I agree with the first part of your statement, in the fact that it survived the quake itself. However, if it was a tsunami only it likely wouldn't have resulted in the same crisis, because the 9.0 quake knocked out all kinds of infrastructure that likely would have still been up (or much more easily repaired) had it only been a tsunami. The results we're seeing is just a combination of a lot of really terrible things and not just one thing.
Not allowing me to resell (in effect, who would buy a used game at the same price as full) should be a crime. It really encourages piracy because you get the feeling you don't actually own what you just bought anyway. It's bogus.
Don't pretend Iran is on some kind of moral high ground compared to the rest of the world... or even on a level moral ground. The difference between Iran and other nuclear weapon equipped countries? Other nuclear weapon equipped countries aren't nuking an entire country they don't necessarily like as soon as they get a decent chance just because.
My assumption that the reactors won't explode is a very sure one, given the current situation, control, design of the cores, etc. It's about the same "assumption" now as me assuming my car won't explode when I drive somewhere this weekend.
The reason the Chernobyl fuel rods exploded is because they used graphite as the neutron moderator. When exposed to oxygen, it becomes highly flammable. The Fukushima rods aren't like this. If there's an explosion, it's going to be due to hydrogen+oxygen buildup in containment vessels which they are mitigating by pumping nitrogen into the containment vessels, and it wouldn't be the fuel rods themselves exploding. So no, it's not an assumption (remember I said the fuel rods wouldn't explode, not that there wouldn't be an explosion). Trying to nitpick won't make the argument go your way. The probability of such an incident mixed with how much under control they have the cooling situation in now makes this a VERY safe "assumption" to make. While we don't know the full extent of total damages yet (since that's impossible), it's also for these reasons Fukushima will NOT, I repeat, will NOT reach anywhere near the same scope as Chernobyl. Quit overly-dramatizing it.
I'm not 100% sure what his entire view on the health care reform is, but I do know he's a solid businessman and I wouldn't doubt he has a few good ideas on the economy.
I honestly don't care what countries like China engage in. The US need to change their behavior NOW.
Either that, or I'm starting a world-wide movement to cut all internet connections with the USA. Because currently, internet traffic going through the USA is not secure.
A USA-free Internet is what the world needs since Americans can't stand up to their own government.
Why would we? We're happily sedated on McDonald's and Survivor.
Listen, a fault line is more than a little fragile sheet of bedrock at a single point. It spans tons of miles. Literally large chunks of the planet are moving past each other when an earthquake happens.
Maybe I'm tired today, but what exactly do you mean by "Which is exactly what they did"?
One, it does not matter as much in this scenario if Fukushima was at the epicenter or not. The fact is the resulting tsunami was far greater than anything the plant was built for. Two, the generators were running after the earthquake, but the tsunami did in fact wipe those out. The tsunami hit roughly an hour after the earthquake. The building that housed the generators was wiped out when a nearly 49ft wall of water easily toppled the sea wall that was designed for about 19ft.
That states they were designed to withstand a 7.9. They came up with this number based on record-breaking quakes in the area, including an estimate of how powerful one could get that happened in 860-something AD. I can assure you that nobody saw a 9.0 coming. That's roughly 44x more powerful than what they planned for. Considering the circumstances, I don't think it did too bad. I guess next time they'll build taller sea walls.
First of all, I'm not accusing NISA of indulging in pure idiocy and scaremongering, and I don't think the original poster was either. The fear-mongering comes from anti-nuclear campaigners and the media. As for NISA, I clearly stated they acknowledge it's serious, and I acknowledge it's serious, but they are comparing to Chernobyl because everyone else is, and because it's one of the only nuclear disasters in history that reached a certain scale. But, just because you can compare apples to oranges doesn't mean they're any bit the same thing, or that they'll have the same effects on you. That's all they were doing and they even state that. Furthermore, the sea water (where most of the radioactive water was pumped out/leaked out to) is being monitored very carefully. So far they only see results that they see should probably keep them monitoring it just to be safe, but not be overly concerned about.
The harm caused by Chernobyl is indescribably greater because it was an entirely different accident. A leak and a radioactive explosion + fallout are two very different things. Have you considered why it's mostly in water at Fukushima? It's because a containment vessel was damaged, and that's why radiation is leaking and why water that comes into contact with it contains radioactive isotopes. Fuel rods are not fully exposed. They're not on fire. They haven't exploded, and they won't either. You can't reasonably compare the two incidents because they aren't anything alike in characteristics, means of radiation exposure, amount of radiation exposure, types of radioactive material released and how much (totals of all kinds), location of radioactive material, and method and amount of spreading of radioactive material. Hell, they aren't even anywhere close in terms to length of high exposure.
Please point out where I made any assumptions and prove why they are assumptions. The only thing I'm reading here is wild speculation.
Your faith-based belief in the safety of nuclear power regardless of the actual facts is sad.
Quite a blanket statement there. Nuclear power is very safe, especially with newer designs. A few major incidents since the birth of the technology does not deem the whole concept unsafe. Just like how a few terrorist bombings at airports do not deem airports unsafe. That's just ridiculous.
* Safe is always relative. I don't think anyone can ever guarantee that a given plant won't melt down under heavy military bombardment or a large meteor strike, but a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and 15 meter tsunami should be easily manageable.
A 9.0 quake easily manageable?? Do you have any perspective on how much power is behind a 9.0? Chuck Norris won't even go near those.
I think we need nuclear energy, and it's a great technology. I just wanted to point out that it takes a bit more than a small hole drilled into the ground to cause a significant earthquake, even if directly on a fault line. That idea is ridiculous. Considering it normally requires planetary forces to do so, and the resulting force is far greater than any nuke we have, I think we're perfectly safe with geothermal.
As far the GP: I'm going to nitpick here, but electric vehicles are currently a farce. It's more efficient when measured in raw power used, but the fact is these batteries use tons of precious metals that are even more rare than oil. Until a battery is used in these vehicles (and laptops, etc for that matter) that doesn't use these precious metals, it's a stupid idea, possibly even more stupid than oil.
"It's considerably different from Chernobyl," said Nishiyama. "The mount of radioactive materials released at Fukushima is about a tenth of that in the Chernobyl accident."
That part clearly proves the agency does not disagree with GP's statement. They acknowledge that it's serious but not nearly the same thing as Chernobyl. Your own quotes you provided from the article state that. The only thing you left out was that GP was right: the leakage that is compared is measured at the source. Fukushima did not have a fuel rod catch fire, explode, and spray plutonium and tons of other radioactive shit freakin' everywhere. Pieces of the frickin' fuel rod were just laying out in the open for pete's sake. It melted concrete into radioactive lava, and the nuclear fire created large clouds of fallout smoke that fell for tens of miles in doses FAR ABOVE anything Fukushima measures. That's why it's not comparable in scope and never will be.
I see Trump doing that for one reason and one reason only: attention. He's going to profit from it. He can't honestly thing he stands a chance... I mean, he's not THAT stupid.... is he?
LOL about the media. While legit (??) and all before the election, after he got elected it should be left alone. Not that we shouldn't be suspicious or anything, but the media shouldn't be reporting on baseless suspicions, and the effort is wasted. Not one crazy ranting desperado going on about illegal presidency is going to change the fact that you're this president's bitch for the next few years.
Isn't arguing about it kind of pointless? You're still gonna go splat. In fact, I'd be very disappointed if I lost consciousness as I was going down. That'd be a pretty thrilling way to go.
Nobody said the right weren't arrogant or foolish. Whoever gets the upper hand shows those traits blatantly.
on average, they get a far, far, far better return on health than America
According to who? How do you figure? If you're referencing infant mortality rates as the only reason, please keep in mind the US is also a very obese country. The fact that Americans on average still live longer than most other countries even while being fat as a fucking whale, I'd say our health care quality itself is very high. The argument here I think is accessibility. The two should not be intertwined into the same argument.
While your ideas on collapsing various government branches into one is fine, and I agree, it's also a fantasy. It will never happen here. I'm just being realistic.
As for your relatives, yes, insurance companies can be an obstacle with complex care. Forcing people to pay for insurance will not fix that. The part of the bill that forced insurance companies to relax restrictions would. I'm not sure how that makes them the bad guy though when a single bag of chemo can cost you $90k depending on the type of cancer you have. It also doesn't help the fact that an MRi scan costs $3,500 (c'mon, running the machine a few times with a pseudo-educated person running it). Those tubes in your arm? Frakin' ridiculous. And that's the parts I want people to focus on instead. I don't accept R&D being the sole reason for huge inflated costs, especially when that tech hasn't changed in 50 years (like needles, surgical tools, etc). While some of that is to help the hospital/clinic recoup some costs from people who are not paying, most of it is what they're paying for supplies. Do you have any idea what an MRi machine costs? It's ridiculous! It's no longer new tech, but the inflated prices have never decreased. Somebody's working one helluva scam, and in this case, insurance companies aren't the largest story.
Slashdot Mirror
Those buttered palms makes it difficult to push the button. Too slippery!
I agree with the first part of your statement, in the fact that it survived the quake itself. However, if it was a tsunami only it likely wouldn't have resulted in the same crisis, because the 9.0 quake knocked out all kinds of infrastructure that likely would have still been up (or much more easily repaired) had it only been a tsunami. The results we're seeing is just a combination of a lot of really terrible things and not just one thing.
Now 25% MORE!!!
Not allowing me to resell (in effect, who would buy a used game at the same price as full) should be a crime. It really encourages piracy because you get the feeling you don't actually own what you just bought anyway. It's bogus.
I think there's a big huff because how it's labeled affects how it's treated in the court of law.
Don't pretend Iran is on some kind of moral high ground compared to the rest of the world... or even on a level moral ground. The difference between Iran and other nuclear weapon equipped countries? Other nuclear weapon equipped countries aren't nuking an entire country they don't necessarily like as soon as they get a decent chance just because.
Or more accurately, The Ancients!
Pixie dust and fairy tales?
My assumption that the reactors won't explode is a very sure one, given the current situation, control, design of the cores, etc. It's about the same "assumption" now as me assuming my car won't explode when I drive somewhere this weekend.
The reason the Chernobyl fuel rods exploded is because they used graphite as the neutron moderator. When exposed to oxygen, it becomes highly flammable. The Fukushima rods aren't like this. If there's an explosion, it's going to be due to hydrogen+oxygen buildup in containment vessels which they are mitigating by pumping nitrogen into the containment vessels, and it wouldn't be the fuel rods themselves exploding. So no, it's not an assumption (remember I said the fuel rods wouldn't explode, not that there wouldn't be an explosion). Trying to nitpick won't make the argument go your way. The probability of such an incident mixed with how much under control they have the cooling situation in now makes this a VERY safe "assumption" to make. While we don't know the full extent of total damages yet (since that's impossible), it's also for these reasons Fukushima will NOT, I repeat, will NOT reach anywhere near the same scope as Chernobyl. Quit overly-dramatizing it.
I'm not 100% sure what his entire view on the health care reform is, but I do know he's a solid businessman and I wouldn't doubt he has a few good ideas on the economy.
I honestly don't care what countries like China engage in. The US need to change their behavior NOW. Either that, or I'm starting a world-wide movement to cut all internet connections with the USA. Because currently, internet traffic going through the USA is not secure.
A USA-free Internet is what the world needs since Americans can't stand up to their own government.
Why would we? We're happily sedated on McDonald's and Survivor.
Listen, a fault line is more than a little fragile sheet of bedrock at a single point. It spans tons of miles. Literally large chunks of the planet are moving past each other when an earthquake happens.
Maybe I'm tired today, but what exactly do you mean by "Which is exactly what they did"?
One, it does not matter as much in this scenario if Fukushima was at the epicenter or not. The fact is the resulting tsunami was far greater than anything the plant was built for. Two, the generators were running after the earthquake, but the tsunami did in fact wipe those out. The tsunami hit roughly an hour after the earthquake. The building that housed the generators was wiped out when a nearly 49ft wall of water easily toppled the sea wall that was designed for about 19ft.
You can't make up facts as you go.
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/12/japan-fukushima-oper.html
That states they were designed to withstand a 7.9. They came up with this number based on record-breaking quakes in the area, including an estimate of how powerful one could get that happened in 860-something AD. I can assure you that nobody saw a 9.0 coming. That's roughly 44x more powerful than what they planned for. Considering the circumstances, I don't think it did too bad. I guess next time they'll build taller sea walls.
The harm caused by Chernobyl is indescribably greater because it was an entirely different accident. A leak and a radioactive explosion + fallout are two very different things. Have you considered why it's mostly in water at Fukushima? It's because a containment vessel was damaged, and that's why radiation is leaking and why water that comes into contact with it contains radioactive isotopes. Fuel rods are not fully exposed. They're not on fire. They haven't exploded, and they won't either. You can't reasonably compare the two incidents because they aren't anything alike in characteristics, means of radiation exposure, amount of radiation exposure, types of radioactive material released and how much (totals of all kinds), location of radioactive material, and method and amount of spreading of radioactive material. Hell, they aren't even anywhere close in terms to length of high exposure.
Please point out where I made any assumptions and prove why they are assumptions. The only thing I'm reading here is wild speculation.
Your faith-based belief in the safety of nuclear power regardless of the actual facts is sad.
Quite a blanket statement there. Nuclear power is very safe, especially with newer designs. A few major incidents since the birth of the technology does not deem the whole concept unsafe. Just like how a few terrorist bombings at airports do not deem airports unsafe. That's just ridiculous.
Can you imagine the SNL skits? LOL
* Safe is always relative. I don't think anyone can ever guarantee that a given plant won't melt down under heavy military bombardment or a large meteor strike, but a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and 15 meter tsunami should be easily manageable.
A 9.0 quake easily manageable?? Do you have any perspective on how much power is behind a 9.0? Chuck Norris won't even go near those.
I think we need nuclear energy, and it's a great technology. I just wanted to point out that it takes a bit more than a small hole drilled into the ground to cause a significant earthquake, even if directly on a fault line. That idea is ridiculous. Considering it normally requires planetary forces to do so, and the resulting force is far greater than any nuke we have, I think we're perfectly safe with geothermal.
As far the GP: I'm going to nitpick here, but electric vehicles are currently a farce. It's more efficient when measured in raw power used, but the fact is these batteries use tons of precious metals that are even more rare than oil. Until a battery is used in these vehicles (and laptops, etc for that matter) that doesn't use these precious metals, it's a stupid idea, possibly even more stupid than oil.
The reality is, the current rating is based on radiation at the source NOT its comparability in scope to Chernobyl.
Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency disagrees with you. Their spokesman, Hidehiko Nishiyama, repeatedly compares Fukushima with Chernobyl:
"It's considerably different from Chernobyl," said Nishiyama. "The mount of radioactive materials released at Fukushima is about a tenth of that in the Chernobyl accident."
That part clearly proves the agency does not disagree with GP's statement. They acknowledge that it's serious but not nearly the same thing as Chernobyl. Your own quotes you provided from the article state that. The only thing you left out was that GP was right: the leakage that is compared is measured at the source. Fukushima did not have a fuel rod catch fire, explode, and spray plutonium and tons of other radioactive shit freakin' everywhere. Pieces of the frickin' fuel rod were just laying out in the open for pete's sake. It melted concrete into radioactive lava, and the nuclear fire created large clouds of fallout smoke that fell for tens of miles in doses FAR ABOVE anything Fukushima measures. That's why it's not comparable in scope and never will be.
I see Trump doing that for one reason and one reason only: attention. He's going to profit from it. He can't honestly thing he stands a chance... I mean, he's not THAT stupid.... is he?
LOL about the media. While legit (??) and all before the election, after he got elected it should be left alone. Not that we shouldn't be suspicious or anything, but the media shouldn't be reporting on baseless suspicions, and the effort is wasted. Not one crazy ranting desperado going on about illegal presidency is going to change the fact that you're this president's bitch for the next few years.
usually a nation is born when warring local tribes stop bickering with each other over wifes and cows.
They bickered so much before only because they had a hard time telling the difference!
I jest I jest... mine's a whale.
Man, you could sell tons of books making these correlations to mindless masses.
Isn't arguing about it kind of pointless? You're still gonna go splat. In fact, I'd be very disappointed if I lost consciousness as I was going down. That'd be a pretty thrilling way to go.
on average, they get a far, far, far better return on health than America
According to who? How do you figure? If you're referencing infant mortality rates as the only reason, please keep in mind the US is also a very obese country. The fact that Americans on average still live longer than most other countries even while being fat as a fucking whale, I'd say our health care quality itself is very high. The argument here I think is accessibility. The two should not be intertwined into the same argument.
While your ideas on collapsing various government branches into one is fine, and I agree, it's also a fantasy. It will never happen here. I'm just being realistic.
As for your relatives, yes, insurance companies can be an obstacle with complex care. Forcing people to pay for insurance will not fix that. The part of the bill that forced insurance companies to relax restrictions would. I'm not sure how that makes them the bad guy though when a single bag of chemo can cost you $90k depending on the type of cancer you have. It also doesn't help the fact that an MRi scan costs $3,500 (c'mon, running the machine a few times with a pseudo-educated person running it). Those tubes in your arm? Frakin' ridiculous. And that's the parts I want people to focus on instead. I don't accept R&D being the sole reason for huge inflated costs, especially when that tech hasn't changed in 50 years (like needles, surgical tools, etc). While some of that is to help the hospital/clinic recoup some costs from people who are not paying, most of it is what they're paying for supplies. Do you have any idea what an MRi machine costs? It's ridiculous! It's no longer new tech, but the inflated prices have never decreased. Somebody's working one helluva scam, and in this case, insurance companies aren't the largest story.