Fukushima Daiichi

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Trippy, Aug 5, 2013.

  1. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    No its irrational, leaving from 1-10 mSv/Yr areas is far less protective they say quitting smoking or leaving from a polluted city to a fresher aired area.

    Coal air pollution kills 100,000+ people world wide per year. How many people die in bathtubs world wide per year? If we extrapolate from this and say that ~300 people die per year in the USA alone from somekind of bathroom mishap to the worlds population that is a total of ~7000 people per year, less then 10% of coal pollution. Also most of the world does not have the luxury of bathtubs or bathrooms to die in.

    Those problem were psychological, they were largely unnecessary and irrational!

    First of all what radiation level are we talking about? What kind of radiotoxins specifically? Radiation levels as high as 300 mSv/yr continuously does not cause radiation sickness. Cancers generally take years to appear post-exposure and radio toxin like I131 build up over time in specific organs (thyriod) and are particular threat to children. Take Hiroshima for example were people choose to live their despite it being laced with radiotoxins and after having taken an incredible radiation dosage from the 'pika' "Flash" as well ad physical injuries from blast force and thermal radiation, even these people experienced only a few percentage point increase in cancer rates.

    Which does not mean cancer and disease. Activation of genetic repair mechanism is a good thing, excessive DNA repair could actually lead to few cancers not more.
    Which could not statistically separate other factors as causative such as education, income and nutritional intake levels: http://medwelljournals.com/abstract/?doi=rjbsci.2008.534.536

    Not at all a population of 1800 could be observed for generations, its just a matter of money. More importantly there are areas of high radiation with populations in the hundred of thousand to easily do the statistic on. They managed to do it with Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the lives of the 100k+ victims. Many many studies of Chernobyl disaster victims could not identify cancer increase other then thyroid cancer to children from drinking I131 contaminated milk. http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/index.html

    Now this is just supposition.

    Which is again based on unproven/play it safe no-threshold model. Health authorities always error on the side of caution and they do not often calculate the health impact of relocating and inspiring mass fear in a people.

    Now don't get me wrong, nuclear reactor designs and mishandling is a serious problem, focus is needed on passively safe reactor and more regulation of the industry (sort of like what France has) my point is nuclear power is LESS harmful then fossil fuels, but people because they can't grasp statistics and rational risk assessment overly fear nuclear power and grossly underfear the smog and exhaust pollution they huff every day. It would take a disaster like Chernobyl (or 3 fukushimas) EVERY YEAR to match the health impacts of coal pollution, that mind you is by calculation off of Green Peace claim of 100,000 killed by Chernobyl, yet people are not anywhere near as fearful!

    What your point? We still drive cars, do we not? Shit we still take baths! Thus we can still build and operate nuclear power plants: we can accept certain risks. Clearly if we accept the risks from fossil fuel pollution as we do, then we should be able to accept the risks from nuclear radiation, but we can't because our fear is irrational.

    And those are? Show me what non-lethal health effects there are from chromic exposure to low levels of radiation.

    My argument is these people were not evacuated "reasonably" that the exclusions zones are excessive and that worse the fear pumped in the people will prevent them from return by their own free will and actually harm them more then the radiation would.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    What are you talking about? Are you claiming that people should not evacuate from the vicinity of an ongoing nuclear reactor meltdown if they smoke cigarettes or the average background radiation over some large area including their house was relatively small?

    If you read my post, you'll notice it says nothing about coal air pollution.

    I agree that coal air pollution is lethal stuff. What I don't understand is how industry and government failing to control something relatively straightforward and easy to handle, instead allowing a large industry to risk the lives of us all for a few dollars extra profit, is an argument for allowing those same people to build nuclear power plants all over the place.

    When they have demonstrated the capability of handling the easier stuff, they can move up to nuclear reactors - how about that, as a policy?

    Are you trying to claim the evacuation of Chernobyl was unnecessary, irrational?

    The cloud released by the explosions at Chernobyl - that physical cloud, blown over Tokyo. That was one of the possibilities, in the early days of Fukushima.

    Chromosome abnormalities and abnormal gene expression are signs of failure of genetic repair. Successfully repaired genetic code is not abnormal, or expressed abnormally. Chromosome abnormalities are especially worrisome because they interfere with fertilization and development - you get some very nasty consequences.

    No, the inbreeding is measured, the evolutionary consequences would be simple and direct and minor changes - you would have to rule them out with careful research, if you wanted to omit considering them.

    OK: the population is too low to draw any conclusions (such as yours) from the cancer epidemiology that has been done. Happier?

    No, it's based on their observations of the medical problems of the people living there, and the presence of a serious and ineradicable environmental factor known to be a likely cause of such harms.

    People do underfear smog and exhaust - despite the best efforts of Greenpeace and other environmental organizations. Perhaps if you joined with them and helped them clarify the bad effects of smog and exhaust, they would have better success?

    Until the proponents of nuclear power have quit dealing in bs and apologetics and bogus statistics and coverups and comically bad attempts at deception, people will have a hard time being rational about the risks of nuclear power. It's difficult to be soberly rational in a propaganda storm. Lie to people enough, they get paranoid.

    Nobody knows for sure - they haven't been studied. One obvious one is the thyroid cancer after Chernobyl - it was mostly treated, and when caught early and treated it is seldom lethal. So it did not affect the mortality stats. Another possibility is cardiovascular disease - there was a spike among the general population that included the exposed a few years after Chernobyl, and some anecdotal accounts of Chernobyl survivors suffering disproportionately, but nobody was monitoring to nail down correlation because cardiovascular disease was not listed among the effects of any kind of radiation exposure. So the failure of consideration comes from both directions - correlation without mortality, mortality without established correlation. A wide variety of diseases and medical problems are involved.

    This is true of all nuclear mishaps to date, btw - the actual exposure regimes at Three Mile Island were not measured or closely monitored, for example, and the landscape averages were not capable of resolving correlations such as the spike in stillbirths a few months later at one particular hospital downwind, or the apparent bumps in strokes and heart attacks scattered across the relevant demography over the subsequent decades.

    I do not think using the miserable history of coal mining and burning to justify filling the landscape with nukes is good reasoning or rational behavior. And the fact that the defenders of nukes cannot seem to drop the kinds of bogus analogies and statistical deceptions and slanderings of opposition and simply bad arguments they have made famous for decades now, entrenches me in this viewpoint. I don't like people trying to lie to me, deceive me, run scams on me, and profit in the billions thereby. And I don't trust such people to handle incredibly dangerous stuff they don't seem to understand, and protect my interests while doing so.

    Repeated assertion is not argument. You haven't argued for that in the least - where's your reasoning, or evidence?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    Well, I would recommend, for filtering and solidifcation of radioactive elements, the use of Sodium, Magnesium and Silicon, Calcium or Potassium.

    As for dealing with stored water in the present water tanks, changing the storage meathod from liqiud to solids, however if the water is to be moved at some point again, it would seem best to leave it as water for transport purposes.

    DwayneD.L.Rabon
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    How typical of anti-nuke argument. Stating that the result of IRRATIONAL fear is somehow the fault of the object of that IRRATIONAL fear. Might as well blame the spider if an arachnophobe jumps into traffic to avoid one.
    In this case, the blame should be shouldered solely by those who make it their livelihood to engender that irrational fear. It is Greenfarce and Fiends of the Earth and their ilk that are to blame for those 1000 deaths, not TEPCO

    Why should they FEAR to take baths? That is a typical anti-nuke response. Why should they FEAR mining OR radiation? They should understand the risks and take proper precautions. It is the fear MONGERING by folks like you that cause the problem under discussion.

    Please quit lying to us and to yourself. No-one is attempting to claim that the damage by radiation is only due to radiation poisoning. What we ARE saying is that the stochastic effects do NOT follow the claimed "Linear Non-Threshold" model so the huge numbers of predicted cancer deaths among people who get background level doses just won't happen. Indeed, the overall cancer death rate in the Chernobyl area is LOWER than in the US. Chernobyl may actually be PREVENTING cancer in all but a few highly dosed individuals.

    Back at you with those meadow muffins. A rational response to a Chernobyl level event over Tokyo would have limited the damage to tens, or at most hundreds of deaths over the coming 80+ years. The US PAG would be a good guideline for them to follow.

    Right back at you with the meadow muffins again. There are a variety of background levels, even in Ramsar. One region is especially high and in the region, with a low population, there are some indicators of radiogenic issues. The remainder of Ramsar, even with its very high background, has statistically significant LACK of radiogenic effects.
     
  8. KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    The evacuation, IF ANY should be due to the actual risks, not due to the fear of potential risk. If Japan had implemented a Protective Action Guide like the US, the consequences of the limited amount of evacuation, if any, would have been MUCH less severe.

    But nuclear reactors ARE the easy stuff.

    Much of the evacuation was done irrationally. Much of the current evacuation zone is totally irrational.

    No, not really. The reactors were quite different and what could get out of the two were also quite different.

    GEE, folks who actually know about nuclear energy and radiation health say the same thing about the anti-nuke farces.
     
  9. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523


    The latter highlighted part, yes.

    So? My argument is the fear of nuclear power, even meltdown is grossly disproportional with actually risk, I prove this by showing things of equal or greater risk that people don't fear at any level equivalent to nuclear power.

    Because if these people were to build more nuclear power plants and fuck that up they would still kill less people then coal, yet going anti-nuclear and shuttign down all the plants and forcing japan to switch to fossil fuels will cumulatively cause more damage over time.

    What easier stuff?

    No, again this depends on radiation levels and types of radiotoxins release. As is most of the Chernobyl exclusion zone is safe to live in, people could return, the same for Fukushima, thus reducing the harm done, but most people aren't going to return because of the irrational fear they have.

    ... what?

    Chromosome abrnormalites does not mean cancer, those cell very well may have undergone program cells death. The gene expression specifically up-regulated was CD69 which is used to activate Killer T-Cell the hunt down and destroy abnormal cells.

    Infertility is not really a 'nasty consequence' so far increases in infertility in ramsar have not be scientifically varified as caused by radiation. No reports of birth defect rate increase either.

    No you need to cite that these people are inbreed and to a specific degree as to have evolved radioresistance, you need to cite and actual scientific study that proves this.

    No the population affect by Chernobyl and the high natural background radiation of Kerala, India were large enough (hundreds of thousands).

    What medical problems? What serious ineradicable environmental factor? Are you playing a circular reasoning fallacy?

    Oh I do, I'm not in the alternative energy industry for nothing!

    Strange they drink down all the propaganda about clean coal and natural gas with ease and little paranoia.

    Appeal to the unknown: We don't know for sure that viagra won't cause some kind of horrible penile cancer 30 years from now, does not mean we should ban viagra. You can't saying that just because we don't know, we therefore should ban it, that argument could be applied to anything often with lethal consequences.

    Well the sounds like a problem of personal belief, and intractable problem. But as for corruption: look at France's handling of nuclear power, they have done a pretty good job, it just a matter of proper regulation and control.

    My evidence is that its 1-10 mSv will produce very low increase in cancer rates even using the no-linear threshold model (cited others on this) and this survey showing that 80% of evacuees don't want to return.
     
  10. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    Well The area effected or enviromental effect of the nuclear reactor is just about 60 miles, but it is the same for all reactors, generally you have a constant motion of 42 pounds within the area (That is a area with a 60 mile radius).
    Over time such as yearly duration, a cycle is created that has a effect on the local enviroment.

    Additionally for each nuclear reaction that occurs in the operation of a nuclear reactor a very strong ping or ripple is created that transmits across the local area. These are nuclear reaction not chemical reactions, they disturb the nuclear background of area.

    For example I can read a thermal image of a hot spot from orbit above the earth.


    As a pattern or cycle is created from constant operation of a nuclear reactor, certain areas within the area may become electrically charged, molecular motion or chemical reactions a certain locations may be accelerated. the constant operation of the reactor may conceal the effects that occur at a given location as it appears to be a normalization of the area, plant life or alge may have become dependant on the area disturbance caused by the reactors operation.

    For example you have a common light bulb in your garage for lighting, you have never had to replace the light bulb and its been 10 years, where in contrast just down the street or the next town over they have to spend a 50 dollars a year to replace light bulbs in their home.

    The largest biologic distrubance may be from the random pings or ripples that are caused by the reactor operation, it would be the most detectable disturbance as a observable abnormallity.

    The above nuclear effect is said without a persons direct contact with a radioactive element.

    Also it only take one mutated cell to cause disfunction in a group of cells. So people have a good sense of mind to stay away from the area. A small pocket of radioactive gas could strike at any time and anywhere within a 60 radius of the nuclear plant. Radioactive atoms do migrate and become gas as they break the chemical reaction they make, they then make new ones, (a small stream can go a long distance say 25 miles).



    DwayneD.L.Rabon
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2013
  11. KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    Woo-woo! Pings?
     
  12. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    Well, given the recent storms in the aera, you might think that all the radiation residues had washed in to the ocean.

    I think that they should spead color dye accross the upper land areas so they can track the direct postion of water flow to the nuclera facility.

    DwayneD.L.Rabon
     
  13. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    "we have nothing to fear but fear itself". quoting from the old master.

    someone suggested a dye to trace the flow of the water. why not a radioactive tracer - of yeah, that's already being done. no need for dye. radio-tracers are much easier to detect in much smaller concentrations than dyes, giving much more accurate results.

    i just wonder how competent the people doing the clean-up are. japan has now had numerous uncontrolled chain reactions; you'd think they'd teach more about that. 2 uncontrolled chain reactions in hiroshima and nagasaki in 1945; one about 14 years ago ( http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/100199japan-reaction.html ; see also: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/A "Blue Flash" Hits Tokai-mura.-a059211585 ); and now several reactors following the tsunami. the long-term consequences will slowly dissipate, and most of the areas currently in exclusion zones should be habitable in a few decades. however, it will take constant vigilance to determine whether some regions have biological concentrations that could be of concern for people.
     
  14. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    Well, I guess that they are tracking the water flow with radioactive tracers, but that sounds false. Even so in a radioactive area it seems better to have a visual confrimation that is provided by a color dye.

    Apparently they are now advertising that everything is just fine at the nuclear reactor.

    So given the circumstances I would like to know if the reactors ever reached a contorl tempiture of 10 degrees celsius or is it still out of controll in the reactor core.

    The entire place should be frozen in my opinion including the sea port of the nuclear facility.

    Lastly most death is the cause of 1.2 grams of human tissue operating dysfunctional, at 42 pounds in cycle caused by the on going operation of a nuclear reactor that could effect about 15,800 people in the 60 mile radius zone

    DwayneD.L.Rabon
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I'm not quite believing this - let's get it clear: you guys are claiming that the risk faced by the residents near Fukushima when those reactors got out of control should have been evaluated, rationally, at the time, as equivalent to the risk from the total radiation so far emitted in the event averaged (spread evenly) over the entire area that could have been affected by its emissions as they have been measured so far?

    So? They evacuated the region, they cured the thousands of extra thyroid cancers, and the affected population in fact died of other immune system related things (before they could get the particular cancers studied) at higher rates - which were never researched for their possible roots in Chernobyl effects.

    Limiting one's discussion of radiation effects to certain cancers is naive - or, as in the research funding and conclusions, dishonest.

    Observation of a large area of obviously relevant ignorance. We know radiation exposure affects the immune system, the intestinal flora, genetic repair mechanisms, and mitochondrial metabolism, among other things; it's no great stretch to notice that medical problems affected by disruptions in such matters - such as ulcers, cardiovascular disease, intestinal disorders, etc - must be considered before conclusions of harmlessness can be drawn.

    So we are agreed: your original assertion of happy people with no signs of harm from the high background radiation is contradicted by the evidence we have, and not yet supported by research.

    I'm not the one making an assertion about the residents here. You are asserting lack of harm to them - but you have failed to account for an obvious and demonstrated factor that would produce a false appearance of lack of harm. That is your claim in need of support. My assertion is only that your claim is unsupported, and I am correct in that assessment.

    Uh, did you forget we were talking about the happy and allegedly unharmed people living in one small region?

    Or in your eagerness to draw bogus equivalences between background radiation and power reactor meltdown emissions, did you intend the slide from one situation to another, one exposure regime to a completely different one, one group of people to another in a different place, deliberately?

    Because wildly relocating goalposts as in the last few posts above does not support any argument at all.
     
  16. KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    Guidelines (similar to the US Protective Action Guide) should have been in place in such a way that the rather panicky evacuation could have been avoided. The US PAG includes such options as bunkering in place (not the correct term, but you get the idea) and other such possibilities based on the severity of the plume and which way the wind is blowing. The Japanese did a poor job of evacuation. And as it turns out, the environmental health hazard to inhabitants in Tokyo is higher than in MOST if not all of the "zones" in Fukushima.
    The Soviets evacuated the people poorly and didn't handle food source contamination at all it seems.
    I find it illuminating that the fossil tools (aka anti-nukes) have harped about the BIG C for decades, and as soon as the data come in to demonstrate that the BIG C is actually NOT so big, they scurry off (like rats) to some other fictitious set of maladies to maintain their mantra. Data about said deaths? And if you cite that piece of cr@p by Yablokov I will know you can't think for yourself. No rational person would cite that.
    Pot, kettle? As soon as the fossil tool's main tool (cancer) gets proven false, off they scurry. Like little rats, scurry, scurry.
    Oh, you mean all those diseases from all that stress that being told by lying fossil tools that their lives are ruined might bring on? Those diseases? Is that due to Chernobyl or Greenfarce? Seems like it is due to Greenfarce to me.
    Wha? Saying the data don't support your erroneous conclusion does not equal no data.
    Currently, there is no significant indication of harm from the roughly 250mSv/a that the most highly exposed Ramsar individuals experience. There MIGHT be an non-significant indication. The only way to make the data significant is to study a larger sample. Are you suggesting that we provide said radiation rates to a larger population and see what happens? I am satisfied with accepted as demonstrated that a 200mSv/a rate is safe and make do with that. I would also suggest that in the case of Fukushima, TEPCO be required to pay the proportion of medical bills attributable to any radiation. For example, if the cancer rate in the Fukushima rad zones is higher than normal (lets call it 32:30 for this discussion) TEPCO would be required to pay that difference (2/30th) of every cancer cost. Of course, to be fair, everyone who lives there should be required to put a small stipend into a fund to give to TEPCO if the cancer rates go DOWN.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Panic should be avoided, of course. Even in the wake of a tsunami and all the confusion, hardships, etc, resultant, panic should be avoided.

    But are you claiming that a catastrophic and uncontrolled meltdown of several nuclear power reactors in progress is not sufficient reason to quickly evacuate nearby residents?

    Poor handling of evacuations etc is universal - every serious nuke mishap has featured such governmental incompetence (along with misinformation and disinformation and denial of events by official sources). This has been true even without tsunamis for context. Estimations of safety that rest on assumed competence of evacuations, accuracy of information, etc, have no reality support.

    Very few opponents of nuclear expansion support even current fossil fuel usage. But of course that is obvious and well known - which throws light on the rhetorical technique there.

    This poster is claiming that the various medical effects of Chernobyl on the Russian people were caused by Greenpeace propaganda, that the immune system effects of plume and transient reactor emission products are caused by Greenpeace propaganda, that the various governmental evacuation infelicities in the various nuke mishaps around the world resulted from Greenpeace influence on the nuke power industry and its regulatory bodies. That is typical of a nuke apologist - does anyone believe they are really that stupid?

    Meanwhile, those without the apologist's ever-convenient amnesia can recall the most frequently cited source of psychological stress and by implication any strictly psychological stress-related medical issues in the wake of Fukushima, in the many hundreds of interviews and accounts from evacuees and Japanese people generally: being unable to trust the nuke power industry and associated governmental spokesmen to provide accurate and timely information, adequate help, etc. Being lied to by nuke proponents.

    Like I said - nuke proponents are mostly not honestly confused, ignorant, differing in judgment, slow of thought, etc - they're just agenda-justified liars. It isn't complicated, it's not a judgment call - look at that post.
    If you don't find such observations as (among many others) elevated levels of infertility and serious chromosome abnormalities "significant" indications, that is your privilege in terminology. Few would agree.

    Ignorance, amnesia, lack of research, special pleading, are not aspects from which safety can be inferred.
     
  18. KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    YES! Jeez, how many times do we have to say it? A meltdown does NOT presuppose a massive radiation release. Evacuation should ONLY be undertaken when the danger from bunkering in place exceeds the danger from evacuation. That condition was NOT reached over most of the evacuation area until WELL after the accident when the danger from evacuation went way down. The JapGov blew it.
    That is the reason for a PAG and occasional drills.
    But they support fossil fuel use with every word they speak none-the-less. The Soviets called such folk "useful idiots". We call them anti-nukes except I call them fossil tools.
    The list of diseases you had mentioned were stress related diseases. And yes, such stress is due to the activities of groups like Greenfarce. Such is the facts. Stress will cause more deaths around Chernobyl than radiation will.
    When the anti-nuke/fossil tools repeatedly misquote and badger the population with perversions of what has been said, the stress belongs to the perverters even if the populous mistakes its origin. I've seen enough truly bad, even evil reporting out of the Japanese media and who they choose to quote to know this is the case.
    Seems you got the rolls reversed there. The fossil tools are the liars. Follow the money.
    It is a statistical term. I suspect you actually understand it but want to lie to the readers about what I wrote. Shame on you.
    Continuous half truths and outright lies over decades for political, and finally economic purposes by anti-nukes/fossil tools are not aspects from which danger can be inferred. The Linear Non Threshold model is the big half truth LIE of the 20th century. Anyone who maintains it is a traitor to the human race.
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    If anyone knows what's going on to that detail and reliability, that kind of assessment should of course be made.

    That would have been irrelevant in the case of Fukushima, of course - or any other major mishap weve seen. Simply the fact that the weather would have had to have been predicted along with the fate of the melting core in advance highlights the absurdity of the matter (usually it takes a few years after things have settled down for the experts to find out what happened to meltdown cores - three or four years at TMI, and it looks like at least three years for Fukushima)

    Also, there is the kiteman factor: So far, in every single nuclear mishap both minor and serious for which the public has information, the authorities that would be making that judgment were in the immediate aftermath lying to the public about the physical events they did know about - so obviously a policy of relying on them for fine grade evacuation assessments would be foolish.

    That unreliability and dishonesty and asscovering so universally characteristic of the nuke industry - and reflected here in the responses to my posts by nuke apologists - is a major structural problem of the entire industry, beginning with its military origins and enormous security concerns. It is not something one can simply ignore, or pretend will not be a factor in the future. Whatever public policies are set up for handling nuke power, the fact that the industry reps and their official regulators are and will be lying to everyone about risks and accidents has to be figured in.

    Basically, the entire industry will be treating ordinary concerns and straightforward questions and obvious areas of their ignorance or incompetence the way "kiteman" has been responding to my posts here. That has to be recognized as a major factor in any nuke power decisions.
     
  20. KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    "That much" detail and reliability isn't needed. A bit of forethought and planning will do a lot more than knee-jerk reaction. That is what PAGs are for.
    Yup, measuring wind direction and radiation levels is obviously beyond the Japanese. They obviously need perfect data to make decisions. No, wait, they made decisions based on NO data effectively. Perhaps they should have gotten some before evacuating folks into the aftermath of the biggest earthquake and tsunami in decades if not centuries.
    What?
    I get it, you have made up your mind and everything that doesn't agree with your decision is "unreliability, dishonesty and asscovering". And there is that term "nuke apologist". So what fossil fuel organization is paying YOUR way to this fairy land of yours?
     
  21. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    yes, like designing an unbreachable containment vessel.
    once the situation becomes uncontrollable the vessel should essentially commit suicide.
     
  22. KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    Ok, but the forethought and planning I mentioned need not assume such an unobtainium design. I was suggesting that the civil services should do a better job of situational planning rather than a simple knee-jerk evacuation. They need a better PAG. We (the USA) do too, but at least ours is fairly good.
     
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i believe it's unobtainable only because of the cost involved.
    the current method is to try to "save" the situation, cool the vessel or relieve the pressure somehow.
    planning ahead is fine and a good thing to do but preventing a radioactive release should come first, and the only way to do that is to render the vessel inert.
    i believe flooding with lead would do that.
     

Share This Page