Hey, corporations are people. Extending that to chimps isn't too far a stretch.
MOD PARENT UP!
This comment is more insightful than it has been moderated, a living being has more right to legal rights than a charter that externalizes negative consequences and consumes natural resources for profit.
Also at issue here is why the earth itself doesn't have any legal rights under the law when compared to an entity that can spend it's resources fighting the legal consequences of killing and maiming entire ecosystems and then just moving on to the next thing. It's little wonder our planet is so fucked up right now whilst we have these shitfull legal constructs. Remember;
Careful, if Chimps get rights you'd might have to classify lawyers and politicians as people too. The one thing they do have in common with chimps is they both have a propensity to fling feces at one another.
One chimp's feces flinging is another man's board meeting.
The fittest technology for the task is one that answers to the lowest available technology for the task. While I'm all for cheap internet phone calls, I'm also the first to admit that it is not for everyone and won't deal with many users out there. Until fiber optic cable cable to the home is as common as copper it won't be a suitable replacement for POTS.
Making it so does put the emphasis on the user to provide some of the infrastructure that the telcos usually provide, thus saving them money, i.e costing you money, so that the revenues can be driven even higher. The real issue though is supporting emergency phone calls reliably when lives are on the line and whether the backbone technology for the telcos is suitable for the last mile to Joe Caller.
It looks like the shutdown of the entire Nuclear Industry in Japan points to that already occurring so perhaps Japan will make inroads to wind and solar manufacturing in the same way it did with the car industry.
The Japan of today isn't the economic powerhouse of the 80s IMHO. They crippled themselves by how they attempted to recover from their 1990 recession. So maybe they'll do as you say, or maybe they won't have the old advantages any more to compete in those areas.
Perhaps, I'm certain they have a strong survival instinct too.
But it would probably have been better said like this:
We should send all those fucking smart-arse slashdotters over to work on the dangerous reactor cleanup.
I've already worked in functional, operating, nuclear reactors, it was quite interesting. Perhaps we could send fanbois, such as yourself, as you are confident you are safe.
I'll comment about your bogus "nuclear industry didn't learn from Chernobyl" claim in a separate reply.
So says you, the official report produced by an act of parliament report doesn't say it's a bogus opinion.
March 24. Bet you that's the date when all these problems started getting better.
You admitted you were wrong about that date, wrong about the seawall and...
That thread is instructive...I was right on the money...I have shown that... you continue your ignorant libel in the face of these facts.
...now you're wrong about the act of negligence as well. You arrogantly cite your own judgement as absolute. As for labeling my words "ignorant libel", my accusations are now supported by findings of an official act of the Japanese government.
You haven't demonstrated any capacity to label my accusations "ignorant" and now you have no basis to call them libel either.
You are proven wrong, yet again, by the findings of the independent commission.
It's one thing to act on emotion a few weeks after a major disaster. It's a much more pathetic thing to be still parroting the same failed ideas over two years later. You've had plenty of time to correct the error of your thinking. When are you going to do it? Will you go to your deathbed clutching this ignorance?
You have continuously demonstrated you are unwilling to absorb facts and information, it is not my problem you have no capacity to evolve your opinions. Your words, as fecal in origin as they are, are another diarrhea of rhetoric revealing an obdurate maintenance of your dogmatic skepticism. You have not produced a single shred of evidence of fact to back up any of your claims.
The difference in my position and yours is reflected by the findings of an independent commission formed by an act of parliament of the Japanese government. Their findings are a result of an examination of evidence and fact reaching the conclusions that I believed they would, based on a knowledge of the operating characteristics of the reactors involved. Your argument amounts to "cause I say's so". Launch into as many ad-hom attacks as you wish as they reveal the weakness of your "argument".
And nobody seems to bring up the point that the plant was scheduled to be decommissioned in 2011.
So where is your evidence for this claim?
One particular gem is the claim that in 2006, all the relevant parties "knew" that tsunamis could be much worse than was originally forecast. Even if we grant that dubious claim (since I see no evidence that TEPCO institutionally knew of this prior to 2008 or 2009, when they had conducted their own studies), we still have the problem of determining what measures to take in response.
A logical explanation is the commission tasked to investigate this has better access to information and resources than you do.
In hindsight, it's obvious that backup generators were a weak point for such flooding. It's not so obvious in foresight.
Yes it is, have you heard the term "putting your eggs in one basket"?
Large organizations don't turn on a dime. Nuclear regulation in particular is a control system with several years lag.
Just quoting the report "They either intentionally postponed putting safety measures in place, or made decisions based on their organization’s self interest, and not in the interest of public safety" and ""From TEPCO’s perspective, new regulations would have interfered with plant operations and weakened their stance in potential lawsuits. That was enough motivation for TEPCO to aggressively oppose new safety regulations and draw out negotiations with regulators via the Federation of Electric Power Companies (FEPC)."
Had they not resisted the implementation of regulation, via collusion, then the planning and mitigation efforts may have been less. Certainly collusion on the Government and Regulators behalf is a factor, however their role in this manmade accident was not as obvious as TEPCO's at the time. I agree that they share some blame.Just how much blame is probably best revealed in a court however, this won't be seen as a positive for TEPCO in a finding of criminal negligence.
without explaining where this preparedness for a first time ever accident in Japanese history
From the report The direct causes of the accident were all foreseeable prior to March 11, 2011. But the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was incapable of withstanding the earthquake and tsunami that hit on that day. The operator (TEPCO), the regulatory bodies (NISA and NSC) and the government body promoting the nuclear power industry (METI), all failed to correctly develop the most basic safety requirements—such as assessing the probability of damage, preparing for containing collateral damage from such a disaster, and developing evacuation plans for the public in the case of a serious radiation release"
So, the answer is planning, drills, dry runs, simulations. Any venture you carry out must be planned with contingencies if something goes wrong. Earthquakes and tsunamis are designed into the Japanese building code, so they are also known to occur and are hardly first time incidents.
As the report reveals though, TEPCO were actively resisting any regulation put in place that would result in it having to do anything. Particularly the report show us just how woefully unprepared they were.
"sections in the diagrams of the severe accident instruction manual were missing. Workers not only had to work using this flawed manual, but they were pressed for time, and working in the dark with flashlights as their only light source".
Light and proper documentation are rudimentary issues to be unprepared for.
Lumping all three together is deceitful.
I don't understand your point. The government and the regulator also share some responsibility. Ascertaining the depth of blame is a matter for the courts as the collusion will be an on
I have a Retina MacBook Pro with this Crystal Well processor. What advantages does it really bring?
Unsure of any real world benchmarks compared to standard Haswell processors.
I've written papers on the effect however I am unable to share them here. The bottom line is the application should be exposed to reduced minor page faulting and, if all goes well, improved context switching, all dependent on the way the CPU scheduler is configured - of course.
IMHO an L4 cache will alleviate the cache miss penalty when the CPU Scheduler looks for data in L1-3 however any increase in the penalty due to a cache miss will be highly dependent on the application and the way the CPU scheduler is configured.
The idea is to try and keep the L1-3 Cache as hot as possible, really it's because as programmers, many of us still have a long way to go to writing code that scales to parallel processing well (in the 21st century!!!) plus there is a lot of code out there already.
For Linux and Apple based systems (I can examine the code of these CPU Schedulers - just not the Microsoft as it is proprietary) this should mean that the amount of time the CPU spends on application tasks, as opposed to O.S tasks is increased, essentially boiling down to reduced application latency and improved "responsiveness". I don't mean to use such wishy-washy terms however at this level cpu instructions are carried out in the nano-femto second range and the duration imposed by a cache miss penalty and a context switch will also be dependent on the ram installed - which is another factor in the duration of a minor page fault.
Assuming that the schedulers, in a "fair and balanced" configuration I expect the following. For code that scales to parallelism you should see improvements because a task will exist on multiple cores well and not incur penalties for hogging CPU resulting in the L1-3 caches staying hot with application data longer (ideally, with threads running on multiple cores). For code that doesn't I expect it to hog a core, get pushed back to ram by the scheduler and be exposed to all of the performance penalties that come as a result.
Personally I have always thought it's a contest between Cycles and Cache - not a direct effect on battery life or power consumption however if the CPU is spending more time on application than OS then you are closer what the original Amdahl's law sought to show - if your application allows it.
If I were on the jury I'd refuse to convict those guilty of assault, provided they used no (improvised) weapons and stopped once their point had been made.
It's like people who fly while they have the flu, is their trip so important that they have to infect a whole cabin packed full of people so they can suffer to.
It's a shitty sign of the times that, so often, you can no longer politely ask someone to stop being annoying. They'll get "offended" and belligerent instead of being enough of a person to recognize that you had cause. Accepting a legitimate and polite correction is now viewed as a sign of weakness or submission. That's the cause of a great deal of violence, in fact nearly all violence that is not state-sponsored.
People who lack humility are afflicted with this, they make enemies for themselves by saying they don't want to cause a confrontation and then set about doing so. As for annoying people I have little tolerance, although my size and build usually means that a short look in the eyes of the offender is enough to stop them.
The social fabric is currently as unsustainable as the financial edifice of society. It makes me wonder if it will change course. What you said about impulse control has everything to do with having a little discipline and personal responsibility (it wouldn't take much). These things aren't "fun" or "entertaining" to acquire so more and more people can't be bothered. Am I alone in witnessing how tragic this is? Assholes with phones here, idiots gathering to chat and blocking doorways there, someone running off the road (or over the median) because their call or burger or makeup is more important to them elsewhere -- these little things are merely symptoms.
I don't think you are alone. I notice that these people seem to think that their time is more valuable than anyone else. Those who expect me to change direction for their conversation get a rude shock when I continue to stare at eye level as if I haven't even noticed they were there whilst I continue my stride, I like my body language to read "get the fuck out of my way" and I do not deviate.
I noticed every morning a driver who would read while the lights were red and wait until someone honked him before driving off delaying everyone behind. An opportunity arose when he was first at the lights, so I honked him while they were still red (it was safe enough not to cause an accident) and he drove off, he was so conditioned. I laughed so hard at his fury, however it seemed fitting.
You are right about social etiquette, discipline and personal responsibility especially seen with people on laptops in cafes as if they a writing a huge fucking novel or on their phone closing a multi-million dollar deal when they are just slaves to the shiny...
I can imagine a situation where someone who can't exert any impulse control gets on a mobile phone while the rest of the cabin is trying to sleep, a very real risk of on-board assaults from tired and frustrated travelers.
If you consider it when a cellular phone is in the air it is an equal distance from several towers, so it is effectively difficult for the telcos to bill the users properly and the airline to get a cut - so tell people it's a safety issue and they can't use it. More likely the safety issues, which bring an airline down because of on-board mobile phone use are yet to be discovered.
Just hope I'm not on the aircraft that reveals the problem.
When we estimate that, due to human negligence we may have to evacuate whole countries due to one meager nuclear power plant
Which isn't much of a standard since a number of countries are no bigger than small cities and human negligence hasn't been responsible for a big nuclear accident in almost 30 years.
Although triggered by these cataclysmic events, the subsequent accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster – that could and should have been foreseen and prevented.
So it would seem that the official findings differ from your opinion.
One important thing would had been competent people handling the plant.
This has never been shown to be an actual problem at Fukushima. I've complained about this attitude since shortly after the disaster happened. Where's the evidence that TEPCO acted incompetently? Instead, I see now as I did back when, that TEPCO recovered well from a huge disaster.
The evidence to the contrary has been examined by appropriately legislated independent Japanese bodies. You just refuse to recognize it as such, your complaints are, therefore, irrelevant.
The Fukushima plant was exposed due to one of the largest earthquakes of modern history to conditions beyond its design specifications and it behaved as intended with a contained meltdown of several reactors.
TEPCO re-rated the plant to 600Gal, the plant was only ever exposed to 150Gal during the Earthquake, so clearly this is an incorrect statement.
TEPCO then acted to prevent the situation from getting worse. They've since expended considerable effort to clean up their mess and take responsibility for their actions (which includes compensating those who have been harmed by the Fukushima accident).
Your posts come across as if you are you an apologist for TEPCO or the Nuclear industry. Are you in any way related to, paid for by or sponsored in any way by the Nuclear industry or TEPCO in a professional or other capacity?
So where is this alleged evidence of incompetence?
I ask again. Do you have evidence of incompetence?
a multitude of errors and willful negligence that left the Fukushima plant unprepared for the events of March 11
serious deficiencies in the response to the accident by TEPCO, regulators and the government
TEPCO must undergo dramatic corporate reform, including governance and risk management and information disclosure—with safety as the sole priority.
The most telling citation I can provide you from the official report is how the nuclear industry managed to avoid absorbing the critical lessons learned from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. I'm sure you've sen that before.
Japan has a long way to go before exhausting its latent solar, wind, geothermal and conservation potential.
And it reasonable to exhaust better alternatives to these "potentials" first.
It looks like the shutdown of the entire Nuclear Industry in Japan points to that already occurring so perhaps Japan will make inroads to wind and solar manufacturing in the same way it did with the car industry.
What should piss off Japan and everyone else is these plants are US plants, Westinghouse and Japan didn't follow the same standards for US nuclear plants, otherwise this whole thing wouldn't be were its at.
They are Japanese nuclear plants built and operated in Japan.
Two plants in the disaster were supplied by General Electric and the other two plants were manufactured by Toshiba and Hitachi to the General Electric design. Obviously they were "built and operated in Japan" because they just don't fit things that big onto a ship and iirc G.E is still an American company.
And why are the standards for US nuclear plants supposed to be better than the standards for Japanese plants?
Simply because the U.S plants have a massive concrete dome encasing the entire reactor with a Thermal power to pressure rating related to the power output of the reactor. The Fukushima reactors didn't have the same feature, if it was a regulatory requirement then the reactor would not have been operating.
absolutely nothing happened these past five months.
For those who cared about western society it proves is freedom is an illusion and democracy is a lie because when we gave up on diplomacy and waterboarded the first insurgent it proved our ideals weren't as strong as our military. This justifies the transition from covert to overt intelligence.
That's the nature of a Police State who has nothing to fear from the people.
I can't say I'm all that sorry to see evil (MAFIAA) go after the bad (shady lyric sites) since many of these sites are copying from each other,
Many musicians use lyrics sites to check if it's an original idea versus a existing one. As usual, the music industry is fucking over musicians, I doubt they will pay musicians for the advertising revenue that the lyrics attract.
You may not be aware but you make several flawed assumptions with out of date information and it seems like you are trivialising an extremely dangerous accident. First of all the article postulates whether or not the cladding of the fuel rods have been split which by understanding the base characteristics of the reactor would reveal that they are simply because that is a consequence of the production of hydrogen in the reactor that caused the explosion in the first place.
It also makes no mention of the spent fuel pools, that the loss of the back up power was because of an act of negligence on the part of the operator and, foolishly, declares that the accident is under control a mere four days after the accident.
If you have taken College Chemistry, you'll know why even the radiation released from the leak is nothing compared to both the background radiation in the ocean due to dilution
It seems ironic that you berate people for Chemistry knowledge because if you understood the true nature of the accident you would realise that the danger comes from the radionuclides as a radiation emitter as opposed to radiation and, that due to the chemical nature of radio isotopes, they bio-accumulate instead of dilute.
Examples of such reactors include the US Integral Fast Reactor or the French Superphénix.
An IFR is a different reactor from a breeder reactor, it is a burner reactor and has a different fuel cycle from a breeder. They are both fast neutron reactors however they have different design goals. Also IFR includes a reprocessing facility as part of the design and a breeder does not.
A burner reactor (such as IFR) has a burn-up rate of fuel (usually pu-239) approaching 20% whereas a breeder *creates* plutonium from the other elements that are combined and transmuted in the core.
There is currently 70,000 tons of plutonium available as fuel and the IFR can utilise U-238 as a fuel, at current estimates there exists roughly 5000 years of fuel for a reactor of this type however it suffers a critical materials technology issue to implement to avoid the issues of negative net energy return.
That doesn't sound benign. You tangled with a genuine screamer.
I just remembered that they wouldn't let me drive home. When they say in the wiki you pulled up "cause severe pain to humans" it should read, "cancel any plans you may have had". Hot water really helped, though it says a lot about the pain when you are in a scalding hot shower in the middle of summer and that is the least of your problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, corporations are people. Extending that to chimps isn't too far a stretch.
MOD PARENT UP!
This comment is more insightful than it has been moderated, a living being has more right to legal rights than a charter that externalizes negative consequences and consumes natural resources for profit.
Also at issue here is why the earth itself doesn't have any legal rights under the law when compared to an entity that can spend it's resources fighting the legal consequences of killing and maiming entire ecosystems and then just moving on to the next thing. It's little wonder our planet is so fucked up right now whilst we have these shitfull legal constructs. Remember;
Careful, if Chimps get rights you'd might have to classify lawyers and politicians as people too. The one thing they do have in common with chimps is they both have a propensity to fling feces at one another.
One chimp's feces flinging is another man's board meeting.
Making it so does put the emphasis on the user to provide some of the infrastructure that the telcos usually provide, thus saving them money, i.e costing you money, so that the revenues can be driven even higher. The real issue though is supporting emergency phone calls reliably when lives are on the line and whether the backbone technology for the telcos is suitable for the last mile to Joe Caller.
It looks like the shutdown of the entire Nuclear Industry in Japan points to that already occurring so perhaps Japan will make inroads to wind and solar manufacturing in the same way it did with the car industry.
The Japan of today isn't the economic powerhouse of the 80s IMHO. They crippled themselves by how they attempted to recover from their 1990 recession. So maybe they'll do as you say, or maybe they won't have the old advantages any more to compete in those areas.
Perhaps, I'm certain they have a strong survival instinct too.
But it would probably have been better said like this:
We should send all those fucking smart-arse slashdotters over to work on the dangerous reactor cleanup.
I've already worked in functional, operating, nuclear reactors, it was quite interesting. Perhaps we could send fanbois, such as yourself, as you are confident you are safe.
So says you, the official report produced by an act of parliament report doesn't say it's a bogus opinion.
You admitted you were wrong about that date, wrong about the seawall and...
You have continuously demonstrated you are unwilling to absorb facts and information, it is not my problem you have no capacity to evolve your opinions. Your words, as fecal in origin as they are, are another diarrhea of rhetoric revealing an obdurate maintenance of your dogmatic skepticism. You have not produced a single shred of evidence of fact to back up any of your claims.
The difference in my position and yours is reflected by the findings of an independent commission formed by an act of parliament of the Japanese government. Their findings are a result of an examination of evidence and fact reaching the conclusions that I believed they would, based on a knowledge of the operating characteristics of the reactors involved. Your argument amounts to "cause I say's so". Launch into as many ad-hom attacks as you wish as they reveal the weakness of your "argument".
So where is your evidence for this claim?
A logical explanation is the commission tasked to investigate this has better access to information and resources than you do.
Yes it is, have you heard the term "putting your eggs in one basket"?
Just quoting the report "They either intentionally postponed putting safety measures in place, or made decisions based on their organization’s self interest, and not in the interest of public safety" and ""From TEPCO’s perspective, new regulations would have interfered with plant operations and weakened their stance in potential lawsuits. That was enough motivation for TEPCO to aggressively oppose new safety regulations and draw out negotiations with regulators via the Federation of Electric Power Companies (FEPC)."
Had they not resisted the implementation of regulation, via collusion, then the planning and mitigation efforts may have been less. Certainly collusion on the Government and Regulators behalf is a factor, however their role in this manmade accident was not as obvious as TEPCO's at the time. I agree that they share some blame.Just how much blame is probably best revealed in a court however, this won't be seen as a positive for TEPCO in a finding of criminal negligence.
From the report The direct causes of the accident were all foreseeable prior to March 11, 2011. But the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was incapable of withstanding the earthquake and tsunami that hit on that day. The operator (TEPCO), the regulatory bodies (NISA and NSC) and the government body promoting the nuclear power industry (METI), all failed to correctly develop the most basic safety requirements—such as assessing the probability of damage, preparing for containing collateral damage from such a disaster, and developing evacuation plans for the public in the case of a serious radiation release"
So, the answer is planning, drills, dry runs, simulations. Any venture you carry out must be planned with contingencies if something goes wrong. Earthquakes and tsunamis are designed into the Japanese building code, so they are also known to occur and are hardly first time incidents.
As the report reveals though, TEPCO were actively resisting any regulation put in place that would result in it having to do anything. Particularly the report show us just how woefully unprepared they were.
"sections in the diagrams of the severe accident instruction manual were missing. Workers not only had to work using this flawed manual, but they were pressed for time, and working in the dark with flashlights as their only light source".
Light and proper documentation are rudimentary issues to be unprepared for.
I don't understand your point. The government and the regulator also share some responsibility. Ascertaining the depth of blame is a matter for the courts as the collusion will be an on
Its not been mentioned because skynet is so ridiculously tired at this point that we're not even repeating it ... AGAIN.
Seems like the moment when it becomes plausible...
I have a Retina MacBook Pro with this Crystal Well processor. What advantages does it really bring?
Unsure of any real world benchmarks compared to standard Haswell processors.
I've written papers on the effect however I am unable to share them here. The bottom line is the application should be exposed to reduced minor page faulting and, if all goes well, improved context switching, all dependent on the way the CPU scheduler is configured - of course.
IMHO an L4 cache will alleviate the cache miss penalty when the CPU Scheduler looks for data in L1-3 however any increase in the penalty due to a cache miss will be highly dependent on the application and the way the CPU scheduler is configured.
The idea is to try and keep the L1-3 Cache as hot as possible, really it's because as programmers, many of us still have a long way to go to writing code that scales to parallel processing well (in the 21st century!!!) plus there is a lot of code out there already.
For Linux and Apple based systems (I can examine the code of these CPU Schedulers - just not the Microsoft as it is proprietary) this should mean that the amount of time the CPU spends on application tasks, as opposed to O.S tasks is increased, essentially boiling down to reduced application latency and improved "responsiveness". I don't mean to use such wishy-washy terms however at this level cpu instructions are carried out in the nano-femto second range and the duration imposed by a cache miss penalty and a context switch will also be dependent on the ram installed - which is another factor in the duration of a minor page fault.
Assuming that the schedulers, in a "fair and balanced" configuration I expect the following. For code that scales to parallelism you should see improvements because a task will exist on multiple cores well and not incur penalties for hogging CPU resulting in the L1-3 caches staying hot with application data longer (ideally, with threads running on multiple cores). For code that doesn't I expect it to hog a core, get pushed back to ram by the scheduler and be exposed to all of the performance penalties that come as a result.
Personally I have always thought it's a contest between Cycles and Cache - not a direct effect on battery life or power consumption however if the CPU is spending more time on application than OS then you are closer what the original Amdahl's law sought to show - if your application allows it.
I'm surprised this meme hasn't been brought up yet, however add AI and weapons to drones...
It's like people who fly while they have the flu, is their trip so important that they have to infect a whole cabin packed full of people so they can suffer to.
People who lack humility are afflicted with this, they make enemies for themselves by saying they don't want to cause a confrontation and then set about doing so. As for annoying people I have little tolerance, although my size and build usually means that a short look in the eyes of the offender is enough to stop them.
I don't think you are alone. I notice that these people seem to think that their time is more valuable than anyone else. Those who expect me to change direction for their conversation get a rude shock when I continue to stare at eye level as if I haven't even noticed they were there whilst I continue my stride, I like my body language to read "get the fuck out of my way" and I do not deviate.
I noticed every morning a driver who would read while the lights were red and wait until someone honked him before driving off delaying everyone behind. An opportunity arose when he was first at the lights, so I honked him while they were still red (it was safe enough not to cause an accident) and he drove off, he was so conditioned. I laughed so hard at his fury, however it seemed fitting.
You are right about social etiquette, discipline and personal responsibility especially seen with people on laptops in cafes as if they a writing a huge fucking novel or on their phone closing a multi-million dollar deal when they are just slaves to the shiny...
I think this would lead to in-flight homicide.
I can imagine a situation where someone who can't exert any impulse control gets on a mobile phone while the rest of the cabin is trying to sleep, a very real risk of on-board assaults from tired and frustrated travelers.
If you consider it when a cellular phone is in the air it is an equal distance from several towers, so it is effectively difficult for the telcos to bill the users properly and the airline to get a cut - so tell people it's a safety issue and they can't use it. More likely the safety issues, which bring an airline down because of on-board mobile phone use are yet to be discovered.
Just hope I'm not on the aircraft that reveals the problem.
Sex Crime!! Sex Crime!!
Thank you for the link.
I refer you (again) to the official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission prepared for the The National Parliment (Diet) of Japan, which says;
Although triggered by these cataclysmic events, the subsequent accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster – that could and should have been foreseen and prevented.
So it would seem that the official findings differ from your opinion.
The evidence to the contrary has been examined by appropriately legislated independent Japanese bodies. You just refuse to recognize it as such, your complaints are, therefore, irrelevant.
TEPCO re-rated the plant to 600Gal, the plant was only ever exposed to 150Gal during the Earthquake, so clearly this is an incorrect statement.
Your posts come across as if you are you an apologist for TEPCO or the Nuclear industry. Are you in any way related to, paid for by or sponsored in any way by the Nuclear industry or TEPCO in a professional or other capacity?
Yes. The answers you seek are contained in the official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission prepared for the The National Parliment (Diet) of Japan, which cites (amongst others);
The most telling citation I can provide you from the official report is how the nuclear industry managed to avoid absorbing the critical lessons learned from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. I'm sure you've sen that before.
It looks like the shutdown of the entire Nuclear Industry in Japan points to that already occurring so perhaps Japan will make inroads to wind and solar manufacturing in the same way it did with the car industry.
Two plants in the disaster were supplied by General Electric and the other two plants were manufactured by Toshiba and Hitachi to the General Electric design. Obviously they were "built and operated in Japan" because they just don't fit things that big onto a ship and iirc G.E is still an American company.
Simply because the U.S plants have a massive concrete dome encasing the entire reactor with a Thermal power to pressure rating related to the power output of the reactor. The Fukushima reactors didn't have the same feature, if it was a regulatory requirement then the reactor would not have been operating.
We could really use this in Australia.
absolutely nothing happened these past five months.
For those who cared about western society it proves is freedom is an illusion and democracy is a lie because when we gave up on diplomacy and waterboarded the first insurgent it proved our ideals weren't as strong as our military. This justifies the transition from covert to overt intelligence.
That's the nature of a Police State who has nothing to fear from the people.
I can't say I'm all that sorry to see evil (MAFIAA) go after the bad (shady lyric sites) since many of these sites are copying from each other,
Many musicians use lyrics sites to check if it's an original idea versus a existing one. As usual, the music industry is fucking over musicians, I doubt they will pay musicians for the advertising revenue that the lyrics attract.
You may not be aware but you make several flawed assumptions with out of date information and it seems like you are trivialising an extremely dangerous accident. First of all the article postulates whether or not the cladding of the fuel rods have been split which by understanding the base characteristics of the reactor would reveal that they are simply because that is a consequence of the production of hydrogen in the reactor that caused the explosion in the first place.
It also makes no mention of the spent fuel pools, that the loss of the back up power was because of an act of negligence on the part of the operator and, foolishly, declares that the accident is under control a mere four days after the accident.
It seems ironic that you berate people for Chemistry knowledge because if you understood the true nature of the accident you would realise that the danger comes from the radionuclides as a radiation emitter as opposed to radiation and, that due to the chemical nature of radio isotopes, they bio-accumulate instead of dilute.
Examples of such reactors include the US Integral Fast Reactor or the French Superphénix.
An IFR is a different reactor from a breeder reactor, it is a burner reactor and has a different fuel cycle from a breeder. They are both fast neutron reactors however they have different design goals. Also IFR includes a reprocessing facility as part of the design and a breeder does not.
A burner reactor (such as IFR) has a burn-up rate of fuel (usually pu-239) approaching 20% whereas a breeder *creates* plutonium from the other elements that are combined and transmuted in the core.
There is currently 70,000 tons of plutonium available as fuel and the IFR can utilise U-238 as a fuel, at current estimates there exists roughly 5000 years of fuel for a reactor of this type however it suffers a critical materials technology issue to implement to avoid the issues of negative net energy return.
Breeders, however, are simply obsolete.
That doesn't sound benign. You tangled with a genuine screamer.
I just remembered that they wouldn't let me drive home. When they say in the wiki you pulled up "cause severe pain to humans" it should read, "cancel any plans you may have had". Hot water really helped, though it says a lot about the pain when you are in a scalding hot shower in the middle of summer and that is the least of your problems.