PDA

View Full Version : The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....


Pages : 1 [2]

Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Tenyu
04-06-2011, 02:25 AM
Global fallout forecast:

Link (http://transport.nilu.no/browser/fpv_fuku?fpp=conccol_Xe-133_;region=NH)

graham christian
04-06-2011, 08:55 AM
What are you referring to, Graham?

Loriens first paragraph.

graham christian
04-06-2011, 09:36 AM
Graham,

How can you believe or not believe in an issue while simultaneously admitting complete ignorance of it? I don't see any politicians addressing AGW. If you had at least read the Lovelock article, you would know Kyoto treaty and carbon offsetting is a business scam. Real mitigation of AGW means the end of business and the global economy as we know it entirely. If you think this is wild you should check out my thread on peak oil in this same forum.

Easy Tenyu. By being honest. You use the words 'complete ignorance' implying I did. Come on now that's just not cricket!
Without too much inspection were my words. = Some data. This leads to an opinion or belief, a kind of at the moment belief. It also means I don't truly know.

You love the old doomsday scenarios don't you. Do you realize that the vast majority of people on this planet do know through common sense that if you keep on a mad course it ends in disaster and doom. They know if you go dropping nuclear bombs then that's it. They know the devastating effects of radiation. They know if some alternative energy sources are not ready for when oil runs out it's all doom and gloom from there.

Let me put it this way. Since the year dot the stories of danger and doom, the stories of those dangerous people over there, those monsters are coming to get you. All have been used to manipulate and control others into doing what they want them to. Control by fear.

In this day and age it's no different. Just give multiple sources of people saying the same thing and everyone will believe you. That's standard intelligence operation. As well as getting Authorities to say what is perceived to be wanted by the controlling interests.

So giving me multiple sources and authorities? Not interested.

It shows me only someone trying to manipulate whether for what they see as a good reason or some other reason. In their delusion from my view the manipulator thinks he has to CONVINCE others.

No need to convince anyone of anything. Just point out a scene and allow them to study both sides of the argument if they are interested and thus they will become more educated and able to make their own mind up. No convincing, no controlling, no manipulating.

Regards.G.

mathewjgano
04-06-2011, 11:01 AM
Easy Tenyu. By being honest. You use the words 'complete ignorance' implying I did. Come on now that's just not cricket!
Without too much inspection were my words. = Some data. This leads to an opinion or belief, a kind of at the moment belief. It also means I don't truly know.
I DIG IT!!! I really enjoyed reading this post, Graham. Thank you. Most scientists seem to support the notion that global warming is something to be concerned about. The last environmental science class I took led me to believe carbon probably isn't the real issue, though it's somewhat inconclusive one way or t'other. The question is how much are we adding to the pressure-cooker that is our atmosphere; are we adding some small-but-critical amount to the warming functions which will cause some radical shift we cannot keep pace with?
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
...That and the fact that we live on a speck within a tiny bubble in blood-boiling space and that the speck we live on could utter a big belch and darn near kill us all.
:p Have a nice day.:D
Take care,
Matt

Tenyu
04-06-2011, 11:48 AM
Easy Tenyu. By being honest. You use the words 'complete ignorance' implying I did. Come on now that's just not cricket!
Without too much inspection were my words. = Some data. This leads to an opinion or belief, a kind of at the moment belief. It also means I don't truly know.

You love the old doomsday scenarios don't you. Do you realize that the vast majority of people on this planet do know through common sense that if you keep on a mad course it ends in disaster and doom. They know if you go dropping nuclear bombs then that's it. They know the devastating effects of radiation. They know if some alternative energy sources are not ready for when oil runs out it's all doom and gloom from there.

Let me put it this way. Since the year dot the stories of danger and doom, the stories of those dangerous people over there, those monsters are coming to get you. All have been used to manipulate and control others into doing what they want them to. Control by fear.

In this day and age it's no different. Just give multiple sources of people saying the same thing and everyone will believe you. That's standard intelligence operation. As well as getting Authorities to say what is perceived to be wanted by the controlling interests.

So giving me multiple sources and authorities? Not interested.

It shows me only someone trying to manipulate whether for what they see as a good reason or some other reason. In their delusion from my view the manipulator thinks he has to CONVINCE others.

No need to convince anyone of anything. Just point out a scene and allow them to study both sides of the argument if they are interested and thus they will become more educated and able to make their own mind up. No convincing, no controlling, no manipulating.

Regards.G.

Graham,

I don't mind digging up and sharing climate change information here because other people will be able to see it but I really doubt you'll take the time to understand it yourself. You haven't read or watched the information I presented in the peak oil thread or you wouldn't be replying to me yet. You also claimed everything in Ascent Of Humanity is old hat for you, an obviously disingenuous statement because we both know you didn't read it in one day and you'd also know your doomsday boogeyman meme comment, albeit entertaining, was also specifically addressed in the book. I'm not upset, I just don't relate to your lackadaisical treatment of grave issues. Most people who learned about peak oil in the 21st century go through a phase where they try to inform all their friends and family about it, including myself. Very few are psychologically capable of understanding the predicament we're in. WWII will feel like a mosquito bite in comparison. Most people give up trying to inform anyone outside their inner circles and I don't blame them. In 1999 when oil was only $16/barrel, people would've laughed at you if you told them oil would reach $147/barrel in 2008, brent crude just re-passed $120/barrel but these prices are now considered normal although astonishingly peak oil still isn't common knowledge. The people who are able to understand will learn on their own after being given the right leads. There's no manipulation and agenda among the geologists, climatologists, and ecologists. The data and science speak on their own.

graham christian
04-06-2011, 11:53 AM
I DIG IT!!! I really enjoyed reading this post, Graham. Thank you. Most scientists seem to support the notion that global warming is something to be concerned about. The last environmental science class I took led me to believe carbon probably isn't the real issue, though it's somewhat inconclusive one way or t'other. The question is how much are we adding to the pressure-cooker that is our atmosphere; are we adding some small-but-critical amount to the warming functions which will cause some radical shift we cannot keep pace with?
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
...That and the fact that we live on a speck within a tiny bubble in blood-boiling space and that the speck we live on could utter a big belch and darn near kill us all.
:p Have a nice day.:D
Take care,
Matt

Thanx. IT's been a blast!!!

Demetrio Cereijo
04-06-2011, 12:16 PM
Unless you're talking about something worse than Permian–Triassic extincion, I'm not worried.

Tenyu
04-06-2011, 12:29 PM
Unless you're talking about something worse than Permian--Triassic extincion, I'm not worried.

I like the hard attitude. :p

Demetrio Cereijo
04-06-2011, 12:42 PM
Well, life on Earth recovered, and you puny humans are not going to stay here forever,

Really, in the grand scheme of things this event (or what is discussed in AOH thread) is irrelevant.

:)

mathewjgano
04-06-2011, 01:44 PM
Well, life on Earth recovered, and you puny humans are not going to stay here forever,

Really, in the grand scheme of things this event (or what is discussed in AOH thread) is irrelevant.

:)

What if we build giant engines and just turn the Earth into a mobile home? Nah...we'd just discover some new cosmic form of tornado.
Oh well...back to the old drawing board...

Lorien Lowe
04-06-2011, 03:30 PM
If I take the time to dig up the data to support each of my statements, will you take the time to read and seriously consider them? Or will you say, 'Oh, the AAAS is clearly a biased organization,' or, 'Oh, that scientist is clearly getting rich by preaching climate change,' without bothering to actually address the studies presented?

Most climate change doubt long ago left the realm of skepticism for the realm of denialism, and is now entering the realm of conspiracy theory; where do you stand on that spectrum? Are you swayable by a preponderance of data and scientific opinion?

@ Tenyu, it's not just oil*. There's also coal (quite a lot of it), tar, and natural gas, and if we are desperate enough to try to switch to coal we will not only stave off the end for a while but immensely exacerbate both climate change and air quality. I do not, at all, deny that there is a serious problem in the works - but I do hope that we can ease the transition and thereby limit the pain and suffering that it will cause.

*regardless of their profit margins, they are making billions in net profit and spending vast quantities on buying politicians and professional think-tank doubt-makers.

graham christian
04-06-2011, 09:28 PM
Graham,

I don't mind digging up and sharing climate change information here because other people will be able to see it but I really doubt you'll take the time to understand it yourself. You haven't read or watched the information I presented in the peak oil thread or you wouldn't be replying to me yet. You also claimed everything in Ascent Of Humanity is old hat for you, an obviously disingenuous statement because we both know you didn't read it in one day and you'd also know your doomsday boogeyman meme comment, albeit entertaining, was also specifically addressed in the book. I'm not upset, I just don't relate to your lackadaisical treatment of grave issues. Most people who learned about peak oil in the 21st century go through a phase where they try to inform all their friends and family about it, including myself. Very few are psychologically capable of understanding the predicament we're in. WWII will feel like a mosquito bite in comparison. Most people give up trying to inform anyone outside their inner circles and I don't blame them. In 1999 when oil was only $16/barrel, people would've laughed at you if you told them oil would reach $147/barrel in 2008, brent crude just re-passed $120/barrel but these prices are now considered normal although astonishingly peak oil still isn't common knowledge. The people who are able to understand will learn on their own after being given the right leads. There's no manipulation and agenda among the geologists, climatologists, and ecologists. The data and science speak on their own.

Tenyu. Same ol same ol.

My laxadaisical attitude eh? Fair enough. I would call it more of a bored one.

Let me put it simply. I remember the cold war.

The cycle now is no different to the cycles of the past.

Some races got wiped out like the incas for example.

Some empires got destroyed. Like the roman empire.

Some countries got overrun and uprooted like the Tibetans.

All similar in respect of being no more from their viewpoint.

You are now talking about a threat to the whole human race.

Same cycle, different scale. It's just the same old cycle of ignorance and the effect of it. As I said, nothing new to me.

So if you were to study from this viewpoint you would find the various solutions that worked in the past compared to the ones that didn't for they are all solutions to the same cycle. A far more fruitful exercise I would suggest.

You may be surprised. To think that the best solutions, the ones that resulted in great change for the better were ideas!

Ideas that resonated with the whole and brought about great change. Ideas that defeated the negative monster. Ideas that permeated the world consciousness.

You can also search history and find underlying wants and needs shared by all which were handled by an idea which resulted in worldwide change. How do you think the internet or even the telephone came into being and became such hugely popular and worldwide accepted things?

So I am saying a better idea is needed and I am saying every person on the planet wants that better idea to be found and put into practice. If you believe you are not interested in the best solution or indeed then you are deluding yourself.

So banging on about how corrupt 'they' are and Authorities that say this and that may be useful if it leads to someone coming up with a perfect solution and thus a way foreward but as you say the situation is so dire then I put it to you thats even more reason to come up with a solution, an idea that permeates the consciousness of all parties concerned.

Thus I can say I have faith for I know what I have faith in. It is what IS needed in this present time.

Regards.G.

Tenyu
04-07-2011, 11:06 AM
Graham,

You could learn a lot from this site. (http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2010/12/twelve-doomiest-stories-of-2010.html)

Lorien,

I believe the paradox and denial of peak oil surrounds the fact any conventional mitigation of pain and suffering now will only add to even greater pain and suffering, perhaps extinction, in the future.

Albert Bartlett explains in this video series. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY)

graham christian
04-07-2011, 11:33 AM
Graham,

You could learn a lot from this site. (http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2010/12/twelve-doomiest-stories-of-2010.html)

Lorien,

I believe the paradox and denial of peak oil surrounds the fact any conventional mitigation of pain and suffering now will only add to even greater pain and suffering, perhaps extinction, in the future.

Albert Bartlett explains in this video series. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY)

Tenyu.
As they say in the british parliament 'I'll refer you to the answer I gave a moment ago.'

Maybe we could have a vote at the end of this debate like in parliament.

The ayes to the left..... The nays to the right....

The ayes have it, the ayes have it.

Cordially.G.

Lorien Lowe
04-07-2011, 02:30 PM
Some races got wiped out like the incas for example.

Some empires got destroyed. Like the roman empire.

Some countries got overrun and uprooted like the Tibetans.
And someday, the sun will expand into a planetary nebula and the earth will be fried, so none of it matters, eh?

the best solutions, the ones that resulted in great change for the better were ideas!

Ideas that resonated with the whole and brought about great change. Ideas that defeated the negative monster. Ideas that permeated the world consciousness.

Ok, you have an idea? Let's hear it. No? Then maybe stop going on about how there's not really a problem.

Also, I repeat my question: If I present the data, will you read it and seriously consider it without automatically ad-homing the respective authors?

lbb
04-07-2011, 02:58 PM
You may be surprised. To think that the best solutions, the ones that resulted in great change for the better were ideas!

Ideas that resonated with the whole and brought about great change. Ideas that defeated the negative monster. Ideas that permeated the world consciousness.

You can also search history and find underlying wants and needs shared by all which were handled by an idea which resulted in worldwide change. How do you think the internet or even the telephone came into being and became such hugely popular and worldwide accepted things?

Well, they didn't really come about through "ideas", not the way you're thinking of them. You're positing some kind of group consciousness whereby everybody has an instinctive sense for a good idea -- and by implication, also has a native sense of restraint and appropriateness that allows them to distinguish their wants from their needs. In fact, the internet and the telephone both came into being and were popularized through a series of events and forces, none of which really had anything to do with whether they were a good idea or fulfilled a real need.

So I am saying a better idea is needed and I am saying every person on the planet wants that better idea to be found and put into practice.

Oh, I'm sure they do. But your use of the passive voice is very telling here. People, at least people living in comfort in the industrialized world, want a better idea to be found. They want it to be put into practice. By whom? By someone else, apparently. They don't want to do the hard work and the heavy lifting that are needed to produce useful and workable ideas, and even more so are needed to implement them. They don't want to sit down with people of different views and work towards an idea that provides solutions for all. They want it to all just magically happen.

This sort of harmonious mysticism, to put it bluntly, is crap. Developing viable ideas is hard work. Achieving consensus is hard work. It involves getting into the areas of disharmony, shining the light on them and understanding them, rather than floating off in some ethereal haze in search of a more congenial and harmonious place. It means working through things and not just sitting around waiting for harmony to well up out of our collective unconsciousness or descend like the gentle rain from the heavens.

So banging on about how corrupt 'they' are and Authorities that say this and that may be useful if it leads to someone coming up with a perfect solution and thus a way foreward but as you say the situation is so dire then I put it to you thats even more reason to come up with a solution, an idea that permeates the consciousness of all parties concerned.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You expect a "perfect solution"? You're barking up the wrong tree. You've just created conditions that are impossible to fulfill.

Thus I can say I have faith for I know what I have faith in. It is what IS needed in this present time.

Perfect ideas descending from heaven in a rain of universal harmony, creating world-wide acceptance among all? Good luck with that. It ain't about to happen. If you want any solution, be prepared to get your hands dirty.

graham christian
04-07-2011, 05:27 PM
Maryand Lorien. Sorry but perfect solutions are both necessary and are many.

A solution which solves a problem equals no more problem. Good.

A solution which solves a problem without causing harm. Even better.

A solution which does the above and also brings about a better future. Perfect.

People like yhe third one best, they gravitate towards it. Not mystical.

People get together and solve problems in such a fashion every day. Not impossible.

It takes many factors but that doesn't mean it's not done.

It takes honesty number one from both sides. Then establishing what the desires, the intentions, the purposes are. That's just the start for if one sides purpose for example is counter to the other sides then we have a problem already. Thus that needs to be addressed first. You get the idea? It's a process.

This process is methodical, bit by bit to unravel what the true causes of the problem are, then on discovering that both sides can see what they didn't before.

Then we have progress in the right direction and we keep going on this process and we enter various ways foreward and we weigh up the pros and cons. Through this process many ideas are discussed and tested in a search for the most optimum.

A process. Then plans of how to put them into effect and programmes to be followed etc.

Hardly mystical.

In fact all inventors get a bright idea first and then work through the process of how to bring it into being and what form it would take and all the other variables.

Ideas are powerful and useful and necessary.

So let's let's say we start with the idea that you cant have a perfect solution.

Wow. You have already lost.

Regards. G.

Tenyu
04-07-2011, 07:14 PM
State of emergency declared at Onagawa nuclear power plant.

Link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/13/japan-onagawa-nuclear-plant-state-of-emergency_n_835059.html)

Link (http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit108%20/nit108articles/nit108miyagiquake.html)

west of Onagawa (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF-8dqwxAHw&feature=share%20..)

Lorien Lowe
04-07-2011, 11:54 PM
Ok, Graham:
You don't have any workable ideas.
You won't address the data.
Good to know. Now stop whining about how the rest of us are trying to handle it, ok? I believe the moral is, 'lead, follow, or get out of the way.'

@ Tenyu: I'm pretty sure that I've seen that series of vids before, but I want to watch all 8 to make sure I'm not missing any points. I do have some criticisms, but I wish to be complete.

edit: in the mean time, here's an interesting link about where our energy comes from.
http://www.salon.com/news/env/energy/index.html?story=/news/feature/2011/04/07/foreign_energy_sources_japan_mexico_canada

Tenyu
04-08-2011, 09:21 AM
@ Tenyu: I'm pretty sure that I've seen that series of vids before, but I want to watch all 8 to make sure I'm not missing any points. I do have some criticisms, but I wish to be complete.

edit: in the mean time, here's an interesting link about where our energy comes from.
http://www.salon.com/news/env/energy/index.html?story=/news/feature/2011/04/07/foreign_energy_sources_japan_mexico_canada

Lorien,

That's ridiculous if they build Keystone through Ogallala. Less then five years ago Mexico was the leading exporter to the states. They had the second largest producing high quality light sweet oil field in history called Cantarell. Because its production went off its individual cliff several years ago, the drug cartels have filled in for lost revenue. This report (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5768) is a short and sobering account of just how fast peak oil is happening. Oil wars are intensifying to impose demand destruction, to put it euphemistically 'externalizing production costs'. Of course 'internally' the domestic economic collapse via a decade of severe top down fraudulent real estate was engineered to coincide with peak oil. The media does a good job of making people believe recovery's right around the corner, in reality we're heading into the greatest depression ever and there'll never be a recovery, nor should there be, of our unsustainable infinite growth/consumption/destruction/debt based system. They can print money infinitely but they can't print energy.

lbb
04-08-2011, 09:25 AM
Wow. You have already lost.

Wow. You didn't read or try to understand a single thing I said. The shoe fits; you just don't like wearing it.

I'm done non-discussing these issues with you. Lead, follow or get out of the way, indeed.

Lorien Lowe
04-08-2011, 02:36 PM
The current recession is not an energy recession, relatively high gas prices notwithstanding. The energy depression has yet to hit in any significant way, because there are still 'bad' energy resources such as tar and coal to turn to.

graham christian
04-08-2011, 02:39 PM
Wow. You didn't read or try to understand a single thing I said. The shoe fits; you just don't like wearing it.

I'm done non-discussing these issues with you. Lead, follow or get out of the way, indeed.

Mary and Lorien.

Lead, follow or get out of the way? Indeed that seems to fit with you two. I've already followed you. You lead to come and see how bad it all is. O.K. Been there. now what?

Oh I forgot, now go there and see how bad it is . O.K. done that. Now what? Oh same again.

Or am I being too simplistic. Yes I am because it's followed by 'so we need to get rid of.' Yeah that about sums it up.

I wouldn't mind betting that is your views in your own lives no?

A bit too annhihallistic for me or even dictatorial.

Regards.G.

Tenyu
04-08-2011, 03:23 PM
The current recession is not an energy recession, relatively high gas prices notwithstanding. The energy depression has yet to hit in any significant way, because there are still 'bad' energy resources such as tar and coal to turn to.

My point is that the banks knew when cheap energy would peak, so they repealed Glass-Steagall in 1999 which led to this derivatives and housing scheme to 'transfer' wealth as much as possible at the right time. Did you disagree with any of Bartlett's video?

Lorien Lowe
04-08-2011, 05:21 PM
Ok, having watched the video I don't have much to add or to comment, except that the republicans trying to shut down the government over defunding birth control seems just that much more obscene now.

Here are a few links for people looking for solutions, though:
http://ukiahcommunityblog.wordpress.com/
(lots of discussions on peak oil, among other things)
http://www.sustainable-economy.org/
http://www.oeconline.org/our-work/economy
http://www.economicsforaroundearth.com/employment-and-the-steady-state/

Lorien Lowe
04-08-2011, 10:57 PM
My point is that the banks knew when cheap energy would peak, so they repealed Glass-Steagall in 1999 which led to this derivatives and housing scheme to 'transfer' wealth as much as possible at the right time. Did you disagree with any of Bartlett's video?
I honestly don't think that they're capable of thinking that far ahead. I think that the repeal of Glass-Seagall was more on the order of, 'oh, boy, now we can get rich quick and screw anyone who isn't a banker,' than, 'oh, oil is running down so we need to plan for it.' Just as morally bankrupt, but far less clever.

As for Bartlett, some of his early population discussion was a little off (though not too bad for a non-biologist), and some of his points were based on assumptions (for example, that resources will continue to be extracted in a normal distribution over time, which is usual but hardly a natural law) but in such a way as to have little to no relevance to his ultimate point.

Edit: Tenyu, have you read Collapse, by Jared Diamond?

graham christian
04-09-2011, 06:21 AM
Ok, Graham:
You don't have any workable ideas.
You won't address the data.
Good to know. Now stop whining about how the rest of us are trying to handle it, ok? I believe the moral is, 'lead, follow, or get out of the way.'

@ Tenyu: I'm pretty sure that I've seen that series of vids before, but I want to watch all 8 to make sure I'm not missing any points. I do have some criticisms, but I wish to be complete.

edit: in the mean time, here's an interesting link about where our energy comes from.
http://www.salon.com/news/env/energy/index.html?story=/news/feature/2011/04/07/foreign_energy_sources_japan_mexico_canada

Lorien.
Whining? Mmmm. I think a mirror would help. I have presented an alternative viewpoint. I whine not.

I merely smile at the ignorance of man. I smile at the drama. I smile at the apparant resistance to an ideal solution.

So much data, more and more how bad it is. Driving yourself to depression. Too much complexity and drama.

The bankers are doing this, the blah are doing that.

Read those kind of things since childhood. I could sum it up in one simple word. Macroeconomics. Plus of course man's ignorance.

I trust no one who complains about it for they then do the same for they are apparant enemies yet history shows those who take over do yet the same again.

You think I'm against you? You think me carrying on reading more and more links will show me what I don't know?

They will merely show me more madness.

I am neither for nor against you or anything you say. I am however for wisdom and that entails accepting all that is and letting it be. Only then can you pogress towards good discussion with proposals of possible solutions.

There is no escape from the fact that transcending the normal way of pointing out how bad it all is is necessary and that is just a starting point.

You can say what you want about me for in truth I am you and you are me and thus you are only attacking yourself. The same applies to Aikido so how could one be better than the other? Yours is in me and mine is in you. Until we know this then it's the same ol same ol drama being played out leading from one disater to another with the apparancy of them and us.

It's a nice sunny day today over here.

Regards.G.

Dan Rubin
04-09-2011, 11:58 AM
I wish I could find the thread, now, but it won't come up on search. I think it was called "Motorcycle Girl in the Nuclear Wasteland," or "Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl." But nothing comes up and I haven't been able to locate the thread.

In that thread, however, someone told me, "The fact that you believe that a nuclear power plant can explode shows just how little you understand about the subject." Or something about like that.

Here it is: http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12841

at post #49.

Lorien Lowe
04-09-2011, 01:05 PM
Graham, something just occurred to me: are you stoned? Your entire point could be summed up with the phrase, 'It's all good, man.' Except for the passive-aggressive self righteousness, you would fit in perfectly with the Emerald Triangle culture around here.

Edit: come to think of it, at least half the stoner population here thinks that they're enlightened, too, so you'd fit in well in that respect too.

graham christian
04-09-2011, 01:16 PM
Graham, something just occurred to me: are you stoned? Your entire point could be summed up with the phrase, 'It's all good, man.' Except for the passive-aggressive self righteousness, you would fit in perfectly with the Emerald Triangle culture around here.

Edit: come to think of it, at least half the stoner population here thinks that they're enlightened, too, so you'd fit in well in that respect too.

Sounds like the other side of the coin to me. You either get hypercritical and fanatical or you get stoned.

Neither are very wise.

G.

akiy
04-09-2011, 02:46 PM
Last warning, folks -- watch your tone.

-- Jun

graham christian
04-09-2011, 04:46 PM
Mmmm. Bit surprised there. However, I shall put my view of optimum solution into practice here.

Respect to all. I bow out.

Regards.G.

Tenyu
04-09-2011, 09:23 PM
I honestly don't think that they're capable of thinking that far ahead. I think that the repeal of Glass-Seagall was more on the order of, 'oh, boy, now we can get rich quick and screw anyone who isn't a banker,' than, 'oh, oil is running down so we need to plan for it.' Just as morally bankrupt, but far less clever.

Edit: Tenyu, have you read Collapse, by Jared Diamond?

I know very few people believe the real policy makers know what they're doing. They've had access to all the pertinent data for decades though. I don't think it takes much intelligence to figure out how to maximize swindling the public. It wouldn't have been in their interests to set the stage for economic collapse back in the late 90's if cheap energy(energy above a certain EROEI threshold) were going to be around for any considerable time than it has. With literally all the money in the world(currency issuers) they can afford as many think-tanks they want to work through and propose the details. Currency monopolies wouldn't have maintained themselves over centuries if they weren't capable of foresight.

I haven't read Collapse, what did you like about it?

Lorien Lowe
04-10-2011, 03:20 AM
Well, the money isn't infinite (in the sense of transmittable value) because at some point it starts to inflate, even dollars.

What I liked about collapse was the examination of the social structures that led to collapse in each civilization, and the examination of the reactions to the problems by each culture. There's also an examination of the geographic and environmental factors that lead to a civilization's demise.

So far, we're looking a lot like Mayans.
edit: guessing EROEI ~= energy recovered over energy invested?

Tenyu
04-10-2011, 06:45 PM
Lorien,

I sent you a private message.

lbb
04-11-2011, 09:08 AM
What I liked about collapse was the examination of the social structures that led to collapse in each civilization, and the examination of the reactions to the problems by each culture. There's also an examination of the geographic and environmental factors that lead to a civilization's demise.

MMmyeah, but there were cases in Collapse where Diamond really shows his tunnel vision -- probably most notably in his discussion of Rwanda. Let's ignore the history of racist colonial policites and the modern reality of hate politics, it's all about population density...

Lorien Lowe
04-11-2011, 03:27 PM
Another article on tar sands, this time in the U.S.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_oil_sands
I think that we *have* to start finding alternatives to stuff like this, or we're going to end up like over-populated bacteria in a petri dish.

Tenyu
04-11-2011, 09:50 PM
The document, published on 7 April, advises against consuming rainwater and says vulnerable groups such as children and pregnant or breastfeeding women should avoid consuming vegetables with large leaves, fresh milk and creamy cheese.

Data for the west coast of the United States, which received the Fukushima radioactive fallout 6-10 days before France, reveals that levels of radioactive iodine-131 concentration are 8-10 times higher there, the institute says.

Link (http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/radiation-risks-fukushima-longer-negligible-news-503947)

Radiation from Japan has been detected in drinking water in 13 more American cities, and cesium-137 has been found in American milk—in Montpelier, Vermont—for the first time since the Japan nuclear disaster began, according to data released by the Environmental Protection Agency late Friday.

Milk samples from Phoenix and Los Angeles contained iodine-131 at levels roughly equal to the maximum contaminant level permitted by EPA, the data shows. The Phoenix sample contained 3.2 picoCuries per liter of iodine-131. The Los Angeles sample contained 2.9. The EPA maximum contaminant level is 3.0

Link (http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/09/radiation-detected-in-drinking-water-in-13-more-us-cities-cesium-137-in-vermont-milk/)

from TOD:

Don't worry, the levels of radiation:
"are below any levels of concern"
"do not pose a threat to human health"

By the way, did you already get your recommended dose today?

"The recommended level of 1,000 microsieverts excludes radiation from the natural environment and medical devices"

The spin continues:
"it does not affect people's health."
"safe levels"
"only miniscule amounts of radiation"
"we need not be worried"

Tenyu
04-12-2011, 10:21 AM
Must see video. (http://vimeo.com/18924324)

mathewjgano
04-12-2011, 11:57 AM
So given the information posted, what are you doing to address the risk? I seem to recall a link posted which gave a series of treatments of antioxidants along with washing fruits and vegetables in baking soda solution, but what else might one do if they were worried about undo amounts of radiation in their environment?

Tenyu
04-12-2011, 01:09 PM
Someone on TOD was saying best to abstain from grass-fed meat and dairy until three months after Fukushima stops spewing, but that was only in respect to iodine. Cesium and strontium have a 30 year half-life, I would assume within a year or two those will have passed through the food chain or settled in the soil by then as well.

Link (http://enenews.com/human-embryos-bioaccumulating-radioactive-iodine-cesium-strontium-physician-taught-harvard-med-school)

Benign-looking pictorial:
http://www.remm.nlm.gov/RemmMockup_files/I131pix.jpg

kewms
04-13-2011, 01:02 PM
Obviously, if you were in a room with a hydrogen combustion, it wasn't the kind of "combustion" that occurred at Fukushima. That one was an "explosion." It fairly destroyed the building.

Combustion is combustion. The only real difference between a science museum demonstration, the Hindenberg, and the hydrogen explosion at Fukushima is the quantity of hydrogen involved.

I've mostly abandoned this thread as it's become very boring. A PM would be more likely to catch my eye for anyone actually interested in my response.

But the evidence that the reactor vessel at Fukushima actually failed remains quite slim. In particular, the plutonium that was detected appears to be residue from atomic weapons testing -- you'd find it in your own backyard if you looked with sufficiently sensitive instruments, and it was present in Japan before the earthquake hit.

Katherine

mathewjgano
04-13-2011, 03:00 PM
Combustion is combustion. The only real difference between a science museum demonstration, the Hindenberg, and the hydrogen explosion at Fukushima is the quantity of hydrogen involved.

I've mostly abandoned this thread as it's become very boring. A PM would be more likely to catch my eye for anyone actually interested in my response.

But the evidence that the reactor vessel at Fukushima actually failed remains quite slim. In particular, the plutonium that was detected appears to be residue from atomic weapons testing -- you'd find it in your own backyard if you looked with sufficiently sensitive instruments, and it was present in Japan before the earthquake hit.

Katherine
Hi Katherine,
I got the feeling this thread just mostly ran its course on what can be said. I figured folks just decided to agree to disagree for the most part. What would make the thread less boring? It sounds like you think there's a lot more room for discussion on what happened and what that means as we move forward.
I heard yesterday that Japan has officially listed this at level 7, which is troubling to say the least. I'm sorry if you've already addressed this, but do you think this was an avoidable disaster? I do recall hearing about whistle-blowers who complained about safety precautions not being up to snuff some years(?) ago.
Also, could you point me to a source on the plutonium residue?
Take care,
Matt

David Orange
04-13-2011, 03:18 PM
Combustion is combustion. The only real difference between a science museum demonstration, the Hindenberg, and the hydrogen explosion at Fukushima is the quantity of hydrogen involved.

I think "the effect" was somewhat different. From many Japanese sources, including TEPCO, this particular hydrogen "combustion" may well have cracked the reactor containment vessel. In fact, TEPCO has said more than one of the containment vessels may have been breached.

Again, it should be clear to all that this nuclear plant "exploded."

But the evidence that the reactor vessel at Fukushima actually failed remains quite slim. In particular, the plutonium that was detected appears to be residue from atomic weapons testing -- you'd find it in your own backyard if you looked with sufficiently sensitive instruments, and it was present in Japan before the earthquake hit.

Despite TEPCO's numerous statements that the reactors may have been breached, if you want to hang with that "appearance," it's certainly your right, but with all the other statements from TEPCO and elsewhere, by insisting that the plutonium is all from old weapons tests, you "appear" like an ostrich burying its head.

Still, I don't see you volunteering to go over and demonstrate the safety of the situation by blogging from the exclusion zone.

But since you've weighed in on my old statement, how about a prediction on how long people will be excluded from a 25 mile radius of the plant?

One more week, maybe?

Or more like 1 to 10 years?

I seriously doubt any of those people will be going back to their perfectly good homes in less than 5 years.

David Orange
04-13-2011, 03:22 PM
...do you think this was an avoidable disaster? I do recall hearing about whistle-blowers who complained about safety precautions not being up to snuff some years(?) ago.

They were warned seriously when this fiasco was in the planning stages. They were warned that the earthquakes could be larger and that tsunamis have historically been larger than the design parameters of the plant.

Whatever the design limits of a nuclear plant, whatever the "perfect storm" required to make it fail, nature can produce it.

Also, could you point me to a source on the plutonium residue?


I think it was the same government and nuclear plant operator that both have a history of minimizing and covering up nuclear accidents in Japan.

Best to you.

David

mathewjgano
04-13-2011, 04:11 PM
Whatever the design limits of a nuclear plant, whatever the "perfect storm" required to make it fail, nature can produce it.

Hi David,

Absolutely. I've only learned a little of the geo-sciences, but what I did learn left me with the same impression.
I look at the events at Fukushima as a lesson in how those in charge were short-sighted. Clearly they missed something. Mistakes will happen, but when millions of people are potentially at risk, I would like to think no corners were cut.
Take care,
Matt

lbb
04-13-2011, 06:32 PM
Clearly they missed something. Mistakes will happen, but when millions of people are potentially at risk, I would like to think no corners were cut.

You can pretty much say of any accident, in hindsight, "they missed something". Hindsight is crystal clear; it's not always so helpful going forward. The plant's designers did incorporate safety features to address the fact that they were in a seismically active region -- they just didn't design for a big enough event. We can say that looking back -- but looking forward, what can we say? What's "big enough"? What decisions are based on the acknowledgment that you can never build the unsinkable ship, and what are "cutting corners"?

mathewjgano
04-13-2011, 07:08 PM
You can pretty much say of any accident, in hindsight, "they missed something". Hindsight is crystal clear; it's not always so helpful going forward. The plant's designers did incorporate safety features to address the fact that they were in a seismically active region -- they just didn't design for a big enough event.
I agree. Apart from anything which might indicate negligence, I'm just saying I think it's important to see how we can learn from it.

We can say that looking back -- but looking forward, what can we say? What's "big enough"? What decisions are based on the acknowledgment that you can never build the unsinkable ship, and what are "cutting corners"?
I think these are the kind of tough questions that will get things going in the right direction. The failure I was thinking of had to do with projected risks. I'm not an expert, so my guess isn't worth a whole lot, but this kind of earthquake doesn't seem very surprising to me. If the earthquake risk was addressed, then it was material failure or some other failure. My point was that regardless of the specific causes, a shortcoming was discovered and that's what needs to be addressed, in my opinion. I'm interested in how that will be addressed, but I suppose time will have to tell on that.
I have a lot of faith in technology and the human ability to adapt. We cannot build an "unsinkable ship" but we can at least count the passengers and try to make life rafts for the lot of them.
Take care,
Matt

David Orange
04-13-2011, 08:55 PM
You can pretty much say of any accident, in hindsight, "they missed something". Hindsight is crystal clear; it's not always so helpful going forward.

The problem, Mary, is that the plant's designers were warned by geologists, before any construction began, that the region had a history not only of earthquakes but also of massive tsunamis, much larger than their seawall was designed for. There were ancient stone tablets in the area warning people not to build anything lower than that point and the Fukushima plant was well below that point. That was hardly hindsight. It was foresight and serious warnings ignored.

The plant's designers did incorporate safety features to address the fact that they were in a seismically active region -- they just didn't design for a big enough event.

Why not? They were warned by the ancient tablets and they were warned by geologists. They chose to ignore those warnings. It's not hindsight to say they were wrong. They knew they were gambling with the lives of millions of people. They were more concerned with profit.

We can say that looking back -- but looking forward, what can we say? What's "big enough"? What decisions are based on the acknowledgment that you can never build the unsinkable ship, and what are "cutting corners"?

If you are wrong about the "unsinkable" ship, only those who choose to ride it are endangered. These people chose for everyone else and now they will be too broke to pay for the damage they have caused. They're planning to give each affected community $240,000.00 for their losses.

Looking forward, then, what can we say? We can say that nuclear plants (in particular, those using uranium [or in the case of Fukushima, uranium and plutonium]) are too dangerous to build on this planet.

David Orange
04-13-2011, 09:15 PM
The failure I was thinking of had to do with projected risks. I'm not an expert, so my guess isn't worth a whole lot, but this kind of earthquake doesn't seem very surprising to me. If the earthquake risk was addressed, then it was material failure or some other failure.

Well, the earthquake was probably up to the very limit the plant could withstand, but the tsunami was what did them in. And they were warned specifically and repeatedly that historical tsunamis had been much larger than they were designing for. This can only be considered blatant negligence.

My point was that regardless of the specific causes, a shortcoming was discovered and that's what needs to be addressed, in my opinion. I'm interested in how that will be addressed, but I suppose time will have to tell on that.

The only answer is that the perfect storm is always out there, so we must not build anything that would cause a greater catastrophe than the storm itself.

I have a lot of faith in technology and the human ability to adapt. We cannot build an "unsinkable ship" but we can at least count the passengers and try to make life rafts for the lot of them.

I prefer Buckminster Fuller's perfect ship: the very planet we all were born on, outfitted with everything we need to go through time. It's the salesman's art to make us feel that what we have by right is never good enough--that we always have a critical and urgent need for whatever boondoggle he has to sell.

It's a shame, and it always leads to disaster.

I wonder if, in the frenzy to outdo the good thing we had, we have already damaged it beyond its ability to sustain us.

Best wishes.

David

David Orange
04-13-2011, 09:21 PM
...how about a prediction on how long people will be excluded from a 25 mile radius of the plant?

One more week, maybe?

Or more like 1 to 10 years?

I seriously doubt any of those people will be going back to their perfectly good homes in less than 5 years.

I see that the exclusion zone is actually twelve miles, though I have read recently that they were extending it to Iitate, which is 24 miles from the plant. High radiation has been found there. I understood that the town had been evacuated and the exclusion zone had been extended that far.

From The Japan Times: "A test Sunday found 12000 becquerels per kg of radioactive iodine and 13000 becquerels per kg of cesium in shiitake harvested in Iitate. ..."

So it's the 30-year half-life cesium that's showing up in Iitate, in greater amounts than the iodine. The cesium is the same thing that still contaminates areas in Germany and France from the Chernobyl explosion (or should I say "combustion"?).

David

Tenyu
04-14-2011, 08:36 AM
Substantial xenon forecasted over North America currently:

Link (http://transport.nilu.no/products/browser/fpv_fuku?fpp=conccol_Xe-133_;region=NH)

More in depth coverage of radioactivity accumulation and forecast:

Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaup0qywTto)

Grass-fed dairy - milk, yogurt, cheese, butter currently bioaccumulates fallout.

Grain-fed dairy currently has no bioaccumulation as grains are stored from the previous year. Next year they should bioaccumulate from this year's crops.

Tenyu
04-14-2011, 12:05 PM
Hundreds of thousands, at the minimum, of Japanese should be evacuated right now as I type this as proven by the following soil comparisons to Chernobyl. The government and TEPCO have known this for weeks, yet still refuse to extend the exclusion zone. They're more concerned with their image and money than putting all those people's lives under life-threatening radioactivity. This is unbelievably sad.

http://brainwindows.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/radiationcomparison.jpg

Tenyu
04-14-2011, 12:06 PM
Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0H-mtsdsgg)

David Orange
04-19-2011, 07:40 PM
But the evidence that the reactor vessel at Fukushima actually failed remains quite slim...

You told me that none of your clients (as far as you know) is involved in nuclear energy....

I can accept that.

But I was thinking the other night and it occurred to me: do you have any stocks or other investments in any company that is involved with nuclear energy? Maybe direct ownership stake? Maybe in your 401K?

GE would certainly count.

How about it? Any financial interests that might lend some weight to your confident opinions?

David

Tenyu
04-22-2011, 02:42 PM
It only took several days before they reported this in the media. They probably wanted to make sure it wasn't a 'serious shutdown' first.

NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Southern Co. (SO) said Friday that equipment failure didn't cause the emergency shutdown of a Georgia nuclear-power reactor and that the plant will be restarted after parts are replaced as a precaution.
One of the two nuclear reactors at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, located 26 miles east of Augusta, "automatically tripped from 100% power" and followed normal system procedures for doing so, according to a report filed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
An investigation by Southern Co., which operates the plant and owns a controlling stake in the nuclear facility, "has not identified or isolated any apparent equipment failure," spokeswoman Alyson Fuqua said in an email. This "is not a safety related issue," she added.

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/04/22/southern-restart-georgia-reactor-replacing-parts/#ixzz1KHZcOSYQ

Tenyu
04-27-2011, 02:02 PM
Methane report. (http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/25/methane-hydrate-feedback/)

Tenyu
04-27-2011, 02:14 PM
Here's someone profiting from a real local solution:

Link (http://vimeo.com/22330819)

Link (http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-11-12/mark-shepherds-106-acre-permaculture-farm-viola-wisconsin)

Keith Larman
04-27-2011, 03:52 PM
You told me that none of your clients (as far as you know) is involved in nuclear energy....

I can accept that.

But I was thinking the other night and it occurred to me: do you have any stocks or other investments in any company that is involved with nuclear energy? Maybe direct ownership stake? Maybe in your 401K?

GE would certainly count.

How about it? Any financial interests that might lend some weight to your confident opinions?

David

Geez... I don't necessary agree with everything Ms. Derbyshire had to say, but is this really necessary? And what does it have to do with the substance of her arguments? Maybe you should ask for her "Long form" birth certificate too, just in case.

David Orange
04-27-2011, 07:25 PM
Geez... I don't necessary agree with everything Ms. Derbyshire had to say, but is this really necessary? And what does it have to do with the substance of her arguments?

I only mention it because we discussed being paid by nuclear interests and it returned to me that she said "none of her clients," which is one thing, but made me wonder. And that came up because I'm supposed to complete Conflict of Interest IRB training for my coordinating position in a study. Which made me remember that clients are not the only way one can be paid by a given interest. It would only mean that her assurances of the benign significance of the Fukushima incident might be an optimisitic investor's reply to a theoretical threat to the value of the stock.

Maybe you should ask for her "Long form" birth certificate too, just in case.

It was actually my impression of that TV detective that always had one last thought that led to one last question.

I always thought the birth certificate stuff was just distraction.

If one parent is a US citizen, the child is a US citizen at birth. My daughters were both born in Japan and were American citizens by birth. I have dealt extensively with US immigration processes for the last twenty years. Obama's mother was American so he was a citizen by birth. And beyond that, I have no interest in birth certificates.

Of course, it was an analogy, but I've been wanting to say that.

And I think it is a good idea to know whether one benefits by a thing to have proper perspective on what they say about it.

But I don't really care. I'm not trying to pin the accident on anyone, just saying that nuclear is never going to be safe for humans. Even if one plant in some unexpected place is operated badly or struck by natural disaster, it can spread poison around the globe--not that that would kill everyone on earth, but why have it at all?

There are definitely better ways and I'm going to talk about one in a separate thread.

Thanks.

David

Keith Larman
04-27-2011, 10:05 PM
Oh, geez, David... She's just expressing her views and she appears to have a strong background to back them up. That you don't like her views doesn't mean she's somehow a shill for the nuclear industry.

Are you paid by the solar industry to knock nuclear? Are you paid by the windpower companies to do the same? Are you in T. Boone Pickens' pocket?

Silly.

Or maybe consider me. I've invested in the past in various energy companies. One was the company that used to be called Thorium Power. Because I think it's good technology. I have also invested in a solar manufacturer. Hmmm, I was wondering where those envelopes of unmarked, non-sequentially numbered bills were coming from...

Seriously, this forum is totally insignificant in the larger picture of energy companies, policy, etc. Can't you accept that she in fact has the background she claims (which seems quite supported by random internet searches) and is sincere in what she is saying? You don't have to agree.

I just found the questioning totally inappropriate.

David Orange
05-03-2011, 10:20 PM
Oh, geez, David... She's just expressing her views and she appears to have a strong background to back them up. That you don't like her views doesn't mean she's somehow a shill for the nuclear industry.

Well, the question is, where do those views come from: the technical background or investments in the technology?

If a doctor tells you to take a certain drug and then you find out he owns stock in the company...and then you find out that the drug causes heart attacks....would you think his motivations were purely scientific and medical, according to Hippocates?

Katherine has consistently poo-pooed the seriousness of the situation in Fukushima. Granted it hasn't really put us here in the US in dire danger, but 1) the plant did blow up; 2) it released a lot of radiation; and 3) it has driven many thousands of people from their homes (probably permanently). It has also seriously affected the Japanese economy.

So why would anyone minimize this event? No amount of technical knowledge of the subject would justify that.

And investments in the technology (that might suffer seriously if the public developed a bad image of the product) don't justify minimizing the problem and the dangers of it, but they would certainly explain it.

Can't you accept that she in fact has the background she claims (which seems quite supported by random internet searches) and is sincere in what she is saying? You don't have to agree.

I can accept the fact that she has the background to understand a lot of the technicalities, but she's arguing points that that background does not support. She says the plants didn't "blow up" even though they clearly did. And she says that there is minimal danger from the radioactive elements released from the plants, which is certainly not true. Why present a backward version of the truth?

And I'm not accusing her of having a financial interest in denying the severity of the situation. But I did ask if she has such interest. Everyone receiving government funds for scientific research has to account for any conflicts in interest where I come from, and I think that when someone is trying to influence public opinion on a matter as serious as nuclear contamination, we should know if they have a conflict of interest.

I just found the questioning totally inappropriate.

Can't you accept that I have a background that requires disclosure of conflicts of interest and that I'm sincere in what I say?

David

David Orange
05-04-2011, 10:35 AM
I was reading some comments on a blog post about nuclear power in cars and airplanes from the 1950s and noticed this comment:

"""We add nuclear to everything mainly because it is such a good energy source. it is very clean except from storaging the nuclear waste.

However, when An reactor explodes because of a tjunami and a earthquake, we say that nuclear power is unsafe. Well, any power plant wouldn't have survived those blows.""

Of course, not just any power plant would spew poison and shut down a whole region of the country if it were totally destroyed.

Still I clicked on his link to educate myself and found this gem:

http://www.home-improving.com/632/nuclear-energy-advantages-and-disadvantages/

"Lets start with the risks asocciated with this type of energy. A lot of anti-nuclear energy protestors use this argument as their main point. However, power plants are much more safer than they were 50 years ago. This is because of very strong regulations aswell as due to technological advancement. The risk of a reactor which blows up is next to zero. I find it political oportinsme that the nuclear power plants in germany got closed after the disasster in Japan."

That was far enough for me.

It's really like Russian Roullette. The risk of your getting the loaded chamber are also "close to zero"...but the results of that almost impossible chance are ruinous.

Those who want to play Russian Roullette may do so with my blessing as long as they keep it to themselves.

Keith Larman
05-04-2011, 02:02 PM
Can't you accept that I have a background that requires disclosure of conflicts of interest and that I'm sincere in what I say?

Well, I now have no doubt you are sincere in asking such a question. And that is quite unfortunate.

David Orange
05-04-2011, 08:26 PM
Well, I now have no doubt you are sincere in asking such a question. And that is quite unfortunate.

If we were discussing flowers and house colors, where everything is really a matter of mere opinion, I wouldn't ask that.

But Katherine has been putting forth a "scientific" explanation of the situation, which flies in the face of the facts, the repercussions, the damage to people's lives and the very real danger to people around the world. You hear almost every day about scientists in their own area of expertise falsifying data or setting up their analyses to produce a desired result. The reasons are usually one of two: to promote themselves as experts or because they have a financial stake in the outcome. And the result of that is the CIRB--conflict-of-interest review board. Every major scientist I know has to complete a detailed report of their financial interests in any area they research. And while it can be a big hassle, I think it's a good idea in general, so since Katherine is making such authoritative statements, dismissing the vast body of facts....I think they should disclose any financial interests they have in the matter.

When someone completely dismisses a serious tragedy, I really have to wonder why.

David

Tenyu
05-14-2011, 07:59 AM
Full meltdowns now occurring.

Gundersen update (http://youtu.be/Xqs-fh79suI)

David Orange
05-30-2011, 09:06 PM
Interesting story:

http://www.myfoxal.com/story/14748605/germany-decides-to-abandon-nuclear-power-by-2022

Germany will drop all nuclear power by 2022, let by Angela Merkel, PhD in Physics.

""Merkel, who holds a Ph.D. in physics, said industrialized, technologically advanced Japan's "helplessness" in the face of the Fukushima disaster made her rethink the technology's risks.""

PhD in Physics and leader of the fourth largest economy in the world.

If they can do it, we can do it.

""While Germany already was set to abandon nuclear energy eventually, the decision - which still requires parliamentary approval - dramatically speeds up that process. Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen said there are no provisions that would allow a later policy reverse.

"We don't only want to renounce nuclear energy by 2022, we also want to reduce our CO2 emissions by 40 percent and double our share of renewable energies, from about 17 percent today to then 35 percent," the chancellor [Merkel] said.

Merkel said the cornerstones of Germany's energy policy will also include a safe and steady power supply that doesn't rely on imports, and affordable prices for industry and consumers. The plan calls for more investment in natural gas plants as a backup to prevent blackouts, the chancellor said.""

I think that only people with a vested interest in nuclear profits can continue to support nuclear power. Everyone else should have been woken up by now.

Best to all.

David

David Orange
06-28-2011, 11:37 AM
Hmm.

Now, see, in this case, I don't expect there will even be an explosion and I think we can see that there is considerable danger of pretty big release of plutonium without one.

http://news.yahoo.com/nm-blaze-threatening-nuclear-lab-sparking-fires-094526882.html

It's a 68 square mile fire, 3.5 miles from 30,000 barrels of plutonium waste: that's a hair's width.

Am I reading that right?

""It has quickly grown to 44,000 acres — or 68 square miles — and ignited a spot fire on lab property.
...
The anti-nuclear watchdog group Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety said the fire appeared to be about 3.5 miles from a dumpsite where as many as 30,000 55-gallon drums of plutonium-contaminated waste were stored in fabric tents above ground.
""
Since I don't know the significance of a mili-seivert, I probably overestimate the danger of 30,000 55-gallon drums of plutonium-contaminated waste being burned in a 68 sq/m fire with high winds.

I'm not saying it will explode. I'm saying this won't have to explode to release enough plutonium to make Fukushima and Chernobyl both look like Sunday morning tea parties.

I mean, Fukushima looked stupid for having spent fuel in open pools on the roofs of their reactor buildings. But 30,000 barrels of plutonium waste in fabric tents on the edge of a 68 square mile fire?

Ladies and gentlemen...whether it's this one or another one, we are bound to have a nuclear disaster in a US plant sooner or later if we don't stop building them and shut down and clean up the ones we already have. Nature will provide a perfect storm for one of them, whatever it takes. The designer of the Titanic said "Even God cannot sink this ship," just days before it sank.

There is no safe nuclear facility.

David

oisin bourke
07-16-2011, 03:46 AM
non contract labourers are being recruited to clean up radiocative waste in Fukushima for the grand wage of 10,000 yen an hour, three hours a day:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/ME04Dh01.html

Meanwhile, the governor of Tokyo, Ishihara Shintaro, has announced Tokyo's Olympic bid for 2020! Basically, this will be a huge cash cow for Shintaro's buddies for a bid doomed to failure.

Well, at least the money will stay in Tokyo, rather than being wasted on paying clean up workers decent wages.

David Orange
08-02-2011, 01:39 PM
Well, looks like the Fukushima incident (ongoing) is now rated EQUAL to Chernobyl on the scale of severity.

And it didn't just become equal: the new rating is based on new understanding of information from the time of the accident:

"The upgrade to Level 7 is reportedly not a response to any specific turn of events at the plant, but rather a decision that takes new data about rates of the initial radiation leaks into account. Radiation continues to leak into the environment from the damaged plant and the environmental effects may not be known for years, making it difficult to estimate the impact on humans and the environment near the plant. "

http://www.tecca.com/news/2011/04/12/japan-fukushima-level-7/

So it was, as I and others said, as bad as Chernobyl when it first happened, though several more knowledgeable people sneered at our assertions that it was far worse than was being reported.

So you can bet that the environmental damage in Japan continues to be far worse than TEPCO and the Japanese government claim and that the damage has probably spread far more than they or the US government will reveal.

It's a good thing the plant didn't actually "blow up," isn't it?

David

oisin bourke
08-02-2011, 04:46 PM
What's really depressing is how the plant has fallen off the radar in the media over here. Some English language outlets such as the Japan Times carry daily radiation levels across Honshu, but in the Japanese media, the whole effort seems to be in downplaying the effects in order to entice tourists back into the country. I was a child when chernobyl happened, and I remember the mass slaughter of animals across Europe etc. I also remember spikes in radiation all along the east coast of Ireland and the Irish sea due to regular leaks from the Sellafield plant in Northern England.

One thing I carried from these experiences is that radiation melt downs are pernicious due to their long term, cumulative effects. People don't spout two heads overnight, but what are the effects of eating beef with high doses of caseium for twenty years? or tainted spinach? Or milk? Or fish? Or breathing the air around Fukushima? Or drinking the tap water? All have shown high levels of radiation, and some food is being wrongly labelled to hide the fact that it's tainted. This is a huge long term challenge for the country and it's being swept under the carpet: back to business as usual. I'm seriously considering leaving this country in part because of how this thing was/is being handled.

thisisnotreal
08-02-2011, 06:29 PM
Oisin, you'd have to pretty much unplug from humanity to really get away from it. :(

Robert Cowham
08-03-2011, 03:20 AM
Things are not looking good:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-02/tepco-reports-second-deadly-radiation-reading-at-fukushima-plant.html

A slightly older but disturbing article:

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/06/201161664828302638.html

genin
08-03-2011, 09:14 AM
They had a sign from like 500 years ago that said "Don't build your town below this point." And then they build a Nuclear Powerplant there. I'm pretty sure if peasants from the 1500s knew tsunami's were coming, then modern day people should've known too.

Tenyu
08-15-2011, 10:08 PM
Three month old NHK documentary (http://youtu.be/yVzX3gAxp58) with less than 10,000 views.

Part 1 of Professor Tatsuhiko Kodama (http://youtu.be/Dlf4gOvzxYc) outraged. Fukushima 30 times more harmful than bomb on Hiroshima. Part 2 linked after.

Radioactive fallout to continue for at least another year. Arnie Gundersen says Tokyo residents average inhaling 3,650 radioactive hot particles within a year, Seattle residents estimated at 1,825 hot particles. Fukushima Prefecture residents left abandoned to develop cancer. (http://youtu.be/rVuGwc9dlhQ) Geiger counter off the scale at elementary school. (http://youtu.be/dXPMfz9P6_I)

Anyone interested in becoming or staying informed on Fukushima's radioactive spew and effects can visit enenews.com for daily updates.

Tenyu
08-15-2011, 10:36 PM
At least those researchers have probably actually studied nuclear physics. At least those researchers have a professional stake in making sure their public statements are scientifically accurate.

Katherine

Did you actually read the links I provided? In particular, I might suggest this one, on fission and fission products: http://mitnse.com/2011/03/20/fission-products-and-radiation/

Katherine

Came upon this by accident today:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2000/tepco-0503.html

http://web.mit.edu/nse/people/faculty/kazimi.html

Didn't realize the connection was this direct before.

TEPCO admitted they knew all three operating reactors melted through, worse than a meltdown, within days of the tsunami and lied about it for months.

mathewjgano
08-16-2011, 09:57 AM
A local rainwater news report:
http://www.king5.com/news/environment/High-levels-of-radiation-detected-in-Northwest-rainwater--125391598.html

I'll be curious to hear what the results were, I remember thinking that helicopter was flying rather low. I was a bit unhappy since my 2 year old was sleeping, but now I'm glad to know what it was for. I'm not sure how limited the usefulness of the survey is, but at least they're taking a higher level of interest in measuring the state of things.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015597219_helicopter14m.html

This project is looking for radioactive material that exists in our environment. The survey isn't focused on radioactive material from Japan. The amount of material from Japan was extremely low and will not be detected by equipment on the helicopter.

Tenyu
08-17-2011, 06:09 PM
Tokyo sample with radioactivity levels higher than in Chernobyl exclusion zone. (http://youtu.be/XNzDg4O9dkw)

Tenyu
08-18-2011, 08:58 PM
Highest measurement from reactor 1 ever recorded since beginning of accident - 412 sieverts per hour today. (http://atmc.jp/plant/rad/?n=1)

Unconscionable media blackout around the world. (http://youtu.be/baya8-agPs4) Perhaps Aikiweb members in Japan can report what the news there is telling them if anything?

Doctors in Sendai now say patients' hair falling out in clumps. Doctors around Tokyo notice children with nosebleeds, diarrhea, and flu-like symptoms.

David Orange
08-19-2011, 12:32 PM
That sounds horrible, but just think if the plant had actually "exploded," how much worse that would be.

And let's be thankful that nuclear plants cannot explode. They're too carefully designed and too well made for that to happen.

Why else do you think there have been so few reactor accidents in history? The things are almost 100% perfect.

This problem is simply the result of unforeseeable natural disasters and it's nobody's fault. And it's not as bad as they say. Only extremists want to blow this out of proportion.

The kids in Tokyo with nosebleeds and diarrhea are probably just faking it to get out of school.

The people in Sendai with their hair falling out? That's caused by the local custom for women to leave a little shampoo in their hair when they blow-dry it, to keep a fresh scent in it. Unfortunately, it makes their hair fall out. It's completely unrelated to the nearby nuclear meltdown.

Let's all be rational about this.

Highest measurement from reactor 1 ever recorded since beginning of accident - 412 sieverts per hour today. (http://atmc.jp/plant/rad/?n=1)

Unconscionable media blackout around the world. (http://youtu.be/baya8-agPs4) Perhaps Aikiweb members in Japan can report what the news there is telling them if anything?

Doctors in Sendai now say patients' hair falling out in clumps. Doctors around Tokyo notice children with nosebleeds, diarrhea, and flu-like symptoms.

a2011
08-19-2011, 02:38 PM
Highest measurement from reactor 1 ever recorded since beginning of accident - 412 sieverts per hour today. (http://atmc.jp/plant/rad/?n=1)


Text on that page says
D/W: 30.6Sv/h 、S/C: 0.697Sv/h

I am guessing the graph shows 400 _milli_ Sv/hour i.e. 1000 times less (but still more than you would want to linger in).

This page
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=72&storyCode=2060295
refers to rates of about 10 and 5 Sv/hour.

Tenyu
08-19-2011, 07:27 PM
Text on that page says
D/W: 30.6Sv/h


Peter,

That's what it is today, my post is from yesterday. If you look in the left column, or the graph, you'll see it was 412 sieverts per hour in the dry well yesterday. Arnie Gundersen explained that corium(fuel rods which have melted together and through the bottom of the containment and concrete foundation) undergoes periodic points of extreme criticality, it's not a regulated fission as it is when undamaged rods are separate, contained and cooled in a functioning reactor core.

The 5/10 sieverts per hour are readings from workers around the building including new cracks in the ground caused by the 6.8 earthquake that just hit Fukushima. If a worker were to go near where the dry well meter is, he would die within minutes. If a worker stayed for an hour around the 10 sievert reading he would die within a week at most, most likely just a few days.

a2011
08-20-2011, 07:34 AM
That's what it is today, my post is from yesterday. If you look in the left column, or the graph, you'll see it was 412 sieverts per hour in the dry well yesterday.


You're right and there's an English page here:
http://radiationnews.blogspot.com/2011/08/8182011-fukushima-daiichi-reactor-1-dry.html


Arnie Gundersen explained that corium(fuel rods which have melted together and through the bottom of the containment and concrete foundation) undergoes periodic points of extreme criticality, it's not a regulated fission as it is when undamaged rods are separate, contained and cooled in a functioning reactor core.


Variability in reactivity will involve natural feedback mechanisms with temperature, water availability and the quantity of neutron poisoning. To bring about a solution that ends the intermittent criticality they will need to get tools in and remove pieces of the melted fuel.

Tenyu
08-20-2011, 09:26 AM
The green locations have up to 37,000 becquerels (disintegrations per second) per square meter.

http://doc.radiationdefense.jp/dojyou_map_en.pdf

Tenyu
08-20-2011, 09:51 AM
Nearly all the readings on the map are from June. Anyone's guess what it is now.

David Orange
08-20-2011, 05:03 PM
Nearly all the readings on the map are from June. Anyone's guess what it is now.

It's wrenching. I saw in the video you linked a bit above, that actual core material from inside the reactor has been found up to a mile-and-a-half from the reactors. This was not from fuel rods in pools. It was from the containment vessel, which was cracked in "the original explosion" at the plant.

The patients in Sendai and the kids in Tokyo are heartbreaking.

Thanks for being such a resource on this.

As many have pointed out, there's pretty much a news blackout.

I will appreciate seeing anything you want to post on this.

Thanks.

David

Tenyu
08-22-2011, 08:19 AM
David,

Millions of people need to be evacuated right now. TEPCO and the government have known this for months yet all we get is silence, lies, and a tiny recall on beef. Dr. Shunichi Yamashita, the government's Radiation Health Risk Management Advisor, said in very clear terms he'll be dead by the time most of the children who'll die from the radiation actually do die so he can't be held responsible for their deaths! This was his response to being questioned for the government allowing exposure of 100 millisieverts per year.

Takashi Hirose in press conference. (http://youtu.be/wt1p-tftdaU)

Chris Busby in press conference. (http://youtu.be/KtfTWk7qxo8)

Chris Busby discussing corporate control of 'scientific' research. (http://youtu.be/wIpndkwN0x8)

Tenyu
08-25-2011, 09:02 AM
Japan's government estimates the amount of radioactive caesium-137 released by the Fukushima nuclear disaster so far is equal to that of 168 Hiroshima bombs...

The amount of caesium-137 released since the three reactors were crippled by the March 11 quake and tsunami has been estimated at 15,000 tera becquerels, the Tokyo Shimbun reported, quoting a government calculation...

That compares with the 89 tera becquerels released by "Little Boy", the uranium bomb the United States dropped on the western Japanese city in the final days of World War II, the report said.
The estimate was submitted by Prime Minister Naoto Kan's cabinet to a lower house committee on promotion of technology and innovation, the daily said.

The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8722400/Fukushima-caesium-leaks-equal-168-Hiroshimas.html)

Will it be near 300 Hiroshima bombs another six months from now?

How many prefectures are becoming permanently uninhabitable?

Will the orange and red dots overtake the green ones in the Tokyo map?

Less than 20 new total views on the last Chris Busby press conference video since I posted it, not sure if anyone but David cares.

Permanent genetic damage to future generations of the Japanese is worse than mere genocide.

Tenyu
09-03-2011, 12:04 PM
Toronto reading with a high quality geiger counter. (http://youtu.be/EBfvkCEr-Is?t=1m3s)

tarik
09-03-2011, 11:32 PM
Toronto reading with a high quality geiger counter. (http://youtu.be/EBfvkCEr-Is?t=1m3s)

Odd how calm and careless (without any safety protocols) he was despite the "dangerous" levels (~5 times the level where people are warned to be cautious and make official reports) he's recording. In fact, I wonder if he's bothered reporting his data other than via youtube.

I'd be curious to know more about his training. I'm not a trained user, but I know of a few tests that one is supposed to use to validate readings that he did not use. I suspect that he's reading beta radiation rather than gamma radiation.

IAC, if you're curious about accurate readings across the US, the EPA shares the following constantly measured data here:
http://epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/index.html

And for people who know that all government agencies lie all the time, you can look at a network of volunteers readings that are shared here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/17/live-real-time-monitoring-map-of-radiation-counts-in-the-usa/

Regards,

Tenyu
09-20-2011, 08:05 PM
First mention on TV parts of Tokyo are not safe. (http://youtu.be/IBkrIgJUWLk)

Dangerous radiation reading on Tokyo train. (http://youtu.be/X4QXYyqdP2o)

Fukushima Prefecture residents consigned to cancer/death because evacuation considered bad for business. (http://youtu.be/-h1Av1i0Z_o)

Tenyu
09-20-2011, 08:20 PM
Odd how calm and careless (without any safety protocols) he was despite the "dangerous" levels


Touching a radioactive cloth for a few seconds isn't that dangerous, it's external radiation that can be scrubbed off your hands. Personally I would use gloves still. Ingesting or inhaling hot particles is what's really dangerous because they'll permanently lodge inside vital organs.

(~5 times the level where people are warned to be cautious and make official reports) he's recording. In fact, I wonder if he's bothered reporting his data other than via youtube.

The source of radiation could be local to Toronto and not Fukushima. Either way, reporting it into the city's not going to change anything, the nuclear lobby's too powerful.

graham christian
09-26-2011, 09:47 PM
Tenyu. A bit of light hearted relief for you in the form of trivia but on the subject of radiation.

Did you know that Brazil nuts contain 1000 times more radium than other foods?

In fact if you walked into a secure nuclear facility with a pocket full of brazils it would set off the alarms.

Regards.G.

Tenyu
09-27-2011, 09:52 AM
Graham,

I looked up the Brazil nuts, 1000 times radium over other foods isn't worrisome when all it amounts to is 33% greater than normal background. We've now learned they should be eaten sparingly but this is absurdly irrelevant to the impact of the ongoing fallout from Daiichi.

In other fallout news, this Michigan plant (http://palisades.homestead.com/) is currently spewing radioactive steam after having its second emergency shutdown (http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/site/?pageid=event_desc&edis_id=NC-20110927-32447-USA) within two weeks. The Rubber Stamp Commission(NRC) assures nothing to worry about for local residents, but if this picture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Palisades_Nuclear_Power_Plant.jpg/800px-Palisades_Nuclear_Power_Plant.jpg) is indicative of the amount of tritium steam coming out then I'd be very concerned.

graham christian
09-27-2011, 11:13 AM
Graham,

I looked up the Brazil nuts, 1000 times radium over other foods isn't worrisome when all it amounts to is 33% greater than normal background. We've now learned they should be eaten sparingly but this is absurdly irrelevant to the impact of the ongoing fallout from Daiichi.

In other fallout news, this Michigan plant (http://palisades.homestead.com/) is currently spewing radioactive steam after having its second emergency shutdown (http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/site/?pageid=event_desc&edis_id=NC-20110927-32447-USA) within two weeks. The Rubber Stamp Commission(NRC) assures nothing to worry about for local residents, but if this picture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Palisades_Nuclear_Power_Plant.jpg/800px-Palisades_Nuclear_Power_Plant.jpg) is indicative of the amount of tritium steam coming out then I'd be very concerned.

Come on now Tenyu I said for a bit of light relief. I fully understand the dangers of radiation and the scene you describe along with David Orange. I'm sure a lot of people here are interested in your updates and respect your tenacity.

You can make it a goal of yours and well done but be careful if it turns into a compulsion. Space out what you want to do about it and do it in an effective manner by all means.

Regards.G.

Tenyu
09-27-2011, 07:37 PM
Your 'light relief' sounded like the distractive disinformation of Pluto-san. Your lack of knowledge and flippant attitude in previous posts on the environment, energy, and the economy doesn't aspire confidence you fully understand the effects at all. Nor is saying staying educated what's going on in the world is 'compulsive' behavior. I can and do joke about Fukushima in real life, but here where members lives are much more affected than mine by the fallout, coupled with a general media blackout, 'having fun' in this thread shouldn't be our priority.

graham christian
09-28-2011, 08:47 AM
Your 'light relief' sounded like the distractive disinformation of Pluto-san. Your lack of knowledge and flippant attitude in previous posts on the environment, energy, and the economy doesn't aspire confidence you fully understand the effects at all. Nor is saying staying educated what's going on in the world is 'compulsive' behavior. I can and do joke about Fukushima in real life, but here where members lives are much more affected than mine by the fallout, coupled with a general media blackout, 'having fun' in this thread shouldn't be our priority.

Well there you are, two different approaches. It seems mine is the reverse of yours. I can add humour on these forums yet in life I do not joke about Fukashima and such things.

That my friend makes me no better or worse than you and neither does it colour my view on you with any negative insinuations.

I think the general tone of my last post was validation of your efforts. Do you not like validation?

Have fun.G.

Tenyu
02-16-2012, 11:42 AM
Gundersen reports (http://ifyoulovethisplanet.org/?p=5620) over 30% of thousands of Fukushima children have tested positive for thyroid lumps(formerly known as tumors).

Further information. (http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/01/thyroid-pandemic/)

Much faster than anyone expected.

David Orange
02-16-2012, 06:32 PM
Tenyu,

I've now read that the crucial damage was done to the reactors in the earthquake and that the tsunami just made it harder to deal with.

I've read that they had to seriously consider evacuating Tokyo.

I've read that another earthquake around Fukushima could set off events at those plants that could really send radiation soaring and disperse it dangerously over an undeniably wide area, forcing extensive evacuations. But what are the chances of another earthquake hitting Fukushima or Sendai?

Unbelievable that this has faded so far from common consciousness. Thanks for keeping a post going.

Best to you.

David

Tenyu
02-17-2012, 12:37 PM
David,

It's been known since August last year the earthquake caused the coolant pipes to burst, guaranteeing a triple melt-through before the tsunami hit. Back up generators are irrelevant if the coolant can't reach the reactors.

Small earthquakes (http://www.jma.go.jp/en/quake/quake_local_index.html) were hitting Fukushima just yesterday less than 20 km from Daiichi. Japan has had many earthquakes in the past year, and it's possible for any of the reactor buildings to collapse with their current condition given a strong enough earthquake. I doubt this will happen, although small earthquakes can agitate the corium causing increased sporadic criticality and release. Forced evacuations should have happened 11 months ago of Fukushima and parts of surrounding prefectures. The only reason it's not in people's consciousness is the media decided for it not to be. Obviously this is true for most things of significance.

Tenyu
03-10-2012, 10:25 PM
If a mere crack occurs in SPF4 from an earthquake, then Japan will literally be finished. A collapse of the building isn't necessary as Gundersen reported before. If that happens how long before TEPCO lets people know, or would they have to keep it out of the media indefinitely?

Dr. Hiroaki Koide, Research Associate at the Research Reactor Institute of Kyoto University (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eJi-o4F8eOo)

oisin bourke
04-04-2012, 08:41 AM
I have tried to keep balanced view on the fukushima situation over the past year, but I'm coming to the conclusion that this is still a potentially massive disaster for Japan. We know at this stage that people as far away as Tokyo and Chibe recieved much higher doses of radiation than were initially announced.

On top of that, fish in lakes in Gunma are testing five times the limit for caesium.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120404x2.html

A tenth of the country has been contaminated:

http://abcasiapacificnews.com/stories/201111/3373127.htm

This article also addresses something I have wondered for the past year: Why the government/Tepco didn't encase the whole site in concrete:

http://enenews.com/breaking-mainichi-expert-sr-writer-govt-sources-say-no-4-pool-a-grave-concern-storage-pool-barely-intact-we-have-no-time-to-humor-senseless-thinking-of-those-who-downplay-the-risks

Basically, the radiation in this reactor is so strong that it cannot send robots in to asses the damage!
Humans would die within seven minutes.

IMO, they need to encase the reactor in concrete and declare a huge area a no-go zone.

HL1978
04-04-2012, 09:09 AM
I guess eating fish is safer than previously thought.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/lots-of-radioactivity-but-little-risk-in-oceans-seafood-near-fukushima.ars

oisin bourke
04-04-2012, 05:50 PM
I guess eating fish is safer than previously thought.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/lots-of-radioactivity-but-little-risk-in-oceans-seafood-near-fukushima.ars

Not if it's from lakes in Gunma!

Seriously, though, I really hope that's right. I'm not into scaremongering. People in Japan have enough problems. However, even in fairly optimistic pieces such as this, you have the final two paragraphs:

"The authors use a computer model of the local currents to figure out how much radioactivity must have been discharged to produce the pattern they see. The answer turns out to be on the high side of estimates (22 PetaBecquerels), indicating that the direct discharge was a significant route for contamination, accounting for about two-thirds of the total radioactivity release.

Nevertheless, the isotopes that landed on the ground have stayed there, creating a serious contamination problem that may take years to resolve. Although the seas in the immediate vicinity of Fukushima probably experienced a very high dose of radioactivity during the months immediately after the disaster, as long as none of the isotopes accumulate in any organisms, the effects are unlikely to be long-lasting. "

This is the piece that reminded me that the problem is still really bad:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120329a1.html

Tenyu
04-04-2012, 08:40 PM
I have tried to keep balanced view on the fukushima situation over the past year, but I'm coming to the conclusion that this is still a potentially massive disaster for Japan. We know at this stage that people as far away as Tokyo and Chibe recieved much higher doses of radiation than were initially announced.

Oisin,

‘Your' description is very similar, nearly verbatim, to the media's doublethink. "Potentially" implies it's not already the largest industrial disaster in history. "Received" implies Tokyo residents aren't still receiving doses indefinitely into the future or that the corium in each building is no longer fissioning, in fact it's been increasing at times if you follow enenews. Tokyo's tap water reservoir is less than 40 miles from Gunma which I posted on before. The only reason fish from that region's testing above government limits now because they just lowered (link (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120404x2.html)) the limits from a temporary ‘full blown crime-against-humanity' 500 bq/kg to an ‘acceptable crime-against-humanity' 100 bq/kg. I also just posted Gundersen's random ‘non-cherry picked' soil sample tests from Tokyo last month in David's thread. With all the data I've been posting it's unbelievable, not that anything surprises me anymore, anyone would consider posting propaganda articles saying only 10% of Japan's land has been contaminated. TEPCO's been building a tent around one of the reactor buildings if you haven't seen? It's not meant to contain the radiation, as that's impossible, but to funnel it out the top directly into the atmosphere to mitigate exposure for workers on site.

oisin bourke
04-04-2012, 09:03 PM
Oisin,

‘Your' description is very similar, nearly verbatim, to the media's doublethink. "Potentially" implies it's not already the largest industrial disaster in history. "Received" implies Tokyo residents aren't still receiving doses indefinitely into the future or that the corium in each building is no longer fissioning, in fact it's been increasing at times if you follow enenews. Tokyo's tap water reservoir is less than 40 miles from Gunma which I posted on before. The only reason fish from that region's testing above government limits now because they just lowered (link (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120404x2.html)) the limits from a temporary ‘full blown crime-against-humanity' 500 bq/kg to an ‘acceptable crime-against-humanity' 100 bq/kg. I also just posted Gundersen's random ‘non-cherry picked' soil sample tests from Tokyo last month in David's thread. With all the data I've been posting it's unbelievable, not that anything surprises me anymore, anyone would consider posting propaganda articles saying only 10% of Japan's land has been contaminated. TEPCO's been building a tent around one of the reactor buildings if you haven't seen? It's not meant to contain the radiation, as that's impossible, but to funnel it out the top directly into the atmosphere to mitigate exposure for workers on site.

Well, I am couching my language because, as I have said, I don't want to add to unnesscecary hysteria. Therefore, I am limiting my statements to what can be verified by reputable news sources.
By "potentially" I mean that an event such as the mass evacuation of Tokyo has not happened, but it is still possible. Government sources have confirmed dosages recieved.

TBH, there is so much hearsay and rumor, it is impossible to verify what's real and what's not.

However, even being cautious, it's still really serious.

Tenyu
04-05-2012, 07:28 PM
Well, I am couching my language because, as I have said, I don't want to add to unnesscecary hysteria. Therefore, I am limiting my statements to what can be verified by reputable news sources.


"Reputable news sources" are nothing more than public relations arm of business, they don't exist to educate but to obfuscate. They're commercials and noise to drown out signal.

By "potentially" I mean that an event such as the mass evacuation of Tokyo has not happened, but it is still possible. Government sources have confirmed dosages recieved.

Surely you jest or speak purely metaphysically. Fukushima City has yet to be evacuated and their population is less than 1% of Tokyo's.

TBH, there is so much hearsay and rumor, it is impossible to verify what's real and what's not.

I've posted many videos of Gundersen speaking for himself, horse's mouth doesn't qualify as hearsay nor rumor. If you've given any attention to my posts you'd already know much of his credentials, but here (http://fairewinds.com/content/who-we-are) they are again.

Tenyu
05-07-2012, 06:57 PM
12 to 16 million becquerels/m^2 in Nihonmatsu, approximately 80 km from Daiichi.

Press conference in NYC. (http://vimeo.com/41634666)

HL1978
05-23-2012, 08:13 PM
http://www.nature.com/news/fukushima-s-doses-tallied-1.10686

Few people will develop cancer as a consequence of being exposed to the radioactive material that spewed from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant last year — and those who do will never know for sure what caused their disease. These conclusions are based on two comprehensive, independent assessments of the radiation doses received by Japanese citizens, as well as by the thousands of workers who battled to bring the shattered nuclear reactors under control.

The first report, seen exclusively by Nature, was produced by a subcommittee of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) in Vienna, and covers a wide swathe of issues related to all aspects of the accident. The second, a draft of which has been seen by Nature, comes from the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, Switzerland, and estimates doses received by the general public in the first year after the accident. Both reports will be discussed at UNSCEAR’s annual meeting in Vienna this week.

Tenyu
05-24-2012, 02:09 AM
We're already well familiar with Pluto-san.

Chris Parkerson
05-24-2012, 09:20 AM
3 interesting articles:

http://enenews.com/former-fukushima-daiichi-worker-i-believe-the-country-will-be-evacuated-if-the-no-4-spent-fuel-pool-collapses-should-be-hundreds-or-thousands-of-people-working-furiously-every-day

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/world/asia/japan-considered-tokyo-evacuation-during-the-nuclear-crisis-report-says.html?_r=1

http://enenews.com/mainichi-expert-sr-writer-all-eastern-japan-evacuated-fukushima-plant-abandoned/comment-page-1

mathewjgano
05-26-2012, 10:53 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/world/asia/radioactive-release-at-fukushima-plant-was-underestimated.html?_r=1&src=rechp
Read this and thought of this thread...

David Orange
05-27-2012, 08:08 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/world/asia/radioactive-release-at-fukushima-plant-was-underestimated.html?_r=1&src=rechp
Read this and thought of this thread...

Yeah, that's why I was absolutely unconcerned with "becquerels" and other infinitesimally precise terms our resident experts were throwing out right after the incident started. If I don't know the difference between a millimeter and a centimeter, well, that's on me. But such quibbles hardly matter when the problem is thousands or even millions of times higher than TEPCO and the government admit.

Thanks.

David

Chris Parkerson
05-27-2012, 10:23 AM
I am more concerned about the cesium release that the short half life threats.

Chris Parkerson
05-29-2012, 08:06 AM
Check this out you sushi lovers:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/absolutely-every-one-of-the-15-bluefin-tuna-tested-in-california-waters-contaminated-with-fukushima-radiation.html

Tenyu
06-04-2012, 05:18 PM
Up to 650 million becquerels per square meter (not kilometer) in Minamisoma (http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/05/650000000-bqm2-in-minamisoma/) where evacuation order was recently lifted. (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120417a2.html)

Tenyu
06-05-2012, 10:55 AM
Up to 650 million becquerels per square meter (not kilometer) in Minamisoma (http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/05/650000000-bqm2-in-minamisoma/) where evacuation order was recently lifted. (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120417a2.html)

Quick calculation = 65,000 becquerels per square CENTIMETER.

David Orange
06-05-2012, 11:08 AM
Quick calculation = 65,000 becquerels per square CENTIMETER.

But that's only dangerous if you understand what a becquerel is.

If most people, like me, don't even understand what a becquerel is, there's no danger at all.

:(

David

Thanks for keeping us posted.

Rob Watson
06-10-2012, 12:44 AM
Up to 650 million becquerels per square meter (not kilometer) in Minamisoma (http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/05/650000000-bqm2-in-minamisoma/) where evacuation order was recently lifted. (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120417a2.html)

Hmmm ... Science 1 July 2012 shows a > 3,000,000Bq/M2.