chassis Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Read any and all of these articles for more info. On Tuesday, Japanese officials declared the crisis at the Fukushima plant a "major accident," and changed its severity rating from 5 to 7 -- the highest level on an international scale overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency. But a senior official with the IAEA said the rating change does not mean the Japan situation is comparable to Chernobyl. "This is a totally different accident," the IAEA's Denis Flory told a news conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dirty Protest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Was reading about this last night, but cant remember the source or link. This this not a post-classification for the when it was at its worst? So theyre saying that the first few days were as bad as Chernobyl, when clearly they werent. If I can remember where I read this I'll link it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chassis Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 As far as I could tell form a few articles is that the scale is completely useless, as every incident is completely different and you cant compare them. Why even bother having a scale at all then? Fear mongering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atop Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Fear mongering? I have been scared since I first heard about the Fukushima Daiichi plant incident... and also knew that the govt and the media would not be reporting the whole truth until it was too late... Civil unrest vs. an ignorant public... will we know if an asteroid is going to hit earth months in advance? why should we know the truth if we will all suffer from something inevitable and horrific? The public does panic and the govts cannot control this without using violent force... I would rather know in advance but most people cannot handle situations like this without losing their shit. a catch 22 but not fear mongering, this needs no bothering to be anymore frightening than it already is, whatever the nuclear disaster rating system is, it doesn't matter... this situation is awful and will only get worse... http://cryptome.org/info/nuclear-protest/nuclear-protest.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chassis Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 Nuclear power is the only legitimate answer to serving the whole world with power. So either that or once fossil fuels run out we all go back to the stone age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dirty Protest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Cant remember if this was posted on another thread or was it similar George Monboit http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world . Probably best to read up about him, incase you think hes some sort of stooge for the NWO. This isnt the link about the classification, but sometimes theres so much news coming in, I think im going to hemorrhage. I miss Teletext. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 the only reason that this is on a par with chernobyl on the scale is cos the scale stops at 7. if there was an 8 or 9, chernobyl would be 8 or 9, to simplify to an extreme degree. radiation release so far at fukushima (which is a difficult thing to quantify, because we're talking about a variable release over time) is approx. 1/10 that of chernobyl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chassis Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 Ye, pretty much what Kaini said. They should do that now though. Just so people dont shit themselves when they think we have another Chernobyl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atop Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 do we have all of the info yet on the human casualties that will come of this? and anyone that say Nuclear Energy is clean is a fucking idiot! so chassis, I love you man, but come on! Throwing radioactive waste into the ocean is not an answer to any of the concerns about alternative energy sources and this is what happens when a nuclear plant fails, THAT HAPPENS TO BE RIGHT NEXT A FAULT LINE AND THE OCEAN....this is what just happened at Fukushima Daiichi! Workers have gotten burned by the waste water, are most likely sick or will be made sick by the radiation. Too much of Japan is now radioactive so I do not see how Nuclear Power is safe. Windmills are safe but an eyesore. And solar energy needs better advancements, which there have been for amplifying the energy taken in by them. How is boiling water with radioactive material safe?!?!?! We need to focus on anything, anything besides burning something, using radioactivity, or digging giant holes into the earth to provide electricity. It makes sense. We are more intelligent than the economic system that controls what we buy. the only problem being. EVERYONE IS TOO APATHETIC TO DO A GODDAMN THING ABOUT ANY OF IT! FUCK OPEC FUCK HALIBURTON FUCK NUKES I AM MOVING TO THE WOODS LAST POST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 and anyone that say Nuclear Energy is clean is a fucking idiot! http://io9.com/#!5783526/what-is-the-worst-kind-of-power-plant-disaster-hint-its-not-nuclear Media coverage of the Japan nuclear reactor leak makes it seem like the worst kind of power plant disaster that you would ever face. But when you look at the actual statistics and history of similar disasters, nuclear power plants are not the most dangerous energy sources - even when terrible accidents happen. The disaster in Japan is horrific, and we aren't trying to say it isn't a terrible situation. The question we're trying to answer rationally here is whether nuclear power plant accidents cause more damage than other kinds of power plants. We've put together a list of five of the worst power plant disasters in recent history, measured by death toll, monetary damage, and regions affected. The lesson? The issue isn't so much the kind of energy you use, but how you design the power plants that contain it. As you can see, when accidents happen, the deadliest and costliest source of energy is water - especially when it's held back by poorly-designed dams. The Chernobyl disaster doesn't come close to the damage done when a dam at a hydroelectric plant bursts. Oil and natural gas are among the most expensive energy sources in terms of damage done. In addition, we have only measured the cost to human life here. The Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill - both enormously expensive oil industry disasters - destroyed enormous amounts of wildlife on land and in the water, even if the human toll was low. 1975: Shimantan/Banqiao Dam Failure Type of power: Hydroelectric Human lives lost: 171,000 Cost: $8,700,000,000 What happened: Shimantan Dam in China's Henan province fails and releases 15.738 billion tons of water, causing widespread flooding that destroys 18 villages and 1500 homes and induces disease epidemics and famine 1979: Morvi Dam Failure Type of power: Hydroelectric Human lives lost: 1500 (estimated) Cost: $1,024,000,000 What happened: Torrential rain and unprecidented flooding caused the Machchu-2 dam, situated on the Machhu river, to burst. This sent a wall of water through the town of Morvi in the Indian State of Gujarat. 1998: Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Jess Oil Pipeline Explosion Type of power: Oil Human lives lost: 1,078 Cost: $54,000,000 What happened:Petroleum pipeline ruptures and explodes, destroying two villages and hundreds of villagers scavenging gasoline. 1944: East Ohio Gas Company Type of power: Liquified natural gas (LNG) Human lives lost: 130 Cost: $890,000,000 What happened: Explosion at LNG facility destroys one square mile of Cleveland, OH. 1907: Monongah Coal Mine Type of power: Coal Human lives lost: 362 Cost: $162,000,000 What happened: Underground explosion traps workers and destroys railroad bridges leading into the mine. Compare these to: 1986: Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Type of power: Nuclear Human lives lost: 4,056 (Source for this number: United Nations Scientific Subcommittee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) Cost: $6,700,000,000 What happened: Mishandled reactor safety test at Chernobyl nuclear reactor causes steam explosion and meltdown, necessitating the evacuation of 300,000 people from Kiev, Ukraine and dispersing radioactive materials across Europe. NOTE: Monetary damage is measured in 1996 US dollars, except in accidents since that time measured in the dollar values of that year. A lot of this research was based on public policy professor Andrew Sovacool's extremely informative monograph "The Accidental Century," which looks at power plant disasters in the twentieth century in great detail. Another good resource is this 1998 report from PSI, a Swiss engineering institute, which (as Robert Gonzalez points out in comments) explores the risks of various power systems as well as the long-term effects of accidents in the energy industry. figures in this are slightly out of date. but not that much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 as an aside, the irish sea (between england and ireland) is the most radioactive sea in the world, due to some... poorly judged... actions by the UK in the 70s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chassis Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 Im not saying Nuclear Energy is clean, of course we have to deal with radioactive material. If were so intelligent then I dont know how we didnt see this coming (oh wait, wasnt there a wiki leaks on this??) Wind energy is fantastic and shit at the same time. Its so goddamn easy to harvest but when is it windiest? At like 5 in the morning when you have 10% of your population using electricity. What we really need is an efficient way to store energy, then we'd be sorted. We have dams, but right now it cost an ass load to build em and a fuck load of space to make em. Not to mention hippies who'll complain about the natural beauty and shit. Its either clean energy or pretty energy you cant have it both ways. People are unwilling to compromise when it comes to natural beauty. Ireland has plans to build a load of dams in the west of the country but they only thing stopping them is (well was, before the recession) was the "natural beauty" police saying it would destroy tourism. If we had these dams we could store wind energy and almost rely on that shit most of the time. Instead we sell it to the UK and a fraction of the cost, and we get nuclear energy in return. So there you have it Atop, we could be more thrifty with our energy. But you have politicians and retard media stopping logical growth of the market. So dont look at me when I say nuclear is the best bet. Its only the best bet when you cant get retards out of the way of the more logical plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Im not saying Nuclear Energy is clean, of course we have to deal with radioactive material. If were so intelligent then I dont know how we didnt see this coming (oh wait, wasnt there a wiki leaks on this??) the amount of radioactive waste produced is absolutely fucking tiny compared to oil/coal powered plants (don't forget, all that smoke from oil/coal is a suspension of dirty horrible shit in air - if you were to condense it down it's tonnes and tonnes of waste). what waste is produced from modern breeder plants is mostly recycled as fuel, and whatever isn't is basically turned into radioactive glass that can be stored in drums through a process called vitrification. that's not to say that long term storage isn't a problem for this relatively small amount of waste. some european country is researching which places are far, far away from any sort of faultline so they can drill a big hole and drop it in there. some other country is researching a plan to drop waste into the marianis trench (not so cool). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dirty Protest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 as an aside, the irish sea (between england and ireland) is the most radioactive sea in the world, due to some... poorly judged... actions by the UK in the 70s. Thatll explain my freakishly big penis then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chassis Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 Im not saying Nuclear Energy is clean, of course we have to deal with radioactive material. If were so intelligent then I dont know how we didnt see this coming (oh wait, wasnt there a wiki leaks on this??) the amount of radioactive waste produced is absolutely fucking tiny compared to oil/coal powered plants (don't forget, all that smoke from oil/coal is a suspension of dirty horrible shit in air - if you were to condense it down it's tonnes and tonnes of waste). what waste is produced from modern breeder plants is mostly recycled as fuel, and whatever isn't is basically turned into radioactive glass that can be stored in drums through a process called vitrification. that's not to say that long term storage isn't a problem for this relatively small amount of waste. some european country is researching which places are far, far away from any sort of faultline so they can drill a big hole and drop it in there. some other country is researching a plan to drop waste into the marianis trench (not so cool). Well yeah. From the world nuclear.org site. If all your energy consumption was nuclear, your entire life's nuclear waste would fit in here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skotosa Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 At it's worst Chernobyl was shooting a jet of radioactive debris high into the air. Something like trillions of rems per hour . . . I don't think the Japs could top that even if they wanted to make Gojira a reality. There's something eerily beautiful about "the elephants foot", a large pile of reactor fuel that turned into lava and bonded with sand at Chernobyl. Word round the camp fire is she puts out about 15,000 rem/h. (That's about 10 minutes and your organs will start melting.) http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/3230/bf822b7d3b8e.gif Some crazy people-- rather Russians, climbed THROUGH the reactor core at Chernobyl. This video is absolutely nuts: BBC Horizon: Inside Chernobyl's Sarcophagus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chassis Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 What the fuck is a Rem? Theres far too many units for radiation. Thanks for the video Ziggo, I remember watching an engineering Doc on the design of Chernobyl's cover, because the old one was collapsing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 What the fuck is a Rem? rems, rads, and roentgens are oldschool. the modern units are sieverts and grays rads are the old measurement for grays - absorbed dose (a 'pure' reading) rems are the old measurement for sieverts - an attempt to quantify biological effects (in other words radiation absorbed over time - to simplify a single dose of 1 sievert will do a lot less damage than 10 doses of 1/10 of a sievert every 10 minutes). it's complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skotosa Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 What the fuck is a Rem? Theres far too many units for radiation. Thanks for the video Ziggo, I remember watching an engineering Doc on the design of Chernobyl's cover, because the old one was collapsing. http://www.nema.ne.gov/technological/radiation-conversion-table.html Your welcome man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 There's something eerily beautiful about "the elephants foot", a large pile of reactor fuel that turned into lava and bonded with sand at Chernobyl. something that has always fascinated me is eyewitness accounts of 'a glowing blue cloud' over chernobyl - basically it was radiating so hard that it's theorised that cherenkov radiation was visible. cherenkov radiation is fucking idm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chassis Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 What the fuck is a Rem? rems, rads, and roentgens are oldschool. the modern units are sieverts and grays rads are the old measurement for grays - absorbed dose (a 'pure' reading) rems are the old measurement for sieverts - an attempt to quantify biological effects (in other words radiation absorbed over time - to simplify a single dose of 1 sievert will do a lot less damage than 10 doses of 1/10 of a sievert every 10 minutes). it's complicated. Ive only ever dealt with Rads, grays and Becquerels too sometimes. Its sort of a hard to quantify radiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elusive4 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 do we have all of the info yet on the human casualties that will come of this? and anyone that say Nuclear Energy is clean is a fucking idiot! so chassis, I love you man, but come on! Throwing radioactive waste into the ocean is not an answer to any of the concerns about alternative energy sources and this is what happens when a nuclear plant fails, THAT HAPPENS TO BE RIGHT NEXT A FAULT LINE AND THE OCEAN....this is what just happened at Fukushima Daiichi! Workers have gotten burned by the waste water, are most likely sick or will be made sick by the radiation. Too much of Japan is now radioactive so I do not see how Nuclear Power is safe. Windmills are safe but an eyesore. And solar energy needs better advancements, which there have been for amplifying the energy taken in by them. How is boiling water with radioactive material safe?!?!?! We need to focus on anything, anything besides burning something, using radioactivity, or digging giant holes into the earth to provide electricity. It makes sense. We are more intelligent than the economic system that controls what we buy. the only problem being. EVERYONE IS TOO APATHETIC TO DO A GODDAMN THING ABOUT ANY OF IT! FUCK OPEC FUCK HALIBURTON FUCK NUKES I AM MOVING TO THE WOODS LAST POST chernobyl didnt have proper primary containment building a quick fission incident/prompt critical and steam explosion popped the top of the pressure vessel big deal because you had neutron moderator and fuel+cladding ejected into the environment you also had graphite/moderator fire which isn't the easiest to put out, carrying every particle and their mother high up into the atmosphere primary containment is holding up at fuku's ... except for one which is obviously leaking coolant. biggest issue imho will be possible containment of shipping vessels and any export issues (refusal to dock at importer's ports) would be detrimental to an already sagged economy. probably a ways off still from any further firstly, your comment about "how many casualties will come of this" shows you don't even understand the type of event that's taking place at this very moment. you're uneducated, scared, and your emotions control your actions. you're weak. secondly, you build nuke plants next to readily available bodies of water for the exact reasons in which theyre now using as a solution (unlimited amounts of coolant). thirdly, the reactors SCRAM'd automatically and all were properly shutdown when the earthquake hit. containment wasn't breached and control rods were inserted as standard protocol. fourthly, your comment about "burning something" to create energy ... you clearly dont understand basics of PWR or BWR (in this case) reactors. water is boiled and converted to steam to turn turbines to create energy and condensed and returned to water back into the system to continue the process. there is nothing inherently dumb about this system. it's quite basic and it works...much to the same as other conventional power plants, reservoir dams/hyrdo-elec, etc... spin a turbine. fifthly, you lack an understanding of electrical transmission and your attitude towards renewable is short-sighted. come back once you understand the transmission constraints. or, switch to 100% renewable and see how long your entitled ass thinks you should be allowed to hve essentially unlimited electrical consumption in your home at any hour with practically 5x 9's of uptime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elusive4 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 There's something eerily beautiful about "the elephants foot", a large pile of reactor fuel that turned into lava and bonded with sand at Chernobyl. something that has always fascinated me is eyewitness accounts of 'a glowing blue cloud' over chernobyl - basically it was radiating so hard that it's theorised that cherenkov radiation was visible. cherenkov radiation is fucking idm. the fuck you on? how on earth are you able to experience cherenkov radiation in an environment (atmosphere) where no criticality/fission event actively is taking place ... especially considering the medium is the primary reason of which cherenkov radiation is allowed to take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skotosa Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Yeah Chernkov radiation is pretty IDM but how on Earth did it take place outside the reactor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elusive4 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 what waste is produced frommodern breeder plants is mostly recycled as fuel, yeah, kinda like MOX in fuk-01/reactor 3, eh? how's that working out for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.