Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 80

Thread: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    361

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    The situation at the Fukushima reactor is different than the situation at Chernobyl. Even though they're at the same rating, they're not the same. There is simply nothing higher than a 7 on the scale. The term is actually "major accident". Think of that. You're driving down the road and see a "major accident" involving two cars. Then you see another "major accident" involving a full bus. Not the same situation at all, and in the second instance more people die, but they're still both major accidents on a scale of major, minor and non incident. That is what we're looking at here. Fukushima and Chernobyl may both be major incidents, but they're very different situations. Here is a good chart explaining the differences:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13050228

    And before people pounce on this: "Officials say radiation leaks are continuing and could eventually exceed those at Chernobyl."

    I could eventually run for president. That doesn't mean it's probable, simply that the possibility exists.
    Last edited by sophielynette; April 13th, 2011 at 04:04 PM. Reason: html bad

  2. #52

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    Robot footage of damage @ Fukushima:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLE2nA-0TBU


    Comments?

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    K-Town
    Posts
    2,497

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    So the best they can do is a 9 month plan to cover Fukushima in a concrete sarcophagus like Chernobyl.

    Can you say " I give up " ???


    But don't worry. Environmentally minded folks like the President absolutely love this outcome. That's why he signed a billion dollar nuke power bill.

    Yaaaaayyyyyy!!!

    FutureNewsNetwork.com
    Energy answers are already here.

  4. #54

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    News coverage on Fukushima has been noticeably absent for the past couple of weeks. Why? I don't think Chernobyl got ignored after initial reports, it got some follow up. Something is happening in Japan, I am sure there are ways we can find out about exclusion zones and progress (hopefully) on cooling the reactors, and no doubt the Royal Wedding is extremely exciting and interesting and the Birther nonsense boundlessly entertaining, but Fukushima has some very serious potential long term consequences and our media seems to be ignoring it. Maybe there's really no story there, but it just seems odd that something with such dire potential would be getting (what seems to me, anyway) ignored in our press.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    K-Town
    Posts
    2,497

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    American Media is sympathetic to Obama.
    Obama signed 8 Billion dollar Nuke Package last year.
    Of course they won't report on Fukushima.
    Except for Fox News. And you know how much they suck.


    Please pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
    FutureNewsNetwork.com
    Energy answers are already here.

  6. #56

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    WHY all this interest in radiation when there is a birth certificate to worry about ...... or..... wait ......ummmmm, when there is the validity of college admission and grades to worry about???
    Now run along and play, but donít get into trouble.

  7. #57

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    Remember the Gulf oil disaster?

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    361

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    I just popped onto NHK World to see what the Japanese news is talking about. Top story is the tornados that ripped through the US. Then a brief article about how situations have improved at the plant.

    Japan Today has articles about the shinkansen resuming service. After some searching I found on article on how the water injections into the No 1 reactor seem to be progressing as hoped. While I did find one report about a worker in the plant receiving excess radiation, there were no stories on the affect of the radiation leak on the general public.

    The american media (which I have no fondness for) may not be paying attention to Fukushima, but it seems the Japanese media isn't that concerned either.

  9. #59

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Amati View Post
    WHY all this interest in radiation when there is a birth certificate to worry about ...... or..... wait ......ummmmm, when there is the validity of college admission and grades to worry about???
    And let's not worry about Bin Laden, either. Oh, wait, guess that diversion of the American focus turned out to be of a real benefit!! Secret attacks were kept secret!
    Now run along and play, but donít get into trouble.

  10. #60

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    The other day I google mapped the northeast coast of Japan where the earthquake and tsunami hit. You could see the devastation clearly, also steps being taken to clear it up. However when I got to the Fukushima plant the photo presented was of the pre-disaster site, it was in perfect condition, all the buildings still had their roofs. That was odd because a previous time I google mapped the same site it did show the damage, so for some reason the picture of the damage has been replaced. Why? No, it has not been repaired, not that quickly.

    Second, the news crawl today mentioned two of the reactors may have "holes" in them. It was just on the crawl, it would be good if news from time to time issued more in depth updates. Its still a serious situation. A "hole" could be totally insignificant, or it could mean meltdown, it would be helpful to know exactly what they meant.

  11. #61

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    You can find the story on CNN News, it seems that at least one reactor had 100% melt of fuel, and that the cracks run to about 3-4" in the containment vessels. They think they can stabalize and cold shut down the reactors in early 2012. The thinking is if the fuel had melted thru the containment and hit ground water doing a big explosion spreading radiation they could have lost northern Japan, I guess that would mean northern Honshu and Hokkaido. And I guess it could still happen if things go wrong. It is odd that this story doesn't get more attention. Yes, you can find it, but it isn't put out there for public consumption like something irrelevant like Paris Hilton's latest escapades or the hacking of Rep. Weiner's twitter account.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin/Oahu
    Posts
    68

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    It's foolish to try to glean any truth out of the western press. NHK in Japan has been telling the story all along More or less) and it's more grim the the stuff we're getting here. http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/

  13. #63

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    Last night CNN reported that the radiation release was about twice as bad as originally reported, and that three of the reactors had full "meltdown". I think what they mean is melting of the fuel, not (at least I hope not) as we understand a meltdown to mean the molten fuel melting thru the bottom of the reactor to hit ground water. Evidently that has not happened. As I understand it, the fully melted fuel is still enclosed in the containment vessels. The episode/emergency is by no means over. Tiny radioactive particles have been found in Seattle, these particles can have the worst possible health impact on people who breathe them in. This story remains relevant, of great importance, yet the press goes on and on and on about Weiner's weenie. Maybe, given that there's nothing we can do about the health dangers other than all of us move en masse to South America, its actually better to divert public attention from unavoidable and unpleasant realities.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Waimanalo
    Posts
    771

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalalau View Post
    Tiny radioactive particles have been found in Seattle, these particles can have the worst possible health impact on people who breathe them in.
    Here are some web references I've run across on the fallout issue, in case any are interested:
    Arnie Gundersen interview
    Marco Kaltofen interview
    Wikipedia article on radiation from Fukushima I.
    Greg

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    K-Town
    Posts
    2,497

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    Remember last year when BHO signed Billions for nuclear energy.

    He's such a smart/great president.
    FutureNewsNetwork.com
    Energy answers are already here.

  16. #66

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by timkona View Post
    He's such a smart/great president.
    6 more years, baby!

  17. #67

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    Obama is a bit conservative for my taste. For instance, there is really no need for insurance companies to be involved in health care. They are irrelevant; doctors, nurses, labs, pharmacies are relevant, but not insurance companies. Obama should have wiped out the health insurance companies with Single Payer, but...he didn't, and why remains a mystery. Nobody with any common sense sees a single good reason why multi billion dollar corporations have any business rationing health care, dictating life or death, deciding on medical procedures based on profit and loss. Maybe Obama is on the take. Maybe he is on the take from the nuclear industry. Maybe the reason the media is relatively quiet about Fukushima is that the fix is in, the decision has been made that nuclear is the future and thats all there is to it, and the media, integrated as it often is with the companies that produce reactors and build nuclear plants, has very little inclination to panic (alert, inform) the public. Its hard to see any function to the continuous breathless reporting on Weiner's weenie other than deliberate distraction.

  18. #68

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    The weenie story is legitimately ongoing, weenie-man just admitted being lying scum and refuses to resign, that's news. Not big enuf to completely replace REAL news, but when do we ever get real news? All the stuff we need to have portrayed regularly and/or investigative reporting done on is either ignored or quickly replaced by someone's weenie, boobie, or other BS. There are many to blame for this crap, mainly the American public for letting it overtake any/all that benefits us. That's how they set the fixes so easily.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin/Oahu
    Posts
    68

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalalau View Post
    Maybe the reason the media is relatively quiet about Fukushima is that the fix is in, the decision has been made that nuclear is the future and thats all there is to it, and the media, integrated as it often is with the companies that produce reactors and build nuclear plants, has very little inclination to panic (alert, inform) the public. Its hard to see any function to the continuous breathless reporting on Weiner's weenie other than deliberate distraction.
    There's really no other explanation for all the press silence on this issue. The nuclear disaster in Japan has completely overshadowed the tsunami in the Japanese press. Hell, they've been through natural disasters before, but serious radiation is nearly forever.We went through this same garbage right after 9-11, when all the nuke talking heads were on every network claiming, as one did, than you could crash a plane into a power plant, and there would be no radiation spill. People actually believe this crap!

  20. #70
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Waimanalo
    Posts
    771

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalalau View Post
    Obama should have wiped out the health insurance companies with Single Payer, but...he didn't, and why remains a mystery.
    No mystery. An American president is not master of the universe. Only gradual, baby steps are politically feasible, so as not to come up against too many entrenched powers.
    Greg

  21. #71

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    Should the cons ever retake the White House, you can count the seconds before they impose presidential powers to get every single thing they want and more, exactly what Obama should have done from day 1.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Kahalu`u Stream
    Posts
    2,933

    Cool Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Whitfield View Post
    6 more years, baby!
    2 if I have my way!

    History, however, has shown most incumbents win a second term - in spite of obvious idiocy.
    Be Yourself. Everyone Else Is Taken!
    ~ ~
    Kaʻonohiʻulaʻokahōkūmiomioʻehiku
    Spreading the virus of ALOHA.
    Oh Chu. If only you could have seen what I've seen, with your eyes.

  23. #73

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    To bring it back to Fukushima. Obama is not perfect. I regret his pro nuclear option, but maybe it will take losing St. Louis or Cleveland to make the point, I think Japan gets it now, right? Obama is not perfect, but so much better than GOP. Like having to chose between pimples and a brain tumor.
    Last edited by Kalalau; June 9th, 2011 at 03:23 AM.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Kahalu`u Stream
    Posts
    2,933

    Cool Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalalau View Post
    Obama is not perfect, but so much better than GOP. Like having to chose between pimples and a brain tumor.
    Why do we so often assume we only have two choices?

    Well, the power structure has programmed us to think that way.
    Anything other than Democrat/repressive or Republican/powerstructure is just, well, "Un-American!"

    I remind you. Before the current common era there were many more political parties, including Whigs (whatever they were), Federalists, and so many more.

    Significant parties were considered as having more than 100,000 members:

    Modern 3rd parties:
    Largest (voter registration over 100,000)
    Please note that at one time the Democrats and Republicans were aligned in ONE PARTY!!!!!

    So we don't REALLY have a two-party system, we have a fractured one-party system.

    Hooray for our ignorance!

    We are slaves to misinformation.
    Be Yourself. Everyone Else Is Taken!
    ~ ~
    Kaʻonohiʻulaʻokahōkūmiomioʻehiku
    Spreading the virus of ALOHA.
    Oh Chu. If only you could have seen what I've seen, with your eyes.

  25. #75

    Default Re: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

    3rd parties often have an unforeseen effect. Nader cost Gore the 2000 election and put it close enough that the crooked Republican judges on the sup ct could give the presidency to bush and that was the whole disaster you see now (which I won't bother recounting again). Perot in 1992 split off enough Republican votes from Bush, the adult mature man who even though he made mistakes was at least guided by reasonable human values and a passable intellect, that a little known governor from Arkansas could win the Presidency and give the nation a $500 billion surplus, surplusses as far as the eye could see, with the entire national debt on schedule to have been paid off LAST YEAR. Teddy Roosevelt ran as an independent in 1912 and split off enough Republican votes from his former friend Taft that Democrat Woodrow Wilson could win. So...the place to have your most reliable impact is in selecting the nominee for one of the two big parties. If you believe in social security and medicare, in banking, securities, pollution, food safety regulation, in a woman's right to control her own body with her own medical decisions, you logically should vote Democratic and work to make sure that party nominates people you like. If you want social security and medicare privatized, if you want banks, securities companies, polluting companies, and food producers to be unregulated, if you believe irrelevant third parties have the right to control a woman's body against her own medical decisions, then you should vote Republican and support nominees you like. Otherwise, going for a third party choice, you do have the danger of putting into office the total opposite of what you really want.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •