"In summer months prevailing winds from the south and east lead to greater amounts of relief rainfall in Tokyo In winter months prevailing winds are from the northwest to the southeast." http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...87y6BQ&usg=AFQjCNE9f3AcZ9q5y1xQV5p4NHf0jdfoYQ So that means any radioactive fallout will not affect America what so ever so remember that if the MEDIA starts telling you anything different.
The only fallout would be from anything released to relieve pressure, and it was my understanding that the radioactivity of such steam was short half-life anyway. So the whole fallout scare is just that. But it makes people watch TV and click on links. Imagine if the media had taken time to actually use the facts and educate people on nuclear power...as bad as this is, it shows that even in bad scenarios, nuclear power can be made very safe. Everyone is worried about radiation that will be a very localized event if at all, but I don't see any worries in the media on the refineries burning their black smoke into the air, or the major health issue of so many people and animals dead that have yet to be found. In other words, we're focusing on the wrong issues, all because we still think the word "nuclear" is scary. Let's advance some 40-50 years...
See, lets assume that there are two bottles out of breakable material (in other words, not failproof), in one bottle there's water, and in the other there's radioactive 'fluid'. Now by chance two kids find those bottles, and break them out of fun. Now, what non-foolproof bottle (broken bottle) brought more damage? Water and radioactivity =/=! This is kind of an interesting phenomenon.. I don't think that I've mentioned coal power anywhere. But clearly, you must think that I did. So just for you, I am – against – coal power, too. Right..I on the other hand, think that the nuclear incident is part of said disaster. It’s really strange..how this conversation turned out if we consider that in my initial post there was only this much about nuclear power: “But I really have to say that this just proves that a future without Nuclear power plants is safer.” Just because you’re downplaying the side effects of Nuclear Power Plants and the waste they produce doesn’t change the fact that our future will be safer without them. By the way, maybe you could compare it to your initially mentioned hydroenergy dams? What’s more fatal? When a Nuclear Power Plant breaks or when a dam breaks? I presume you’re one of those people who’d enjoy a piece of radioactive steak, eh? Bon Appetit! I don’t see how YOUR initial response to me was any relevant to my post at all. “But I really have to say that this just proves that a future without Nuclear power plants is safer.” ← remember? That’s all I said. So all your hydro death toll blah blah won’t change the fact that our future will be safer without Nuclear power plants. End. According to experts the radioactivity nuage will visit Middle Europe in about a month, or so. Can't wait to welcome it with open arms. Well, according to the news and experts it didn't survive it. Remember, it wasn't made for an Earthquake or tsunami environment, which is pure fail if we consider Japan's geographical location. On second thought, I don’t see why everybody thinks that it’s just the potential meltdowns that speaks against nuclear power plants. Whatever. Dream on, and enjoy your sight onto the nuclear waste dump that's freely and happily releasing its warm aura next to your place's hedge. Lol, I forgot that this is ‘sciforums’ where everything is taken at face value.
Your statement is only true if we replace them with nothing. If Hydro plants are more dangerous than nuke plants, and we replace our nuke plants with hydro plants, than our future will in fact be more dangerous, not less. Actually, it survived the Earthquake, it scrammed, as it was supposed to, the emergency cooling kicked in, as it was supposed to, the Tsunami flooded the generator room, and that caused the problems. And the Tsunami flooded the generator room not because they didn't plan for a Tsunami, but because the Tsunami that hit the area was bigger than their models said it would be/ Speaking of pure fail... No. Why? Because I don't live in a country that's reliant on nuclear power. Right, so when you suggested that melt downs cause explosions, you actually meant that meltdowns don't cause explosions?
Hmm, Russia has seriously underestimated Chernobyl's interest as a tourist attraction... (Radiation suit rental included in the tour package!) The thing is, it's going to be hard to tell how many people Chernobyl actually killed indirectly, as a lot of it's going to blend into the background cancer rate. ...And I'm not going to spend time arguing about that. It's one I know from where I live; very hard to pin down why one individual has a particular cancer...it's just that breathing in or eating radioactive materials will add to your cumulative risk, which gets added to by other things as well: lifetime toxin accumulation (the fat-solubles build in your adipose tissue), how you eat, how much exercise you get, stress, trauma, immune function...etc. Cancer roulette.
In some respects I agree with what your saying, but if something blends into the background rates then where's the proof of ongoing effects. It's kind of like if 1 in 10,000 pregnant women have a stillbirth after taking a particular drug, but 1 in 10,000 pregnant women have a stillbirth anyway, then where's the proof that it's the drug causing the still births. As I think I mentioned earlier though, even the most pessimistic estimates used by anti nuclear lobbyists still only peg the final death toll at around 90-110,000.
hi i am looking for a few good... shills for big business am i in the right place? or did i make a wrong turn?
How radioactive was the water, because if its not going to cause a total dosage above 100 mSv its not likely to cause harm. Hell people live in places with radiation levels up to 260 mSv per year and they don't even have elevated cancer rates! Aaah, but which one are you more against? If you had to live next to a powerplant, be it a coal one or a nuclear one which one would it be? Depends, what are we using instead of nuclear power? Because it if coal well then more people will die from lung disease and I'm not even going to consider global warming there, so no the future could in fact be less safe without nuclear power. We need a baseline powersource and certainly coal and oil can't cut it, nor will natural gas be able to take their place and match demand for long, nuclear is the best option we have yet all this doomsaying about how harmful it is when other other 3 have arguable cause more damage and death then nuclear has. Hydroelectric dam, Trippy explained. Depends on how radioactive it is, everything we eat is radioactive. Even we are radioactive. Your body gives off more radiation then a 20mm depleted uranium bullet for example. Its all relative. Ever been diving in the Bakini atolls, wonderous, with all the ships sunk by the atomic bomb test, and no radiation suits needed. As for Chernobyl, if you were to visit the city of Ramsar instead you would get a higher dosage of radiation, Ramsar is populated by the way and it has hot springs too, radioactive hotsprings. And people don't have 3 eyes, or superpowers or even elevated cancer rates. Statistical studies have been done, only thyroid cancer was detected to increase, from eating food contaminated with radioactive iodine.
Depends on the dam, depends on the plant, - - and depends somewhat on the calculation assumptions. For example, how many of the post disaster deaths of old people and other vulnerables in Japan do we lay to the diversion of resources toward battling Fukushima - so far, and as time goes by? Meanwhile: do we agree that the side effects, including the hazards, of hydropower dams have not in general been estimated correctly in the building of them?
zero There have been NO DEATHS associated with the Reactors so your attempts to make it out as a disaster are getting weaker by the day, so now you are trying to claim that the roughly 500 to max of about 1,000 people working on the reactors (mostly TEPCO employees who work on reactors all the time) were somehow responsible for the deaths of elderly? Pretty pathetic. Arthur
That reaction is a symptom, and one guess as to the disorder would be panic. The odd denialist reactions to this latest nuke problem look more and more like panic effects all the time. There's a ray of hope in that.
Panic? Hardly. I'm not the one trying to come up with absurd attempts to try to associate the problems with the reactors to deaths of elderly in Japan. That would be you. Arthur
Considering how little resources have been put into the reactors probably not much. :shrug: Little note here but if anything japan needs old people to die off. Their highly aged population is a burden for them with such a poor worker/retiree ratio, and these people are too racis/eeeer "xenophobic" to bring in the millions of immigrant workers they would need to fill the working gaps and care for the elderly.
Happens to browse the thread about the Japan tsunami. I think it is (10[sup]8.9[/sup]/10[sup]6.3[/sup])[sup]3/2[/sup] = 7943 Because (wiki): Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hey look there was a increase in looting in post tsunami japan: http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/archive/news/2011/07/15/20110715p2g00m0dm003000c.html
