Slashdot Mirror
Mt. Fuji Volcano In 'Critical State' After Quakes
An anonymous reader writes: Mount Fuji, in addition to being a picturesque landmark and an important part of Japanese culture, is also an active volcano. Its last eruption was just over 400 years ago, but its location — where the Eurasian, Pacific, and Philippine tectonic plates meet — mean it will always have potential for eruption. A new study (PDF) has examined the pressures around Mount Fuji in the wake of several recent earthquakes, including the magnitude 9 tremor that unleashed the destructive tsunami in 2011. The researchers now say the volcano is in a "critical state." According to the study's lead author, "The volcanic regions are the ones where the fluids trapped in the rock – boiling water, gas, liquid magma, which cause an eruption when they rise to the surface – exert the greatest pressure. The seismic waves add to this pressure, causing even more disturbance." They have no way of predicting when an eruption might happen, but the potential seems greater than ever.
...this thread erupts with first posts?
I'm leaving for Tokyo later this month. At least is easier to pronounce than Eyjafjallajokull.
I doubt the potential is greater now than it was during the 1707-08 eruption.
For some reason it won't let me type mt. Fuji in kanji.
not stupid - just a bad choice in parents. I cannot blame them, my decision was no better.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/22/italian-court-convicts-7-scientists-for-failing-to-predict-earthquake/
[...]They have no way of predicting when an eruption might happen[...]
Ask someone from Seattle
Nuclear power + Active volcano = Godzilla!
Yes and no tsunami will hit any reactors on a mountain!
They have no way of predicting when an eruption might happen, but the potential seems greater than ever.
They say they can't predict it, then in the same sentence predict it. Amazing.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
"Oooh look, incendiary rounds! Gotta try these out at the range!" - God
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"Yes and no tsunami will hit any reactors on a mountain!"
No tsunamis, but lahars, pyroclastic flows and lava are probably more dangerous to a reactor
The only thing missing from this breathless article was an animation of a scientist inspecting a piece of monitoring equipment, watching the needle bury itself, and screaming "it's over 9000!!!"
Has anyone tried to pre-emptively relieve the pressure in volcanoes so they never erupt? Could probably use that hot magma in some sort of thermal electricity generator too.
Yay DOOM! I haven't had good fallout training since the 1980's.
How much will the US put on the military game board to keep China from taking Japan while its still toasty? China doesn't like Japanese anyway so the volcano is doing them a favor.
Do volcanos count toward Global Warming???
Reactor 4 spent fuel cooling pool contains 1500 spent Mox fuel rods. Any seismic activity large enough to threaten the stability of that structure introduces the risk of a plutonium fire fueled by several hundred tons of mox fuel. A storage facility near it contains another 6000 spent mox fuel rods. The smoke of the fire is plutonium oxide and chloride which is fatal to humans at doses of 1-10 micrograms.
There is little doubt that if that happens at Fukushima the fallout would be carried by the jetstream over the US and, eventually the entire Northern hemisphere.
This is the potential consequence that has not been spelled out.
You can mod the facts down, however it won't change the consequences or make it any less real.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Mt. Fuji is more well known, but I wonder how all this seismic activity is affecting Mt. Miyajima in the southern part of Japan? It's another active volcano, one I visited in the 90's. It was actively smoking at the time, and surrounded by lava beds.
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
There is little doubt that if that happens at Fukushima the fallout would be carried by the jetstream over the US and, eventually the entire Northern hemisphere.
Because obviously, Japan will forgot how to pump water. A few diesel generators and some hose means that your scenario doesn't happen - even if you somehow came up with the huge earthquake and the structural failure.
Facts matter little to the FUD mongers.
"Yes and no tsunami will hit any reactors on a mountain!"
No tsunamis, but lahars, pyroclastic flows and lava are probably more dangerous to a reactor
Well, if seawater hits a nuclear plant, chances are that radioactive steam will be the result. On the other hand, if ash or molten rock envelopes one, it will probably either A) seal the radioactivity in. B) melt it apart, bringing the fuel geometry to sub-critical mass. Although it is, of course possible that the plant would simply crack open, with the same results that you'd see on earth-faulted land or with water incursion. That is, a plume of radioactive gas or steam.
Still, there's a limit to how close to an active volcano people are willing to live, so the really hot zone (in both senses) would not be as direct a threat to people or livestock.
Dicedotastic.
Hmm, a quick bit of research finds that MOX fuel rods are basically PuO2, which doesn't do the pyrophoric thing - it's stable in dry air, heats up slowly in the presence of water vapor.
Which at least suggests that the panic at the thought of a Pu fire is a bit exaggerated....
Note also that spent fuel rods have rather less Pu in them than you might think, since most of it has been burned in the nuclear reactor before it became "spent".
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
They didn't forget, bureaucracy stalled the process until the buildings started exploding.
Still, there's a limit to how close to an active volcano people are willing to live, so the really hot zone (in both senses) would not be as direct a threat to people or livestock.
Tell that the millions in Mexico City, right under the "Popo" volcano or Seattle, not far from Mt Rainier.. If/when those blow, those cities are in deep kimchi... Of course, those pale in comparison to the Yellowstone caldera.. if THAT one blows, at least the western part of the USA has a BIG problem....
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
...dig little holes in the ground to let out the steam?
Ask someone from Seattle
Or Mexico City... It has Popocatépetl just down the street.. Arguably the most dangerous volcano in North America...
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
You forgot Aetna. But I was thinking more of the zone where the "blessings" of the volcano are more immediate. Like Monserrat.
... Of course, those pale in comparison to the Yellowstone caldera.. if THAT one blows, at least the western part of the USA has a BIG problem....
I hate to have to mention this, but if Yellowstone goes, the western part of the USA will be someone ELSE's problem; at minimum, the entire rest of that hemisphere - this is assuming the whole planet doesn't just pop like a zit and crack in half at that point. Most models suggest this would be an extinction level event.
Obviously, Pu oxide is a common result of reaction with either atmospheric O2 or splitting H20 used to try and cool the burning plutonium. But where does the Chlorine potentially come from, salt in sea water? It sounds like you're describing a risk where at least part of it is specific to plants that might be either inundated by the sea or catch fire and have sea water pumped in to put it out, but I'm far from sure if that's actually what you mean. Is the point here that we are equally screwed whether a plant is on/near a seacoast or not, or that inland plants might be somewhat safer?
Who is John Cabal?
Ask someone from Seattle
Ask someone from the entire central US. Yellowstone's "next to" is pretty large when you consider the projected ash fall from a major eruption. Aside from that, the knock-on effect on food supply and weather would have global consequences, so I guess we're all pretty "stupid".
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Metals, minerals, fertile ground and naturally warm water during winters might persuade most adventurers. I'd hate to see an explosive eruption of the mountain to ruin that scenery. No more pretty postcards. Also I wouldn't want to be the Shinto priest trying to explain to the people why the eruption destroyed their holy mountain.
They keep saying that fracking triggers small earthquakes to relieve the pressure build up that would have resulted in a larger earthquake. Wouldn't this be a good test case to prevent a natural disaster?
If yellowstone blows, the rest of the world would have the big problem. It'd basically start a nuclear winter. The last time one of those supervolcanoes blew, only something like 10% of the human population at that time survived.
Western USA would merely cease to exist.
On the other hand, it'd be just in time to counteract the effects of global warming.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Well, if seawater hits a nuclear plant, chances are that radioactive steam will be the result. On the other hand, if ash or molten rock envelopes one, it will probably either A) seal the radioactivity in. B) melt it apart, bringing the fuel geometry to sub-critical mass
C) Radioactive rock monsters! Don't you know that rationality has no place in discussions of nuclear power? Next thing you know, you'll be pointing out that Fukushima was a quite minor footnote in the story of the tsunami and the damage it wrought.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Try rebooting it.
Table-ized A.I.
Mount Nyiragongo is probably the next volcano to cause large scale destruction.
I don't even need to google it or check in any way to see if people are dumb enough to still live near it. Somehow, deep down, I just know they are. I bet their property values just dropped a bit too.
Tokyo would get a lot of ash, but it's way too far away for lava to be an issue. It would be an enormous mess, and transportation would be affected, but people wouldn't be in a Pompei situation. Probably, secondary earthquakes would be the biggest issue.
On the other hand, if it erupts in the summer, during climbing season, a fair number of people could die right on the mountain. And there are a lot of towns and people who live much closer to Fuji than Tokyo. They'd be in more danger.
living in his mom's basement? :D
They make Magipoka season two and Spice and Wolf season 3.
A storage facility near it contains another 6000 spent mox fuel rods. The smoke of the fire is plutonium oxide and chloride which is fatal to humans at doses of 1-10 micrograms.
There is little doubt that if that happens at Fukushima the fallout would be carried by the jetstream over the US and, eventually the entire Northern hemisphere.
How many tons is that 6000 spent rods? Then remember exactly how big the Pacific Ocean is and how large, comparatively, a microgram is. A microgram is only 10^-12 of a ton, area crossed is a square fall off rate.
Could it immediately pollute the ocean and cause problems? Sure! Would the fall-out in the ocean cause a long term problem? Not unless there is way more than I expect from those fuel rods; the ocean is huge! One third of the Earth's surface, over half of the salt water on Earth; and you are worried about the toxins that humans failed to plan for when a volcano that's been dormant for a long history suddenly might be a little closer to eruption? Be worried about the loss of life from the volcano going off, and the loss of life from the climate change that a large eruption would cause (famine, loss of utilities, etc).
Or, if you must be scared of nuclear stuff, be scared of the fall out from all the nuke warheads and fuel stored close enough to Yellowstone that would be vaporized in the expected eruption.
Should read "just over 300 years ago."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_eruptions_of_Mount_Fuji
Yellowstone is the "most dangerous" because it is really acting up lately and is considered to be a ELE capable Super Volcano. In fact, Yellowstone may be the biggest volcano threat in the world.
It just doesn't scare people because "Old Faithful" sounds so reassuring.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
When the Yellowstone caldera blows, then everyone will have a problem. You'll have temperate temperatures around the tropics, and subtropical temperatures on the equator. Glaciers will be covering the Alps and Rockies (yes, the whole thing). And so on. Central and Northern Europe will be uninhabitable, and so will be Canada and a lot of North America. And so forth.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
No mention of how twitchy the fingers are of those positioned on the HAARP buttons around the world might be, anxious to complete this story with a direct hit of pulsed ultra low radio wave frequencies.under that beautiful Mountain until she blows, decrying they told us so while secretly toasting amongst themselves as if they were a cog in some great natural mystery in the cosmos.
Watch out for the telltale irridescent clouds over Mt Fuji.
Yes, and also contact with sea water. The plutonium fire is uncontrolled criticality in the atmosphere. It is thermally hot as a result of the neutrons smashing around into more fuel. You are right that the nature of such a fire will instantly split water into hydrogen. The main issue from PUO2 is breathing it in, it is not very soluble however it can still bio-accumulate.
Yes, some of the plutonium particulates will encounter sea water to produce plutonium chloride. Some has already been produced when sea water was used to cool the reactor in the first part of the accident. If we face a pu-fire the proximity of the ocean will be a factor in how much chloride is produced.
This is the stuff that is really concerning. It is extremely soluble and will readily bio-concentrate because it presents as iron to a metabolism. This means sea grass, fish and crustaceans will all consume it, then predators will consume them. At Chernobyl a dead zone in the forests around the site were formed from the fallout so it is reasonable to expect something similar, and probably much larger, in the ocean.
This threat is Fukushima specific as the structure of the spent fuel pool for reactor 4 has been severely damaged (by the explosions and tsunami) and is 3 stories above the ground on concrete pylons so is in an extremely precarious position. I believe there is an effort underway to remove the spent fuel however I think a long term solution isn't even being considered that can mitigate this threat.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Reactor 4 spent fuel cooling pool contains 1500 spent Mox fuel rods. Any seismic activity large enough to threaten the stability of that structure introduces the risk of a plutonium fire fueled by several hundred tons of mox fuel. A storage facility near it contains another 6000 spent mox fuel rods. The smoke of the fire is plutonium oxide and chloride which is fatal to humans at doses of 1-10 micrograms.
There is little doubt that if that happens at Fukushima the fallout would be carried by the jetstream over the US and, eventually the entire Northern hemisphere.
This is the potential consequence that has not been spelled out.
Hello fanbois and shills, troll me with your mod points.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
With an abundance of sustainable and reliable energy, survivability of an event such as a volcanic winter would be drastically increased. Energy is the only limiting factor in producing a 100% self-sufficient and self-contained living environment, not only in space, but on earth as well. Energy availability would be instrumental in facing such a disaster, and with adequate preparation we could manage quite comfortably.
However, if the green dream of a world powered exclusively by renewables were realized, humanity would have no hope whatsoever. The lights would go out indefinitely, and any sort of civilization would promptly collapse, with only a handful surviving in miserable conditions. Renewables are not reliable, and are incapable of sustaining civilization through such a crisis.
While efficiency is a laudable goal (to which most engineers already aspire), eking by with extreme conservation is highly anti-productive, and exacerbates environmental and societal problems. Energy is not a disease to be eradicated, but a resource essential for enabling greater levels of recycling and reuse, and ultimately a sustainable high quality of life with minimal environmental footprint. With prosperity, population also tends to level off, solving that problem as well.
Energy is only a problem when it is derived in an environmentally destructive manner, as with mining and extraction of fossil resources, or the vast and inefficient collection, storage, and distribution infrastructure for wind and solar. These sources also require extensive mining for the raw materials comprising the infrastructure, and the fuels required for transportation in both cases.
Owing to a far superior energy density, nuclear energy necessitates very little mining and supporting infrastructure. Molten salt reactors like LFTR use nuclear fuel roughly 200 times more efficiently than todays LWRs, and with passive safety and no need for water cooling, they can be sited virtually anywhere. For perspective, a 1GWe LFTR plant would be roughly the size of a Walmart. Incidentally, there are upward of 10,000 Walmarts, which would accommodate 10TW of LFTR power production--enough to provide for 10 billion people at US per capita power consumption.
Each year, a 1GWe reactor would only consume about a ton of thorium, and produce about a ton of fission products. All of the fuel required to power the world for a year could be mined at a site not much larger than a Walmart itself. However, it could instead be recovered from the tailings of rare earth or other mining already in progress. (For reference, a metric ton of thorium fits in a sphere 55cm (or 1.8ft) in diameter.) A plant could easily have decades worth of thorium on hand.
Of course, the picture wouldn't be complete without considering the waste. A single GWe of generating capacity is enough to power a sizable city, producing 1t (metric ton) of fission products per year. One might worry that these are going to accumulate and produce an intractable problem, but in reality the radioactivity is constantly disappearing, and will reach a steady state when the creation balances the decay. As 83% of the fission products of a LFTR are stable after a decade, and the rest no more radioactive than ore in 300 years, the sum total of waste produced for one GWe of power, will gradually build up to, yet never exceed 59t after 300 years. This is a trivial amount, which is still overstated as many of the fission products have uses. (radioisotope thermal generators, sources for medicine or food irradiation, etc.) Even if politics prevents doing something useful with it, it could still be safely stored in a small room on site.
Reactor 4 spent fuel cooling pool contains 1500 spent Mox fuel rods.
Correction, contained. It now has less than 400 as they've been removing them.
Reactor 4 spent fuel pool status
I think thanks to more recent research by geologists, we now know that most volcanic eruptions occur after a series of very specific types of earthquakes around the volcano. This is why seismic sensors are placed all over many Japanese volcanic mountains, for example Mt. Aso and Sakurajima on Kyushu and both Mt. Fuji and Mt. Asama (since both mountains if there is any major eruption could seriously affect the Tokyo metropolitan region).
Reactor 4 spent fuel cooling pool contains 1500 spent Mox fuel rods.
Correction, contained. It now has less than 400 as they've been removing them.
Reactor 4 spent fuel pool status
Thank you for the information, that is great news. I hadn't seen it because I see this was only reported a week ago. 400 is still a serious threat though so let's hope the process is continued until the threat is all removed.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
While efficiency is a laudable goal (to which most engineers already aspire), eking by with extreme conservation is highly anti-productive
No...this means we'll have enough coal leftover if and when Yellowstone finally blows.
There's no doubt that nuclear fuel is useful, but that's completely off-topic to the point you started out making.
Yay DOOM! I haven't had good fallout training since the 1980's.
How much will the US put on the military game board to keep China from taking Japan while its still toasty? China doesn't like Japanese anyway so the volcano is doing them a favor.
Do volcanos count toward Global Warming???
your words are, fecal in origin dripping from your chin
Reactor 4 spent fuel cooling pool contains 400 spent Mox fuel rods. Any seismic activity large enough to threaten the stability of that structure introduces the risk of a plutonium fire fueled by several hundred tons of mox fuel. A storage facility near it contains another 6000 spent mox fuel rods. The smoke of the fire is plutonium oxide and chloride which is fatal to humans at doses of 1-10 micrograms.
There is little doubt that if that happens at Fukushima the fallout would be carried by the jetstream over the US and, eventually the entire Northern hemisphere.
This is the potential consequence that has not been spelled out.
C'mon you slimey chickenshit mod troll, even my corrected facts trump your pathetic fanboi crap.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Facts matter little to the FUD mongers.
Well, you run off and get some. Pick up a clue while you're at it.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
And what do you expect happens when you put a bunch of them in close proximity and take the moderator away. An outdoor nuclear reeactor without control rods. This is what you do in a nuclear reactor, there is no magic that will change a FUEL ROD's behaviour or properties when it's outside a reactor. On their own, fine. Bunch them together, take away the moderator, criticallity.
Or actually a real risk that you wern't aware of until you saw my post otherwise why would there be such a effort to extract the fuel rods at all. Maybe, the people who do know also have enough influence and understanding of the situation to excert that kind of pressure on the Japanese Diet.
Fuel rods are more toxic when they come out compared to when they go in and much more radioactive. The burn-up rate for a PWR is 0.3%, yes point zero three of a percent. So I think there is more pu239 there than you expect.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
We seem to be an extinction-level event ourselves. The human race, and much of civilization, would survive Yellowstone. Not that it would be fun or painless....
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
So have there been any efforts to tap active volcanoes for energy production?
Your post gave me the peculiar (and perhaps ridiculous) notion of siting a nuclear production facility IN the volcano (a bit of land no one cares to inhabit anyway, and if not of the explosive type, perhaps a better containment area than most).
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I glanced at the links and saw some geophysical data but no geochemical or in situ data, in particular the kinds of data used on other magmatic arc stratoform vents where there is a change in the amount and composition of gases being emitted and local geophysical signs like deformation. Connecting regional tectonics, a strain field, to the behavior of one system contained within is going to be difficult without other signs. Maybe the article is a call for Japan's geophysists to do the kind of in situ monitoring to give them some warning that an eruption might be coming.
That coal should be left in the ground, and not foolishly burned for energy. It is criminal to turn such a valuable concentrated carbon resource into ash, particulate, and CO2 and disperse it into our environment. Incidentally, there is more than 10 times the energy recoverable from the traces of uranium and thorium within the coal, than from combusting the coal itself. Of course, that isn't available if we mix the ash into sidewalks and roads, and such. (and it still contains some of the other nasties which didn't make it into our air or water already.)
The point is that there will never be "enough" coal if we continue using it as an energy source. It might last for a while, but conservation is still not sustainable. Conservation will only drive up prices for energy and preclude using it for energy intensive processes like recycling. Even producing the steel, concrete, and rare earths necessary for renewables is highly energy intensive and entirely dependent upon heat from fossil fuels today. Those renewables are also exposed to the elements and need to be recycled every decade or two. We are already reverting to burning trees, and it is only going to get worse until more people accept that nuclear power.
Anyway the crucial point is that nuclear provides reliable energy 24/7 through severe weather or natural disasters and with a minimal environmental footprint. They are among the most robust structures in existence, and molten salt reactors would be even more resistant to damage. (Granted, the transmission infrastructure is still vulnerable, and that is another reason why it should be minimized.) Even coal and natural gas plants can be taken off line by severe weather. During the recent polar vortex, it was nuclear which kept the lights on in New England.
The problem, is that there aren't enough of them. ;) More seriously, that is basically what geothermal does, and it is useful where available. Exploration and drilling are expensive though, and suitable sites are limited. Interestingly, while the environmental effects are minimal compared to fossil fuels, they are still not as benign as with nuclear. Drilling releases greenhouse gasses trapped deep in the earth, among other things including radon. (Hence both geothermal and fracking put out more radioactivity than nuclear plants, though still nothing to panic over.) Fundamentally though, geothermal is merely indirect nuclear, taking advantage of the decay of thorium and uranium within the earth itself.
Yeah, part of what I was thinking is... you can hardly get more nasty than a volcano's environment, so it's not like you can pollute it.
For many years I lived in the SoCal desert where the ground was naturally radioactive. After that, nothing worries me. :)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Roughly 850 tons on site.
8.5^14 fatal doses. More than enough to go around and around.
Absolutely. I described the effects which would last as long as the decay period, which is 25,000 years as it is cycled through the food chain over that time through bio-accumulation - assuming it lasts that long.
I would characterize it as concerned enough to agitate for action. Though another poster pointed out that the fuel rods are being removed at a pace that indicates that this threat is actually understood. The revised figure is 400 in the spent fuel pool, still quite a large threat however, great news there and hopefully a threat that is resolved soon!
On a purely vicarious level an eruption of Mt Fuji wouldn't affect me, a pu fire would.
I am not aware that Yucca mountain is operational and the DOE characterized it as unsuitable, let me know if you have a link indicating otherwise. If it were operational and fully stocked it would present an ongoing threat that would dwarf this one (which is one of my chief objections to the facility) however both scenarios pose a threat so serious that it would be like comparing being crushed by a 850 ton rock to a 70,000 ton rock, you are equally dead.
On reflection its a possible solution to the Fermi Paradox.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The plume will go eastward not west.
ItÃ(TM)s not the only dangerous caldera though. Wish there was a way to release pressure safely.
It's not "if", it's "when".
Trust me on this ; I'm a geologist. If you want to set a time limit on it - say, 100 years - then you can talk about probabilities and an 2if", but without a time limit, you're talking about "when". There no reason to believe that the area has gone quiet, and plenty of evidence of continuing magma movement in the sub-surface.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
You may not be able to conceive of managing such risks, but that's your failing.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Personally, I'd go for Vesuvius being the biggest threat around (2 million or so people in the blast zones). But I'm not particularly familiar with Popacatapetl and Mexico City, so I'd have to put that one on the table too.
Yellowstone might be able to destroy North America (in the sense of "unfit for human habitation" for centuries), resulting in around a half billion deaths. [SHRUG] There's another 6+billion to go. Our species has been down in the low thousands before and come back (probably the result of climate change ; possibly due to volcanic forcing).
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
It might last for a while, but conservation is still not sustainable.
An oddly strict definition of conservation....not using it at all would fit under the definition of conservation. Or saving it all for a global emergency to survive a volcanic winter when solar and hydro give out. That's what I was getting at. There's no reason we shouldn't know where it is and be ready to mine it just in case.
I said nothing against going to nuclear as a primary fuel source. It's perfectly feasible except for one small problem - no one will do it or approve it. With that standing as a major roadblock to this day, we still need to conserve what we're using.
The damage to the foundations mean the entire building leaning over. TEPCO's status page for the reactor reveals they are building a support structure to stop the spent fuel pool from falling.
I see your supporting your adgenda as a Nuclear apologist again.
A plutonium fire splits the hydrogen and oxygen and the water ceases to exist, so that simply won't work
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Yes, and it could blow anytime, in the next 100,000 years or so
I see your supporting your adgenda as a Nuclear apologist again.
At least, I don't go bug-eyed and rant four times about the shills modding down a single post (and the modding in question is as flamebait and off-topic, looks like appropriate modding to me).
Of course you don't, you never present any facts of value.
And, as usual, your "argument" is easily demolished so the only thing you have left is your predictable ad-hominem attack, to which you readily resort.
Well you would say that because the science and reality of the situation doesn't fit into the agenda you promote.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
It's so peculiar a failure mode that I have to quote the whole thing:
All this "NIMBY" greenpeace anti nuke fags really just don't know what they are taking about, anyone who knows about nuclear reactors will tell you that they are really great, super reliable and that the only reason that we have to pay for electricity is because it's waaay too cheap to meter it from a nuclear reactor and the utilities had to pay for meters.
I've often thought, "I would like some strontium 90 on my breakfast cereal" because it is tasty and good for you, plus you will win every fart contest. Recently it was conclusively *proven* that not only can you get a great suntan from the core of a reactor, but that radioisotopes have Vitamin C in it, so my advice to people would be if you are feeling a bit of a sniffle coming on, get yourself to a local nuclear reactor and ask to cuddle up to a couple of fuel rods and get toasty.
Chernobyl and Fukushima proved how safe Nuclear power is and we should all want one near us. Whilst evacuations of these areas have occurred Bruce Willis proved that you won't die at all from fallout from a nuclear reactor in "A good day to die hard". He lived and was stronger so we should move people back there so they grow up to be just like Bruce Willis.
Nuclear is perfectly safe and we can all have a nuclear future, in our back yards, today!
You really need to learn how to reason with someone who doesn't fully share your worldview. Free association babble just doesn't work.
That coal should be left in the ground, and not foolishly burned for energy. It is criminal to turn such a valuable concentrated carbon resource into ash, particulate, and CO2 and disperse it into our environment.
If you're not using it, then it's not valuable. And that carbon concentrates just fine in living plants. The argument that burning coal pollutes is fairly sound. The argument that we have a bunch of highly valuable carbon that we'd be using for some other purpose, if we weren't burning it first, just doesn't make sense.
Ah, yes. Your hypocritical ad hominems are quite pointless, you should know. And what "science and reality" went into you going off your rocker here?
It's called - being sarcastic - and having a laugh. There is nothing ad hominem about that post, it's modded troll because people feel threatened by something they don't understand. Including you.
It's so peculiar a failure mode...
When you encounter something so absurd, sometimes an equally absurd response is the only sane thing.
You really need to learn how to reason with someone who doesn't fully share your worldview. Free association babble just doesn't work.
Well I learn a little more every day. I don't have any animosity to you personally, and I actually agree with some of your posts unrelated to nuclear things. I just wish you would post some evidence to support your position, because you never do.
I don't expect you to understand parody, however it is a great cherry on the cake of my day that you read it - because that's how I feel when I read every one of your posts.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Nobody wins this debate. We will all be speaking Chinese in 40 years.......well maybe. Anyway back to the point of Fuji .....I just visited a local nuclear power station an the construction going on is huge. Tsunami walls, covers for emergency generators ....it's coming back and the most japanese don't know. ...as for me ......it's clean cheap.....and dare I say safe and reliable. Say that in Japan and you will cause a stir