Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-30-2011, 03:39 PM   #126
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
And your concrete proposal for changing this situation is?
I have none except to spread the recognition. Thoughts are things. The most important part of any design is the invisible structure of the thought that precedes the design. I work in that realm where such large matters as these are concerned. That, and doing what I can to reduce my own demand for electricity and oil, living seven miles from my workplace, washing my dishes by hand rather than using a dishwasher (which we have), keeping the heat low in the winter, A/C low in the summer. We keep our thermostat around 80 degrees in the summer...in Alabama.

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
A dramatic increase in electricity cost would be a good start, perhaps beginning with a carbon tax that would favor electricity from renewable sources. Alabama's congressmen are listed here:
http://www.contactingthecongress.org...c2011&state=al

Perhaps you could do us all the favor of finding out where they stand on carbon taxes?
Are you kidding? Most of our people are Republicans. So you already know their position.

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Sorry, but I'm really sick of seeing proposals (not just from you) that suggest conservation as the ultimate solution to all our energy woes.
Who said "ultimate"? It must be a mix of conservation, building design, solar, wind, water, geothermal and things like switching from corn for biofuel to serious non-food renewables like hemp. There is no one "ultimate" solution to this mess. Nuclear is what comes from trying to solve everything with a single "ultimate" response. Real life is a network of many small things in combination.

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Yes, conservation would certainly help. But how do you get there? You need a carbon tax. You need decent schools in urban areas so that people are willing to live there instead of commuting from 20 miles out. You need zoning that favors high density instead of urban sprawl. You need sidewalks, bike lanes, and effective public transit to serve that higher density. You need electricity regulations that favor net metering and demand-based pricing, plus the technological upgrades to the grid that would support those regulations. And so on and so on.
Now you're seeing the essence of what I've been saying all along. I wouldn't even mind thorium-based nuclear plants if they really work and are as safe as the claims.

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Some steps can be taken at the local level, and are being taken in some communities. Some require state or national-level action. To *really* have a global effect, you need to make such steps part of the infrastructure, so that developing economies work that way, too. But none of them are going to happen overnight, and none of them are going to be achieved by essentially telling people to sit at home in the dark.
Well, you don't have to tell them if we have a few more Fukushima-style accidents. We'll all be camping out far from the nuclear plants, eating berries, not knowing if they're radioactive or not.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 03:49 PM   #127
kewms
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,318
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
IThat, and doing what I can to reduce my own demand for electricity and oil, living seven miles from my workplace, washing my dishes by hand rather than using a dishwasher (which we have), keeping the heat low in the winter, A/C low in the summer.
If you have a newish dishwasher, it's probably more efficient. More electricity, but less water, and therefore less energy to heat the water.

Quote:
Are you kidding? Most of our people are Republicans. So you already know their position.
That's my point. I didn't vote for them, your fellow Alabamians did. You probably have more control over Alabama's political decisions than over Japan's or China's.

Katherine
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 03:52 PM   #128
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
And food self-sufficiency is feasible for what fraction of the US population?
I doubt it's feasible for anyone. Not for me. But I can produce a lot that I can use through the summer and save for the winter and thereby reduce my demand for energy. And I think that's feasible for almost any homeowner. For apartment dwellers, there are community gardening programs. The idea is to piece together a new approach because there is no single-element system that can cover everything.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 04:08 PM   #129
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Sorry, but "we" here in the US don't have a choice. China is building a megawatt-scale coal-fired generation plant every *week,* whether we like it or not.
As much as I hate coal, I still prefer it to nuclear, especially in the hands of the people who gave us melamine in baby milk, the Three Rivers Gorge dam and all the other pollution such as you mention in their approach to solar cell manufacturing. You talk as if that's unavoidable in solar cell manufacture, but the problem there is China's lax handling of all kinds of toxic wastes. The by-products of solar cell manufacture need not emerge as pollution.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 04:12 PM   #130
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Ron Tisdale wrote: View Post
Ok, David, don't hate me for this but...

While i feel a certain sentimental attachment to your arguements, they ONLY way I see all of these things coming together is to live under a one world government where CHOICE is an obscene word.

Ok, now, SEE!!!! I really am getting paranoid!

Best,
Ron (hastily looking over my shoulder, and closing my blinds to keep out the dark helicopter)
First, choice is fine as long as it only affects oneself. We have plenty of domestic laws limiting our choices. As for what other countries do, we have less ability to influence that, but there are the UN and other means of enticing good behavior and discouraging bad behavior. If they're all trying to get our "lifestyle" (what fools!) and we build a better system, then they'll all want to do that, too.

Second, is it still "paranoia" if you know they're out to get you, but you just don't care?

Best to you.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 04:13 PM   #131
kewms
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,318
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
As much as I hate coal, I still prefer it to nuclear, especially in the hands of the people who gave us melamine in baby milk, the Three Rivers Gorge dam and all the other pollution such as you mention in their approach to solar cell manufacturing. You talk as if that's unavoidable in solar cell manufacture, but the problem there is China's lax handling of all kinds of toxic wastes. The by-products of solar cell manufacture need not emerge as pollution.
Absolutely agree. So how do we persuade China to be a good global citizen on environmental matters?

Katherine
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 04:21 PM   #132
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
So you'll be canceling your phone line, your cell service, and your internet access?
No, but I'll be turning off all non-essential equipment whenever possible.

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Sorry, asking the rest of the world to pass on "luxuries" like electric lights and telephones is not a viable option. Number one, they won't do it. And number two, IMO it's immoral for the developed world to ask them to.
Those are basics, Katherine. I don't think it's "immoral" to help them realize how stupid it is to light up parking lots for closed businesses all night, every night. I don't think it's immoral to lead by example in not producing massive amounts of energy just so that we can waste it.

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Think about it: I can earn a decent living without breaking my back in the fields all day...but you, developing world farmer, should continue to stay close to nature, and burn wood and cow dung for light and to stay warm (both of which are horrendously polluting), and bounce along on a donkey-drawn cart for days when you need to take your products to the market or see a doctor (who may not be there because you didn't have a phone to call ahead), because you shouldn't aspire to my hideously wasteful standard of living. Now *that's* obscene.
It's an obscene distortion to conflate our massively wasteful consumption with the basic living needs of a society. Of course, they need those things, and they can have them without nuclear power plants built just to power vast oceans of waste.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 04:26 PM   #133
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
If you don't even know what units are used to define the "alert" level, you really shouldn't claim to be knowledgeable about nuclear risks.
As Henry Ford once said, "I don't know how many troops the British sent to fight the colonists in America, but I know it was a sight more than ever went back."

I do know that, whatever units they're using, the reading in Huntsville, Alabama, was 50% over the alert level, due strictly to the exploding nuclear plant in Japan. I know that it's 50% over the danger level. I can look up whatever the word is for the units they use, but you can't change the fact that Japan's nuclear event is causing dangerous levels fo radiation here. I said nuclear plants can blow up. An expert on the subject told me that shows that I don't understand nuclear plants. Now we see another nuclear plant blow up. It looks like I know enough to have an opinion.

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
In many cases, the monitors that are going off were intended to detect things like clandestine nuclear weapons tests. They're designed to spot very small needles in very big haystacks.
Well, they spotted it. If a nuclear plant couldn't "blow up," the radiation from Fukushima would never have registered in Huntsville, Alabama.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 04:30 PM   #134
phitruong
Dojo: Charlotte Aikikai Agatsu Dojo
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,935
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Absolutely agree. So how do we persuade China to be a good global citizen on environmental matters?

Katherine
you can't. the automatic response would be "it's an internal security matter. go away!" it's the aged old cry of the oppressor. besides, China already owned the western half of the US starting from the Mississippi river out to the Pacific. the eastern side owned by the OPEC.

you realize that based on human history, we don't change unless something drastic happened, right? like some sort of global catastrophe (involved at least two continents). we don't do things just because it's good, but because it's a life and death thing, and we are absolutely sucked at long term planning.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 04:30 PM   #135
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
If you have a newish dishwasher, it's probably more efficient. More electricity, but less water, and therefore less energy to heat the water.
No. We have to pre-wash or the dishes come out with food on them. I prewash every dish, every night. So now, instead, I just wash them a little more thoroughly and they're cleaner than the dishwasher gets them. So it saves energy.

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
That's my point. I didn't vote for them, your fellow Alabamians did. You probably have more control over Alabama's political decisions than over Japan's or China's.
Believe me, I didn't vote for them, either. They are elected by poor people who have been indoctrinated to vote against their own best interests, like so many Americans.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 04:32 PM   #136
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Absolutely agree. So how do we persuade China to be a good global citizen on environmental matters?
I think we have to lead by example.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 04:52 PM   #137
kewms
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,318
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
I do know that, whatever units they're using, the reading in Huntsville, Alabama, was 50% over the alert level, due strictly to the exploding nuclear plant in Japan. I know that it's 50% over the danger level.
No, you know it's 50% over the alert level. You don't know what, if any, relationship there is between "alert" and "danger."

Katherine
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 05:06 PM   #138
kewms
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,318
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
It's an obscene distortion to conflate our massively wasteful consumption with the basic living needs of a society. Of course, they need those things, and they can have them without nuclear power plants built just to power vast oceans of waste.
How?

That's the fundamental question that you keep ducking. If the entire population of India and China consumes, per capita, the same amount of energy as the most efficient developed society in the world, where is that energy going to come from?

(FWIW, the most efficient developed economies in the world appear to be Hong Kong and Israel. Israel because they've had to live with an oil embargo, I'm sure, and Hong Kong because it's so dense. Note that both are geographically tiny, so don't have to deal with things like long distance transportation. But go ahead and pick one that you think is worth emulating. Ireland and Switzerland do really well in terms of energy use per unit of GDP, for example.)

The reason why I keep hammering on this point is not that I'm anti-renewables. I'm not. It's because most people don't really understand just how mind-bogglingly huge the world's energy consumption is, and therefore propose solutions that don't really come close to matching the scope of the problem.

Katherine
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 05:56 PM   #139
Keith Larman
Dojo: AIA, Los Angeles, CA
Location: California
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,604
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
just how mind-bogglingly huge the world's energy consumption is...
Yup. It is really astounding. And using my foray into solar as an example, even if I purchased everything I needed to generate roughly my average amount of electricity in a year (and we're very energy conscious having done a lot to lower our usage), it would still be a very expensive system *and* it has to be piggy-backed on something like the conventional electrical grid to provide electricity when I'm not generating (night, overcast, etc). So while my dial might be running backwards at a dizzying rate at 3pm on a summer day, once the sun goes down I have to take back from the grid.

And then don't get me started on the concept of batteries. The number of batteries, the costs, the toxic materials, etc. to have on-site energy storage, even for a night, is another mess of problems.

It is really hard to get off the grid. The only real way is to turn off the lights, the TV's, the computers, the ipods, ... And I seriously doubt any of those things are going to happen any time soon.

I really liked Bill Gates' lecture on the TED website. Not to push his particular investment in nuclear, but because of his observations on the very nature of energy consumption.

  Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 06:27 PM   #140
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Today, they had smoke coming from a second plant--Fukushima Daini:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/as...daini/?hpt=T2#

At best, this is far from over.

At worst, it could get a whole lot worse.

I won't have time for this thread for awhile. But I predict, as I did in the other thread that generated the name for this one, that it will get worse before it's over.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 02:12 AM   #141
Anthony Loeppert
Dojo: Aikido of Del Mar
Location: San Diego, CA
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 155
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Sorry, but "we" here in the US don't have a choice. China is building a megawatt-scale coal-fired generation plant every *week,* whether we like it or not.

Katherine
Which is exactly why the world can not afford every person on the planet living the "american dream". What we're doing collectively (yes I know this is an international website, but the context of the quote is US centric) is not sustainable, so when other economies (especially what will become THE dominate economy) with many more people emulate our example - well the results will not be good... and they will accelerate the seemingly inevitable disastrous conclusion to the human experiment.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 08:10 AM   #142
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Okay. Then please tell us precisely what sort of explosions occurred at Fukushima vs. Chernobyl and what the consequences of those explosions are. I don't see a gaseous hydrogen ignition by an ordinary spark as comparable to a graphite fire ignited by an uncontrolled nuclear reaction, so please explain why I am mistaken.

Katherine
Minor correction:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html

Although most reports on the Chernobyl accident refer to a number of graphite fires, it is highly unlikely that the graphite itself burned. According to the General Atomics website (http://gt-mhr.ga.com/safety.php): "It is often incorrectly assumed that the combustion behavior of graphite is similar to that of charcoal and coal. Numerous tests and calculations have shown that it is virtually impossible to burn high-purity, nuclear-grade graphites." On Chernobyl, the same source states: "Graphite played little or no role in the progression or consequences of the accident. The red glow observed during the Chernobyl accident was the expected color of luminescence for graphite at 700C and not a large-scale graphite fire, as some have incorrectly assumed."

A 2006 Electric Power Research Institute Technical Report2 states that the International Atomic Energy Agency's INSAG-1 report is
...potentially misleading through the use of imprecise words in relation to graphite behaviour. The report discusses the fire-fighting activities and repeatedly refers to "burning graphite blocks" and "the graphite fire". Most of the actual fires involving graphite which were approached by fire-fighters involved ejected material on bitumen-covered roofs, and the fires also involved the bitumen. It is stated: "The fire teams experienced no unusual problems in using their fire-fighting techniques, except that it took a considerable time to extinguish the graphite fire." These descriptions are not consistent with the later considered opinions of senior Russian specialists... There is however no question that extremely hot graphite was ejected from the core and at a temperature sufficient to ignite adjacent combustible materials.

There are also several referrals to a graphite fire occurring during the October 1957 accident at Windscale Pile No. 1 in the UK. However, images obtained from inside the Pile several decades after the accident showed that the graphite was relatively undamaged.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 08:16 AM   #143
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

"Japan has finally conceded defeat in the battle to contain radiation at four of its crippled reactors and they will be closed down. Details of how this will be done are yet to be revealed, but officials said it would mean switching off all power and abandoning attempts to keep the nuclear fuel rods cool. The final move would involve pouring tonnes of concrete on the reactors to seal them in tombs and ensure radiation does not leak out."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tors-lost.html

Worse than Chernobyl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFRXH...&feature=feedu
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 08:25 AM   #144
DonMagee
Location: Indiana
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,311
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Wrong, Don, and badly played. I have suggested thorium. But I doubt we'll see it because effectively, the word "nuclear" does mean uranium in today's economy, ruled by the uranium interests. And that almost guarantees explosions and devastations.
Almost guarantees. How many power plants have exploded in the history of this form of energy? Almost guaranteed....laughable.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Hold it right there, Don. Quote it or take it back. I haven't even mentione fusion. Find the quote or apologize, bud.
You are right, I somehow attached your name to Ron Ragusa
's comments. I will admit I was wrong. My point however, even though it does not reflect on you still holds true.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
With continued construction of uranium nuclear plants, especially in countries like China, we'll have worse than stagnation. So what mindset are you talking about? Quote it, or apologize.
So you are saying you are ok with building nuclear power plants as long as they do not use uranium?

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Okay. Then you'll accept living in a house with asbestos insulation? It's no worse than radiation? It's not a matter of which is worse. It's a matter that only a fool would accept any of it if there's a choice around it.
Asbestos, while dangerous to work with proved safe for many generations when applied properly. There is however no reason to continue to use it because there are more efficient insulations. Unlike our power conversation where this is no superior solution. I've stated we need to continue to improve and design better power solutions and that nuclear is the best of what we have now. I'm sorry, I don't see my position as being weak or assailable.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Tell that to the people of Fukushima and Tokyo, Don. Did they have a choice? Obviously, it isn't nearly as easy to control as you make it out. Who's paying you to broadcast this kind of false "information"?
I'm payed to voice this opinion by the US government and the CIA. It's my job to quiet those who really know the truth. Our expressed goal is to make the planet uninhabitable and terraform mars so we can move the rich elite there while letting you pesants work our mines. For my part in this, I get unlimited internet access and a toyota corolla. Oh and as many cheese frys as I can eat.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Yet, you still have to qualify your statement, don't you: "IF the plant does somehow...explode..." Which it has already done quite well enough to have sent radiation into Alabama. You're just saying it can't get worse (which it is doing day by day) when the last guy telling me this said that it couldn't happen at all. You're both very seriously wrong.
Prove it exploded? There has not been a nuclear explosion at the plant. There was a hydrogen explosion. The reactor is not going to explode. I'd hope I don't need to explain how and why hydrogen explosion happens.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Yeah. Since the Gulf is already ruined, let's just crack all the reactors open. It won't be as bad as an oil spill?
Never said that. I simply implied it strange that this nuclear danger is somehow more immediate and less damaging. I also was intending to imply that the technologies we need to use to eliminate this ominous and "almost guarantees explosions and devastations" (quoted you properly this time) technology is just as bad (and in my opinion worse).

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Open your eyes, Don. It is ominous. I think I waited maybe 18 months since the last guy told me that a nuclear plant "cannot explode". Come back and tell us how ominous it's not in another 18 days. I think you'll have to backpedal quite a bit by then.
First, to have a more meaningful conversation. I suggest you research and study radiation level measurements, the kinds of radiation, the kinds of chemicals being released and their associated half-life. At this point, all those evacuations have been as a precaution due to rising radiation levels. It would actually be safe for people to go home and gather up their belongings. The most recent readings I can find show about 2 mSv per day in the areas around the plant that have been evacuated. That is often reported at 2 times the level the EPA allows one of us to receive in a year! Scary right? Well not so scary when you actually look at getting a CT scan, which is 5 mSv or the max yearly dose the EPA let's power plant workers receive which is 50 mSv. On the extreme side a full body CT can can be as much as 720 mSv! 2 mSv doesn't seem so ominous now...

Levels at this point that have mostly been rising (from what I've been reading) due to iodine 124 and 131 which both have short half-lives. Iodine 134 having a half-life of 53 minutes and iodine 131 with a half-life of 8 days. That means within months those will be of no concern to us. There are other substances that last much longer (cesium-137 is around 30 years), but when we talk about the dangers of drinking milk, we are talking about iodine.

I'm a man of science, reason, and logic. To change my mind I simply require facts, statistics, education, and alternatives. Otherwise we are just having a "no you didn't, yes I did" conversation. Not really worthy of all the electricity we are wasting keeping our computers up and this forum running.

- Don
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" - Albert Einstein
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 08:34 AM   #145
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
"So now that Japan is suffering the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl - if not of all time - is the government riding to the rescue to help fix the problem, or at least to provide accurate information to its citizens so they can make informed decisions?

Of course not!

The EPA is closing ranks with the nuclear power industry:

EPA officials, however, refused to answer questions or make staff members available to explain the exact location and number of monitors, or the levels of radiation, if any, being recorded at existing monitors in California. Margot Perez-Sullivan, a spokeswoman at the EPA's regional headquarters in San Francisco, said the agency's written statement would stand on its own.

Critics said the public needs more information.

"It's disappointing," said Bill Magavern, director of Sierra Club California. "I have a strong suspicion that EPA is being silenced by those in the federal government who don't want anything to stand in the way of a nuclear power expansion in this country, heavily subsidized by taxpayer money."
The EPA has pulled 8 of its 18 radiation monitors in California, Oregon and Washington because (by implication) they are giving readings which seem too high.

Remember, for the sake of context, that the government has covered up nuclear meltdowns for fifty years to protect the nuclear power industry.

And now, the EPA is considering drastically raising the amount of allowable radiation in food, water and the environment.

As Michael Kane writes:

In the wake of the continuing nuclear tragedy in Japan, the United States government is still moving quickly to increase the amounts of radiation the population can "safely" absorb by raising the safe zone for exposure to levels designed to protect the government and nuclear industry more than human life. It's all about cutting costs now as the infinite-growth paradigm sputters and moves towards extinction. As has been demonstrated by government conduct in the Gulf of Mexico in the wake of Deepwater Horizon and in Japan, life has taken a back seat to cost-cutting and public relations posturing.

The game plan now appears to be to protect government and the nuclear industry from "excessive costs"… at any cost.

***

In 1992, the EPA produced a PAGs manual that answers many of these questions. But now an update to the 1992 manual is being planned, and if the "Dr. Strangelove" wing of the EPA has its way, here is what it means (brace yourself for these ludicrous increases):
A nearly 1000-fold increase for exposure to strontium-90;
A 3000 to 100,000-fold hike for exposure to iodine-131; and
An almost 25,000 rise for exposure to radioactive nickel-63.

The new radiation guidelines would also allow long-term cleanup thresholds thousands of times more lax than anything EPA has ever judged safe in the past.
And see this.

Indeed, some government scientists and media shills are now "reexamining" old studies that show that radioactive substances like plutonium cause cancer to argue that prevent cancer.

It is not just bubbleheads like Ann Coulter saying this. Government scientists from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratories and pro-nuclear hacks like Lawrence Solomon are saying this.

In other words, this is a concerted propaganda campaign to cover up the severity of a major nuclear accident by raising acceptable levels of radiation and saying that a little radiation is good for us."
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/gov...and-pretending

Last edited by Tenyu : 03-31-2011 at 08:42 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 08:50 AM   #146
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
2) The status of the reactors, fuel pools and dispersion of radioactive materials continues to get worse, not better.
3) There are perhaps 7 or 8 reactor loads of fuel in play compared with a single load at Chernobyl and 4 or 5 of those are outside of containment in badly damaged spent fuel pools.
4) This report suggests that daily release of radioactive 131I and 137Cs is running at around 73% and 60% of Chernobyl respectively.
5) The Chernobyl fire burned for 8 to 10 days whilst Fukushima Dai-ichi has been emitting radioactive material for around 15 days with no end in sight.
TOD link
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 09:01 AM   #147
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Specifically, in 1959, there was a meltdown of one-third of the nuclear reactors at the Santa Susana field laboratory operated by Rocketdyne, releasing - according to some scientists' estimates - 240 times as much radiation as Three Mile Island.
Link with Chernobyl documentary.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 09:08 AM   #148
lbb
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,166
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Tenyu Hamaki wrote: View Post
"Japan has finally conceded defeat in the battle to contain radiation at four of its crippled reactors and they will be closed down. Details of how this will be done are yet to be revealed, but officials said it would mean switching off all power and abandoning attempts to keep the nuclear fuel rods cool. The final move would involve pouring tonnes of concrete on the reactors to seal them in tombs and ensure radiation does not leak out."
Yep, that's the latest all right. What a mess.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 09:35 AM   #149
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

http://www.fairewinds.com/multimedia
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 06:35 PM   #150
kewms
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,318
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Respectfully suggest that anyone reading or participating in this thread read:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/04/0...l-1/#more-4344
http://mitnse.com/2011/03/30/news-updates/
http://mitnse.com/2011/03/30/323/

As well as pretty much everything else from both sites. Both have very good, readable, explanations of the physics of what's going on here.

Feel free to dismiss both as pro-nuclear apologists if you like: one is the MIT Nuclear Science department, the other is the pro-nuclear Director of Climate Science at the University of Adelaide. But both have a rather more robust grasp of the science than the headline-grabbing alarmists featured in most of the mainstream media coverage.

Katherine
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

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



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 18 Peter Goldsbury Columns 187 09-08-2011 03:41 PM
Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 17 Peter Goldsbury Columns 41 06-03-2010 10:46 PM
Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 14 Peter Goldsbury Columns 38 08-01-2009 12:19 AM
Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 12 Peter Goldsbury Columns 32 05-16-2009 07:05 PM
Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 10 Peter Goldsbury Columns 200 02-04-2009 07:45 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:03 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2017 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2017 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate