Fukushima meltdown(s) ?

Fukushima… . Okay folks, Just what is your opinion about all of this? I understand that at least one of the plants is in meltdown even as I type (as now admitted by Japan’s TEPCO). Apparently there are massive amounts of radiation being released both into our atmosphere and oceans and circulating our small planet because of this little problem. The main stream news for the most part, will not cover this in the detail that they might, say for, American Idol. Here, a linky for you (one of many!) Note that I am NOT being an alarmist or political or religious mind you, I am just attempting to look at a very real situation, and what could be done about it. Any Ideas ?

Peace, pix

Thanks for posting. I kind of had a gut feeling
that they were lying and withholding information.
I’m not surprised the US Media downplaying it and
only telling people what they want them to know and think.

If you really want to see how grave things are
check out this site http://vigilantcitizen.com.

We live in a world controlled by people that don’t care and
play with our lives like a game of Chess.

Hysteria vs science…

Nuclear actually is safer (and cleaner) than other fuels…

Please review the date of that article… .
Yep, safer and cleaner all right. At least in this one incident at Chernobyl
There are far fewer people in the area to pollute with other power sources (like wind, solar, etc.), nor will there be any in the forseeable future… .

Maybe there is a japanese who is not so enthusiastic about nuclear power http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/third-worker-dies-at-fukushima-nuclear-plant-2284049.html.

In order to fall unconscious in one hour you have to be exposed to a tremendous amount of radiation, similar to the worst cases like the Los Alamos accident of 1958 (12,000 rem, 120 Sv!) http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1958USA2.html. Even exposures of 20/50 Sv (100% fatality rate) do not cause unconsciousness in such a short time. Doses below 100mSv (like the one mentioned in the article) cause only temporary blood formula effects (I am talking about acute radiation sickness, long term oncogenic effects are another thing).

This is rock solid evidence that TEPCO is lying atrociously about radiation levels inside the plant: there must be at least severe hotspots (at least metallic parts highly activated by neutron fluxes) if not actually still ongoing nuclear fission activity.

Michael W is right- nuclear power is safe, efficient, and clean comparatively- think of the publicity an airplane crash gets versus an automobile one, yet odds-wise air travel is much safer than auto. But when something bad happens the media is insane over it. Yet burn coal and gas and oil all day, it’s cool! It’s good for everybody, and should be cheap! There is a sci-fi mentality surrounding nuke power that really holds the technology back- Bill Clinton denied funding to liquid metal (eg. sodium) reactors that would essentially utilize all the spent fuel from previous plants, thereby eliminating the problem of nuclear waste, and at the same time powering humanity for thousands of years. Why did he do it? Nuclear is bad!

But wind is good! I’m curious as to how much wattage a wind generator setup needs to make to equal the energy used in it’s production and installation- I’m sure government subsidies make them an option. Solar power- I love solar power, and when you see a 3’x3’ fresnel lens vaporise a penny in seconds from mere sunlight you realize the insane amount of energy hitting the planet every moment, but as of this writing there is no good way to harness it- solar induced fusion perhaps?

On the topic of lying, who knows. The Japanese are a culture of appearances and saving face. They are the tech leaders of the world, to be a failure at it would not be good for them, publicly and personally.

I actually have experience in the matter- I was at college in Oswego NY when a small earthquake hit- http://www.oswego.edu/administration/public_affairs/emergency/plan.html I was a physics major but 9/11 happened, so we didn’t get to take a field trip there…

Well, we have to come up with better instruments to measure radioactivity, the current ones are maxed out! I have also read that 3 reactors are also in the same situation. Hmmmm?


Why Nuclear Radiatio it is bad ?

Playing with fire is different that playing with radioactive material!

Looks like people here don`t know what radiation cause in long term. All nuclear radioactive materials it is bad cause it is eliminating your cells in long run and do marformation to the genetical part of yourself. Cancer it is a known disease result of use of radioactive compounds.

Long years humanity did not know about cancer cause it was not in the range of MILIONS and BILIONS on the planet, now due overall polution and radioactive material pumped out by “mistake” in AIR multiplied the natural 100 cases of NATURAL CANCER to overalll onset on the full planet now.

Arguing that nuclear it is safer that driving a car it is like asking your kid if humanity will exist in next 100 years and answer : NO!

Cars , Airplanes , Industrial waste , Nuclear waste , Chemicals , Petrochemicals all contribute to kill people daily.

Infants die daily per second due POLUTION , ten people per second die of Car accidents , …and the principal factor is ENERGY and OIL and the obssesion around it.

So cut the crap what it is safe or not, there are no safe things. Oil usage must be cut in future and Nuclear too.

Earth survived milion of milion of years without problem until humans invented car…now daily species disapear cause you want to drive your ass instead use your damn feet!

*Also I may add, these would all be still motoring along safely if not for a catastrophic event- granted if you build something on the ring of fire this should be a consideration. But its like saying to the people after a tsunami hits that beachside resorts are inherently dangerous.

Numaral7- 100 years, all new people. Think about that.

I’m astonished from seeing how many people today still believe nuclear is safe.
To produce what? 4% of energy?
The usual lobbies case. Alternatives exist since the beginning of the previous century.
Just search for Tesla, Cannabis Hemp Car (by Ford, 1941), Daniel Nocera, and so on.
There are tons of these examples around. Of course many just experiments, probably several not good enough to go. But the thing is, nuclear is a dead idea to produce energy.

We just feel safe because we think we’re safe in our comfortable homes.
This world is already sick, everything it is. Everything around us is toxic: the air we breathe, the water we drink, the walls of our houses. We just feel safe because the people who get cancer are far from us, or simply because we think there are other millions of reason why that happens. We always refute the idea that we just treat this world as junk and that’s why we cannot accept that suddenly something goes wrong, someone gets sick. We should admit our own responsibility.

I am not sure if I would think about nuclear power in such an easy way Michael.
Truth is the media loves hysteria because the people love it.

But that is not the point. Comparing a plane crash with a nuclear accident is not the same.

A plane crash does not have the long lasting dramatic impact on nature, our food chain, and human health.

While yes nuclear power plants dont explode as often as car crashes, when there is an accident the damage
can be catastrophic. Till today Bavaria forests are contaminated from Chernobyl.

Also don’t think that all low level accidents get reported. It was uncovered how many accidents in Germany
where covered up but the companies.

This has nothing to do with hysteria but with risk assessment.

Nuclear power is anyway not the end solution - it is a technology in between we need for our current time.


did you know that fords first cars were also electric and that at the beginning there
were more electric cars then gasoline powered cars?

Thanks oil company :wink:

Who killed the electric car is a good watch.

If there were all electric cars what would be supplying their power?

Also- coal burning = acid rain, petroleum = spills… These all have long term affects.

Edit: http://www.damninteresting.com/the-atomic-automobile

I wish they would stop with the oil for fuel B/S and start pumping out the hydrogen fuel cell, I read an article where some company was working on a fridge sized device that could power your whole house now that would cut back on a lot of waste long term .

It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than what you get out of it if you use it in a fuel cell as most of the hydrogen on earth is bounded to something. Currently the only way we could produce enough hydrogen if we switched from oil would be to build more nuclear plants unless people are cool coal fired power plants. Renewables are just a bunch of hot air their effiencey is always going to be low and anyone who has studied thermodynamics could tell you way. Its not enough to merely look at the total energy you also need to factor in how easy it is get that energy and do work with it.

Oil companies didn’t sink electric cars the mere fact that you drive for 200 miles and spend the whole day recharging the damn thing did that. Compare how long it takes to refuel your gas car.

But as for nuclear its about time to start using pebble bed reactors the bloody things are walk away safe. The naturally cool down when the temperature gets too high so even if you completely disable the cooling system the don’t melt down.

Most of these old stations are really not safe as most of that tech was recycled from nuclear submarines and not really geared toward safely producing power.

Interesting fact that you guys ignore how historically the mineral oil companies changed the US landscape.
Once upon a time there was a good train system replaced by highways for cars.

The Ford did not want to be a nice man to enable people getting a car - he just generated a market by
paying his workers twice the salary and thus grew his own future customers.

The age of road food was born (known today as fast food) a new live style was promoted.
People were doing fine before that as well. Living in sub-burbs was invented as being the way to go
and the need for car transportation was born. A perfect self-serving, self-building market.

Competitive products will be battled and killed. (Check out the demographic history of Detroit as an example)
This is basically the essence from the EV1 project - profits and not technology.

And again consider the state of technology today when battery based cars would haven been treated
more serious. At least for inner city transportation it would have been an option much sooner.

Regarding nuclear power it is also a disbelieve that alternative resources could not be used enough.
One of the main reason Germany currently is in a struggle to get out is that shutting of the plants to early
would also cut tax income which is enormous.

This is simply technological advancement going delayed.

Weve been through coal as a main source of energy and now oils time is about to run out, It would be good if new solution would come out sooner than later, I guess the oil barons have to milk it for all its worth before that will happen :yes: couldn’t believe it when my local town decided to build gas fueled power station rather than going hydro.

Maybe someday we might be able to utilize antimatter as energy source.:confused: Although that seems to be impossible right now.

I would like to add here, that plants and trees have been growing increasingly at chernobyl for nearly a decade. the “forseeable future” is aparentlynot all that long, Arexma.

The media runs of 2 things. Hype, and rumours. They have been playing up a lot of the issues with the reactors. And, been making up rumours (or atleast leaving out essential information, that would change the stories).

Although it is an ISSUE (stressed, definately) but it is not the apocalypse. Even people in the area have said that nothing is too bad, and that they feel fine and havn’t felt any ill effects as of yet from the radiation.

I see where the hyp comes from, and it comes from this general media persona of “Nuclear is evil, and dangerous, and stupid, and unclean” … Well to be honest they are wrong. There is a lot less risk from long term use of Nuclear power than there is of using Coal and Fossil Fuels. Our planet has already raised several degrees in the past hundred years, but none of that is from Nuclear power. The human species is literally at risk of destroying itself if we continually use Fossil fules. Especially with every day being a step closer to fusion power(as oppossed to fission).


of course it is all true when a nuclear company says that radiation and technology are no problem :wink:

You also know being exposed to radio active material is not equal developing an associated sickness.
Only because grandma is fine in her land house doesn’t mean the area is clean.

Coal plants emit more pollution and radiation it is not really a clean energy source.
Nuclear plants are much cleaner in that respect - as long as nothing goes wrong.