than others, for example where two or three currents can meet like Hawaii, I thought I saw a oceans special on an area there where the currents meet and its a smorgasboard of sealife not unlike galapogos. Or am I confused ad its the galapogos? lol?
Well, that is it. Galapagos and other chains like Hawaii can lift the bottom edge of the surface currents and bring up nutes for sea life.

BTW, here is a treatment on the wonder of nuke power from 1990. And it attempts to equate, oil and coal pollution to the nuke waste question. And I do agree except I cannot ignore the black heart of man, like the Thinkers do. And I agree it has a very simple solution.

But, a simple solution that cannot be accomplished for whatever reason, is sort of meaningless to me. And, true glass will dissolve in sea water, but, it is 400 years at least, before we see even surface pitting.

So, if we did lock up these particles in glass, whereas the glass will last until the radio-material is inert, why are are we not even thinking about that? Melt the sand and spent fuel from heat you get from a molten sodium loop on the reactor's power. Easy peazy. I used to be all for this, back when this paper was written.

Transportation and dumping in the ocean is legal. As a sailor I know I can dump glass just about anywhere but a harbor. Why don't we? We can't agree to do it. The black heart of man.
-----------------------
For nuclear waste, a simple, quick, and easy disposal method would be to convert the waste into a glass — a technology that is well in hand — and simply drop it into the ocean at random locations.[SUP]5[/SUP] No one can claim that we don't know how to do that! With this disposal, the waste produced by one power plant in one year would eventually cause an average total of 0.6 fatalities, spread out over many millions of years, by contaminating seafood. Incidentally, this disposal technique would do no harm to ocean ecology. In fact, if all the world's electricity were produced by nuclear power and all the waste generated for the next hundred years were dumped in the ocean, the radiation dose to sea animals would never be increased by as much as 1% above its present level from natural radioactivity.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.html
 

rustyshaclkferd

Well-Known Member
What difference could it possibly make at this point."

.

So, I will correct my typo from 2 to a few, OK? Or not. Who cares?. :)

It seems to show that you will lie about anecdotal experience or proof/expierence just to try to win a point in a argument


Please proceed to do whatever, it's entertaining to watch strangers lie to prove non existing points
 
Top