"Nuclear Emergency"

[Scouse]

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said there were signs that the fuel rods were melting in all three reactors at Fukushima Daiichi.

"Although we cannot directly check it, it's highly likely happening," he told reporters.

the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) has cast doubt on Japan's classification of the crisis at Fukushima as level 4 of 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale. Chernobyl was classified as level 7.

"Level four is a serious level," ASN chief Andre-Claude Lacoste said, but added: "We feel that we are at least at level five or even at level six."

Listened to a report on 5 live on the way home. Said that gamma radiation levels were 10,000-100,000 times background levels and that particle emissions (alpha-radiation type stuff), which were unlikely to be accurately measured, were almost inevitable...


But Tom's right. It's all speculation. The truth about Chernobyl didn't come out until many years after the incident...

..oh, it turned out Chernobyl was worse than they initially let on btw.


Edit: Btw - did you know that pouring seawater and boric acid on a reactor is a completely untested method. A panick measure 'cause everything else has failed? On three different reactors, mind. Hmmmm. I wonder where all that seawater goes once it's been poured on?

 

[Krazeh]

Listened to a report on 5 live on the way home. Said that gamma radiation levels were 10,000-100,000 times background levels and that particle emissions (alpha-radiation type stuff), which were unlikely to be accurately measured, were almost inevitable...

Don't suppose the BBC bothered giving a source for these figures? The IAEA seem to be reporting that radiation dose rate measurements at 4 sites around the plant's perimiter were normal over a 16 hour period yesterday. And that they've been told by the Japanese authorities that radiation levels at the boundary of the power plant have returned to normal background levels.

But Tom's right. It's all speculation. The truth about Chernobyl didn't come out until many years after the incident...

..oh, it turned out Chernobyl was worse than they initially let on btw.

Yeah, because the political situation that led to the Soviet Union covering up the Chernobyl disaster is exactly the same as the one in Japan currently. Obviously asking the IAEA to send experts to assist is just a cunning plan to distract the world while they cover it all up.

Edit: Btw - did you know that pouring seawater and boric acid on a reactor is a completely untested method. A panick measure 'cause everything else has failed? On three different reactors, mind. Hmmmm. I wonder where all that seawater goes once it's been poured on?

When exactly would you have expected them to have tested these procedure previously? Given the choice you don't want to voluntarily pump seawater into a nuclear reactor so i'm not at all suprised it's an untested method. That doesn't mean however that they wouldn't have been fully aware of how water + boric acid could be used to both cool and moderate neutron flux in a reactor vessel. And I'm assuming that the sea water will probably go to the same place that the normal water used to cool the reactor would have ended up, i.e. a treatment plant/area.

 

[caLLous]

because the prevailing winds are towards Siberia

Yeah, I didn't ask that in a very intelligent way.

It just seemed like a pretty random statement when they could've said "the north/west coast of Japan" or somewhere closer to the source than Russia (as an earlier indicator of excessive radiation levels).

 

[old.Tohtori]

By the way Scouse; using new information to say your previous speculation point was fact is silly

 

[Scouse]

By the way Scouse; using new information to say your previous speculation point was fact is silly

TBH toht, I really don't know what you're talking about and I cba reading back through previous posts to find out. I presume you're on about a tactic you use yourself. Kinda like whoever smelt it dealt it.


Anyway. New Scientist have a good writeup.

 

[Tom]

Listened to a report on 5 live on the way home. Said that gamma radiation levels were 10,000-100,000 times background levels and that particle emissions (alpha-radiation type stuff), which were unlikely to be accurately measured, were almost inevitable...

10,000 - 100,000 times fuck all is still fuck all.

And Chernobyl has had just about zero impact on the local population. No extra cancers, no mutant rats, nothing.

 

[Deebs]

10,000 - 100,000 times fuck all is still fuck all.

And Chernobyl has had just about zero impact on the local population. No extra cancers, no mutant rats, nothing.

Sorry, you are wrong. I have always believed that Tdc is a result of Chernobyl...

 

[Ch3tan]

Scouse, if only you could step out of your body and look at this thread through someone else's eyes. You come across as more fanatical than Tom Cruise.

 

[Scouse]

10,000 - 100,000 times fuck all is still fuck all.

And Chernobyl has had just about zero impact on the local population. No extra cancers, no mutant rats, nothing.

New scientist article refutes that. Even the WHO and IAEA reported 4000 deaths, and independent scientists estimate up to 15 times that.

But you must be right. I'll go hug my nearest core. They need the love

Scouse, if only you could step out of your body and look at this thread through someone else's eyes. You come across as more fanatical than Tom Cruise.

The bulk of what I'm doing is reposting from major mainstream news sources Ch3t.

Fan-atic!

 

[Deebs]

Scouse,

seriously. You are comparing the following:

Air travel against car travel


Air travel, even tho much more "dangerous" is still safer than car travel. Nuclear power is much more safer than other forms of energy.

I never really thought I would say this to anyone here but you remind me of a tree-hugger whom I would gladly run over on my way past StoneHenge (can you make the 21st June???)

 

[throdgrain]

By the way Scouse; using new information to say your previous speculation point was fact is silly

That IS funny

 

[Ch3tan]

Yes, news sources which in other cases you'd discount as gutter press reporting. Shame on you.

 

[Scouse]

Air travel, even tho much more "dangerous" is still safer than car travel. Nuclear power is much more safer than other forms of energy.

Safer how, exactly Deebs?

Unless you're of the opinion that global warming is real (which would be a shock around here) and that letting it run riot would be more dangerous than "fixing" it, I fail to see how nuclear power is "safer".

I understand "cheaper". Just not safer.

Honestly. I'm not being sarcastic with the above or trying to provoke. Enlighten me.

Yes, news sources which in other cases you'd discount as gutter press reporting. Shame on you.

Apologies for quoting mainly from the BBC and, recently, New Scientist.

Oh, and the Financial Times.

 

[Ch3tan]

Quoting is fine, presenting facts as gospel when they aren't facts, and are instead speculation or biased opinions is not. You know this, all you are doing is insulting everyone here by posting it and expecting it to be accepted.

 

[Deebs]

Prove to me that air travel is more dangerous than car travel?

Prove to me that nuclear power is more dangerous than coal/oil power plants? If I remember correctly nuclear power plants do not pump shit into the air we breath unlike coal/oil power plants.

Christ, Japan has survived one of the worst earthquakes on Earth since we began recording and is still fine. 1 person has sufferred ill effects from the outcome, that, in my mind, is pretty fucking good for a system built over 40 years ago.

Global warming? My official opinion on that is - FUCK THEM, they are lying ***** and I do not believe a word of it. Simple.

Safer how, exactly Deebs?

Unless you're of the opinion that global warming is real (which would be a shock around here) and that letting it run riot would be more dangerous than "fixing" it, I fail to see how nuclear power is "safer".

I understand "cheaper". Just not safer.

Honestly. I'm not being sarcastic with the above or trying to provoke. Enlighten me.




Apologies for quoting mainly from the BBC and, recently, New Scientist.

Oh, and the Financial Times.

 

[rynnor]

We actually learned nothing more today than we knew yesterday - one fact we do know however is that more of the short lived isotopes that are producing the heat have decayed.

 

[rynnor]

And I'm assuming that the sea water will probably go to the same place that the normal water used to cool the reactor would have ended up, i.e. a treatment plant/area.

Its a water cooled reactor - with the water mains all ruptured seawater is a reasonable substitute.

The main problem is that impurities in seawater will give rise to radioactive isotopes with a longer half life than those created by using the usual purified water but they will just have to store it - its more a logistical problem.

 

[Scouse]

Prove to me that nuclear power is more dangerous than coal/oil power plants? If I remember correctly nuclear power plants do not pump shit into the air we breath unlike coal/oil power plants.

Ok. At least you've a point there. I suppose you have figures that show death rates from emissions from coal/oil power plants?


As for people suffering ill effects - local government officials say 190 people have been exposed to radiation. I'm guessing that venting radioactive gasses into the atmosphere doesn't count and caesium-137 (which has a half-life of 30 years) being found in the local area isn't a concern.


I'm not ramming anything down anyone's throat that isn't already being reported by mainstream news agencies. I'm not presenting anything as "fact" - just reposting. The extremity of reaction on here has, I admit, taken me aback a little bit. (Well, apart from Toht. I kinda always expect it off him).

But fuck yas. I'm gonna keep on posting

 

[throdgrain]

You're just so self-righteous Scouse ...

 

[Helme]

Exposed to radiation is such a good headline, it makes people instantly go to the worst case scenario. People slowly dying over a week or so, skin flaking off etc. just like on TV, while in reality they're most likely not even sick, and the exposure they've had probably equals something like an x-ray.

Doubt even a single one of those 190 people are going to die, or suffer long-term health issues from this.

 

[Wij]

Wait and see.

As for why people might react I'd guess it's because a small amount of radiation is the least of anyone's worries in Japan right now. I really don't think a small possibility of a statistically undetectable increase in cancer rates in a few people in a country that has just been totally fucked over by natural causes really causes anyone with an unbiased agenda any sleepless nights.

Cvnt

 

[old.Tohtori]

TBH toht, I really don't know what you're talking about and I cba reading back through previous posts to find out.

It's really not that hard to understand.

Previous comment = speculating.
New information comes along.
You act like your previous comment wasn't speculation 'cause of new info.

New information doesn't make previous speculations any less speculation at the time they were posted.

Now, if you were to just report things as you see them, you wouldn't be ranting and raving about the unsafety of nuclear power.

 

[Tom]

New scientist article refutes that. Even the WHO and IAEA reported 4000 deaths, and independent scientists estimate up to 15 times that.

But you must be right. I'll go hug my nearest core. They need the love




The bulk of what I'm doing is reposting from major mainstream news sources Ch3t.

Fan-atic!

Er no the estimate was that there might be 4,000 deaths (http://web.archive.org/web/20071217112720/http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/index.shtml) and there has been nothing to suggest that any of those deaths has occured (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf)

Really Scouse. You think that nuclear power stations aren't safe. Well think about it this way. A forty-year-old power station is shaken by one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded. It then gets smacked with a huge tsunami. Then a couple of its buildings get blown sky high.

And it's still intact, and still not melting down.

 

[caLLous]

Yeah what Tom said really; it's 40 years old, it was nearing the end of its working life (I believe), and it withstood an earthquake 5 times more powerful than it was designed to withstand and THEN a big fuckoff tsunami on top of that. I'd say it's doing rather well tbh.

 

[Scouse]

You're just so self-righteous Scouse ...

What am I supposed to do? Agree with you all? I clearly don't.

My points are valid. I've not posted anything that hasn't already been reported by the mainstream media.

I'm not speculating in the "pulling things out of my arse" realm (read Helme's comments for big "I reckon" style postings). I'm just quoting news agencies.

I didn't write the quotes people. Go moan at the Beeb.



Tom. I hear ya - and I'm not necessarily refuting what you're saying. I just posted the New Scientist link to provide an alternative assessment. If you don't want to read it, fine. I didn't write the papers it quotes though - and they differ greatly from your opinion on the subject...



Edit:

I really don't think a small possibility of a statistically undetectable increase in cancer rates in a few people in a country that has just been totally fucked over by natural causes really causes anyone with an unbiased agenda any sleepless nights.

Cvnt

Seriously Wij? Unbiased agenda? Do you mean different opinion? I've never hidden my political leanings - and neither have most people on here. Most are shamelessly pro-nuclear. I'm shamelessly anti.

Don't dress it up like I'm the only one with bias here and everyone else is a paragon of evidence-based argument.

Bvmmer

 

[DocWolfe]

All the fears of meltdown have just made the energy crisis for the next 50 years worse, as no one will want to invest in new generation cleaner and safer nuclear reactors.

Well done journalists.

 

[Scouse]

Breaking news...

"Apparently" (and remember, I didn't write this):

New blast at Fukushima nuclear plant... International nuclear watchdogs said there was no sign of a meltdown but one minister said a melting of rods was "highly likely" to be happening.

I'm such a tit for having even the slightest worries. I mean, nobody here has ever bet on the lottery.

 

[Wij]

Breaking news...

"Apparently" (and remember, I didn't write this):



I'm such a tit for having even the slightest worries. I mean, nobody here has ever bet on the lottery.

I've never bet on the lottery since the maths aren't in my favour,

And all-FH-bar-Scouse ARE being impartial. Nuclear is clearly showing itself to be even more skill than previously thought.

Cocksvcker

 

[rynnor]

The BBC bias becomes ever clearer - must be a lot of ex-CND working there:

BBC News - Nuclear power: Energy solution or evil curse?

 

[Calaen]

The press know danger sells and are more than willing to force feed the retards what they desire.

I'd rather gather information from the homeless down on the quayside than believe anything the bbc post on their website.