|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Normally, I'd ask you to laugh at the following headline, but this situation has just gotten so serious and sad.
Radiation Over U.S. Is Harmless, Officials Say
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: March 22, 2011
Harmless traces of radiation from the stricken nuclear complex in Japan have been detected wafting over the East Coast of the United States, European officials said Monday.
Since last week, the officials have tracked the radioactive plume as it has drifted eastward on prevailing winds from Japan -- first to the West Coast and now over the East Coast and the Atlantic, moving toward Europe... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Vistorq: I looked for the study I remember seeing. The numbers were apparently WHO figures. I couldn't find it, though I could see plenty of people quoting them. What I could find was several newspaper articles quoting a study putting that number at about 13,000 people, and WHO figures showing 40,000 people in the US dieing from air pollution. Roughly 2.4 million overall through the world, though many of those are indoor pollution (coal and wood burned on cooking fires.)
http://www.who.int/entity/quantifying_ehimpacts/countryprofilesebd.xls
Proving that one particular death was due to coal and not to some other source of pollution is as difficult as proving that my cancer is due to Chernobyl, and not that CT scan I had. In any case, the sheer amount of pollution that coal releases worldwide makes it a major contributor to air pollution deaths, and causes far more deaths than any official estimate of nuclear.
Nuclear accidents are big, messy and scary. They are rare, but devastating incidents reported worldwide. The deaths from fossil fuels in all their forms tend to happen in ones and twos, in hospital rooms and bedrooms, and aren't generally newsworthy. It's just like plane crashes vs car accidents.
To Spacebar. Modern detectors are hypersensitive. They can detect nuclear material at almost any concentration. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
OneWayTraffic wrote: |
Vistorq: I looked for the study I remember seeing. The numbers were apparently WHO figures. I couldn't find it, though I could see plenty of people quoting them. What I could find was several newspaper articles quoting a study putting that number at about 13,000 people, and WHO figures showing 40,000 people in the US dieing from air pollution. Roughly 2.4 million overall through the world, though many of those are indoor pollution (coal and wood burned on cooking fires.)
http://www.who.int/entity/quantifying_ehimpacts/countryprofilesebd.xls |
I can't really offer a rebuttal here off the top of my head in the form of appealing to some other "authority". However, I will say that I trust the WHO and their science about as much as I trust any other globalist organization: not in the least. In fact I strongly distrust them, since I know they have an agenda.
Quote: |
Proving that one particular death was due to coal and not to some other source of pollution is as difficult as proving that my cancer is due to Chernobyl, and not that CT scan I had. In any case, the sheer amount of pollution that coal releases worldwide makes it a major contributor to air pollution deaths, and causes far more deaths than any official estimate of nuclear. |
I don't necessarily disagree with this, as it is. However, most coal pollution is generated from dirty power plants in developing nations like China. I fail to see how clean coal power (generated from the latest technology, which filters out nearly all the particulate) could lead to even a single death from pollution. CO2 is not even pollution really (any more than H20 is).
I suspect that "background" radiation is far less harmful to health that the isotopes that get regularly leaked into the environment and stay there for a long time, contaminating the food chain. One has to wonder how much radioactive Cesium, or even Uranium/Plutonium for that matter any of us has ingested throughout our lifetime. Even the tiniest of amounts would greatly increase our cancer risk. These isotopes didn't really exist in their pure forms before mankind started manufacturing them and introducing them into the environment through atomic weapons testing and nuclear accidents etc. And since such a vast number people are dying of cancer these days, I don't think it's so easy to dismiss as the nuclear industry (and their hired "experts") would have us believe. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Visitorq: I think that we will have to agree to disagree on WHO and CO2. This isn't the thread for that. I doubt either of us will change our minds on that. Suffice to say that I think CO2 is a big (though I don't know how big) deal, and I generally trust the WHO (within reason, I don't think the figures on coal are stretched)
As for the rest, I don't think it's balanced to compare the best possible coal technology with existing nuclear technology. Fourth generation nuclear power plants are to PWRs as Clean coal is to what is actually used out there.
With all the new chemicals, hormones, increased particulate matter combined with our longer lifespans, it's not surprising that cancer is on the rise. Nuclear materials play their part; to those exposed to them. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
OneWayTraffic wrote: |
As for the rest, I don't think it's balanced to compare the best possible coal technology with existing nuclear technology. Fourth generation nuclear power plants are to PWRs as Clean coal is to what is actually used out there. |
This is fair. I'm not altogether anti-nuclear; I don't doubt that it is possible to run very safe nuclear plants in certain parts of the world where there is practically no chance of natural disasters ever striking. No doubt it would be a lot more expensive to build these plants properly, with layers upon layers of backup systems, and disposing of the waste properly (instead of storing it in giant unprotected bins attached to the ceiling ie. the General Electric design used in Fukushima)... I just think coal would be a lot cheaper and easier, even building the best and cleanest plants.
My contention here is that Japan is one of the most seismically active countries on earth and everyone knows it regularly gets smashed by devastating tremors and tsunami. Building a whole bunch of nuclear plants there (esp. right beside the ocean, which was so utterly asinine I'd call it criminally negligent) is just asking for this sort of disaster to happen... The same can be said for parts of the US along fault lines (such as California) where there are many nuclear plants.
Basically though I just don't appreciate the lies and spin coming from the pundits' mouths on this issue, telling us the Fukushima meltdown is all perfectly fine and normal, and that radiation is good and Plutonium is nutritious and healthy etc. etc. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ZIFA
Joined: 23 Feb 2011 Location: Dici che il fiume..Trova la via al mare
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Meanwhile back at the ranch:
Quote: |
Wed Mar. 30 2011 06:15:40
CTV.ca News Staff
In yet another reminder that the radiation crisis from Japan's earthquake-wrecked nuclear facility is far from over, the country announced Wednesday that it's detected the highest levels yet of radiation in nearby seawater. |
http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110330/japan-nuclear-radiation-110330/20110330/?hub=CalgaryHome
Basically they have no choice but to keep on hosing the reactors from a distance until the fuel has cooled. 2 months from now?
By which time a large amount of radioactive water will have overflowed from the plant and into the environment.
And it seems like the accident could have been avoided with some pretty basic precautions. like not situating it right beside the sea. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
OneWayTraffic wrote: |
Proving that one particular death was due to coal and not to some other source of pollution is as difficult as proving that my cancer is due to Chernobyl, and not that CT scan I had. In any case, the sheer amount of pollution that coal releases worldwide makes it a major contributor to air pollution deaths, and causes far more deaths than any official estimate of nuclear. |
Spikes in thyroid cancers at 4-5-year intervals after radiation exposures which had been otherwise decreasing may not be iron-clad proof of their cause, but it is pretty damn good evidence, as are decreases in infant mortality in areas after nuclear plants have been closed.
Quote: |
To Spacebar. Modern detectors are hypersensitive. They can detect nuclear material at almost any concentration. |
No. I am hypersensitive. Modern detectors are extremely or highly sensitive, and that is a good thing since radiation in any concentration is harmful. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004 Location: All over the map
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Japan Weighs Entombing Nuclear Plant on Chain Reaction Risk |
Quote: |
The risk to workers might be greater than previously thought because melted fuel in the No. 1 reactor building may be causing isolated, uncontrolled nuclear chain reactions, Denis Flory, nuclear safety director for the UN�s International Atomic Energy Agency, said at a press conference in Vienna.
�Localized Criticality�
Nuclear experts call these reactions "localized criticality," which will increase radiation and hamper the ability to shut down the plant. The reactions consist of a burst of heat, radiation and sometimes an "ethereal blue flash," according to the U.S. Energy Department�s Los Alamos National Laboratory web site. Twenty-one workers have been killed by "criticality accidents" since 1945, the site said. |
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-30/record-high-levels-of-radiation-found-in-sea-near-crippled-nuclear-reactor.html |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^ yeah, there's been neutron beams being emitted for weeks. Apparently they're even visible at night (though I've not seen pictures).
Latest is they're mulling over entombing it with some kind of special fabric tent that would trap in radiation and condense any steam rising up to trap it inside. NHK has been showing an 'expert' plopping a duct-tape shell-type thingy with his fingers over the scale model of the exploded reactor buildings once again, not very confidence inspiring... They're also talking about spraying a bunch of plastic polymer stuff everywhere to try and stop the water from leaking out.
Basically, it just seems like the whole thing is a giant cluster%$# and they've still got no real solution in sight... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, and the Daini plant (10km away from the Daiichi complex) was now reportedly smoking as of yesterday evening.... just what we all needed to hear.... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ZIFA
Joined: 23 Feb 2011 Location: Dici che il fiume..Trova la via al mare
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
visitorq wrote: |
They're also talking about spraying a bunch of plastic polymer stuff everywhere to try and stop the water from leaking out.
Basically, it just seems like the whole thing is a giant cluster%$# and they've still got no real solution in sight... |
Basically they seem to have built an unfixable nuclear plant. Constructed in the gamble that nothing would go wrong, and no real plan for if it it did.
A lot of anger is smouldering towards Tepco i think but it will only be fully unleashed when and if this thing is ever over.
The whole thing continues to be extremely worrying. Why hasn't the IAEA moved in expert teams and equipment? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fukushima beyond point of no return as radioactive core melts through containment vessel
Fukushima meltdown update: Cesium in the soil, ocean waters contaminated and fuel core meltdown now under way
Thursday, March 31, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
� As the Wall Street Journal reports (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...), the U.S. government has now admitted that radiation is being found in milk from Washington state. They say it's "safe" to drink, of course. That's the U.S. government for you: Irradiated milk is safe, but raw milk is dangerous!
� The battle to save Fukushima is now over, as Japanese officials admit the nuclear power complex must now be abandoned and entombed (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...). The Dailymail published, "officials said it would mean switching off all power and abandoning attempts to keep the nuclear fuel rods cool." The problem with that, of course, is that there are already "three raging meltdowns" under way as Dr. Kaku explains (below). If you abandon efforts to cool the fuel rods, then an accelerated meltdown is "inevitable," says Dr. Kaku.
� Japanese nuclear experts now admit it will require 20 years to decommission the Fukushima nuclear reactors. (http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/20...)
� Cesium-137 has now been found 25 miles from Fukushima at such dangerously high concentrations that they far exceed the threshold of land abandonment used by the Soviet Union following the Chernobyl catastrophe (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/w...). This is raising questions of whether the evacuation zone around Fukushima should now be expanded.
� It has now been revealed that Japan's nuclear disaster preparedness plans were written by complete morons. The entire Fukushima power plant complex, for example, called for only one emergency stretcher to be on-site, and only 50 protective suits (even though hundreds of people worked there). Do you see shades of the TITANIC at play here? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...)
� In a shocking video interview, physicist Dr. Michio Kaku explained, "If it goes to a full-scale evacuation of all personnel, it means that firefighters are no longer putting water onto the cores. That's the only thing preventing a full-scale meltdown at three reactor sites. Once they evacuate, then we past the point of no return. Meltdowns are inevitable at three reactor sites, leading to a tragedy far beyond that of Chernobyl, creating permanent dead zones in Japan." Watch that video at: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=604AB...
� Meanwhile, the Fukushima denialists are in full swing, complaining that anyone talking about Fukushima's meltdown is "fearmongering." One especially idiotic journalist in the UK constructed a completely fabricated article today, claiming that "nobody has suffered or will suffer any radiological health consequences [from Fukushima]." How's that for a total denial of reality? This writer goes on to say, "The nuclear power plants in the stricken region have suffered less damage and caused less trouble to local residents than anything else that was there." (I'm not linking to this source because they don't deserve the attention, but trust me, this is from a major newspaper in the UK.) It just goes to show you that these spin doctors will stop at nothing to try to convince people that nuclear power is the safest thing in the world. There's little question that most of these denialists are on the payroll of the nuclear industry (or just hate the human race for their own twisted or demonic reasons).
� As reported by the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/w...), "The level of radioactive iodine 131 in the waters off the Daiichi plant continued to increase on Thursday, rising to 4,385 times the statutory limit... The increases raise the possibility that contaminants from the plant are continuously leaking into the sea."
� Fears about radioactive seafood are growing as Japan's ocean waters are increasingly contaminated with very high levels of radiation, now even exceeding the 3,300 times recently reported (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Taint...).
But remember, everyone: There's nothing to worry about according to your government! Don't be concerned about radiation. It's invisible, so it must be safe! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okay. I've been won over. This looks pretty bad. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tokyo is my major worry. I have a good friend living in Nara. Pretty far away, yeah, but if Tokyo is badly affected, all of Japan will become unpleasant, to put it lightly. Gaijins should be thinking in these terms. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Koveras wrote: |
Tokyo is my major worry. I have a good friend living in Nara. Pretty far away, yeah, but if Tokyo is badly affected, all of Japan will become unpleasant, to put it lightly. Gaijins should be thinking in these terms. |
Put another way: if Tokyo is badly effected (like full meltdown scenario with Plutonium blowing in), then Japan will be mostly finished as a nation. This will in turn pretty much lead in one way or another to the destruction of the global economy. Japan has over $2 trillion in US dollar reserves (real liquidity that could be dumped on the markets, not just derivatives). Tokyo's GDP alone is bigger than Canada or South Korea's. Not to mention Tokyo is just plain an awesome and vibrant city and the notion of it becoming radioactive is too horrible for the imagination to properly conceive. This whole situation is utterly surreal to me. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|