IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

19 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Nuclear Disaster Unfolding In Fukushima

GroundPounder
post Mar 19 2011, 08:41 AM
Post #41





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



just listening to alan watt from last night and he mentions the GE boss' name...wait for it ...

Jeffrey Immelt
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Mar 19 2011, 09:57 AM
Post #42





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



Still waiting for the EPA site for data this morning




they must be really busy and stuff
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 19 2011, 10:58 AM
Post #43





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (Ricochet @ Mar 18 2011, 07:18 PM) *
Chernobyl did not have PLUTONIUM for fuel.

ehhh rolleyes.gif
It doesn't much matter.

To explain: Every unspent uranium fuel consist of mostly pure Uranium oxides - which means a mix of ~95-99% of Uranium isotope U-238 and ~1,5-5% of U-235 oxides. -The fuel must be in oxidated, not a pure metal state, because Uranium is highly reactive and combustible in pyroforic reactions (as we see with the DU ammunition) , not speaking that the oxides have considerably higher melting and boiling point, so if there is an accident, not much of the Uranium is effectively released into the environment. (BTW, when you will swimm next time in the sea mind there is 3-7 miligrams of Uranium in every cubic meter of sea water, don't drink it, the salt is not very healthy in large quantities rolleyes.gif )

The fisile isotope in this nuclear fuel isotope mix which primarily produces then the energy output is U-235.

Whenever the fuel in the reactor reaches criticality which means the fission of U-235 produces more neutrons than it consumes for the fission reaction - making possible a chain reaction - then the neutron flux starts to stepwise transmutate the other bulk U-238 isotope (into the U-239 and Neptunium Np-238 isotopes) which then further change to Plutonium mainly isotopes Pu-238 (makes then 0.01%), Pu-239 (makes then ~0.5% of weight of the spent fuel), Pu-240 (makes ~0.2% of weight), Pu-241 (makes ~0.08% of weight), Pu-242 (0.04%) (+15 other Plutonium isotopes).

(You can learn more with this simulator of decay reactions in the various nuclear materials)

This is the principle of producing Plutonium element, which otherwise is found only in traces in nature. So there is Plutonium present in all systems of active nuclear reactors, whether they use enriched uranium or MOX (mix of enriched Uranium and Plutonium) and every system has it present in relatively very substantial quantities which rise after a time of the reactor operation.

The Plutonium is present in relatively large quantities in all the Fukushima reactors, as it was present in Chernobyl reactor. But Plutonium is not a significant fallout pollutant from the powerplant nuclear accidents, because its oxides have relatively very high melting and boiling point, so it is not volatile, and even in Chernobyl the Plutonium was measured only in traces in the environment after the accident.

Main Plutonium environmental pollutant remains the nuclear bomb tests involving Plutonium as the fissile material (in most of the cases) or as a nuclear reaction product (in all cases), because there the Plutonium is exposed to very high temperatures, boils out and is dispersed then to wide areas. Nothing like that can possibly happen at Fukushima.

So the argument with using the Plutonium as a fuel in one of the reactors is ridiculous, and only shows, how uninformed and desperately pathetic are the scaremonger pundits argumenting with it.

I hope this helps for discerning between the facts and fearmongering propaganda.

---------------------------------------------
Just to note: I'm almost completely sure, that if there wouldn't be such scaremongers who use such disinfo quasi-arguments or at least not the gullible public which en-masse mostly buyes into their BS - most probably because it is patheticaly uneducated by the (dis)education system, this forum wouldn't even exist.

Why?

Because the USA would have now most of its energetics running on nuclear technologies (as was seriously planned in 60-70ties and as do French and Japanese and now the Chinese try it - most of the presently built nuclear plants are there and the west is already almost unable to spot the train, because it confusedly listens to the antinuclear fearmongers). It would have technologies even much more advanced in safety and security than Fukushima (a technology developed in 50-60ties), not having most of its aging nuclear plants built in 70ties -and so they wouldn't have any need to wage illegal wars for the last fossil resources with making the most repugniant pretenses to it like 9/11.
... not speaking that the power and profits of the "NWO" proponents, based on "fossil-energy-pushing+green-propaganda-financing+diseminating-disinfo-about-nuclear-power" racket would be already out of the behind-scenes of the global politics, the USA would be leading economically and politically independent free nation, with no large ecomical crisis in prospect and the rest of the world would be also better off...

You know, some say, that when the man found the fire it was the beginning of the human civilization. To this days the fire despite the safety measures can sometimes kill - as it for example paradoxicly happened after the tsunami water flood in the refinery and hundreds of people died there in the huge explosions. Would we abandon the fire? Mostly we do, we now have developed other sources of heat and light which are much more safe than fire - including apparently the nuclear energy, which although it isn't absolutely safe as nothing is, is the cheapest, one of the most safe and environmentaly friendly only large scale energy source the humankind developed. Will we abandon it just because the stupids buy into false arguments?

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Mar 19 2011, 11:10 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Johnny Angel
post Mar 19 2011, 01:31 PM
Post #44





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 192
Joined: 15-April 07
From: Pittsburgh Pa USA
Member No.: 956



No offense.. but your last sentence.. False arguments..

You state that Nuclear is the cheapest.. Actually its the most expensive..
One of the most safe.. Unless you live within 50 mles of a plant.
Enviromentally Friendly.. Building a Nuke plant is not green.
No Insurance companys will Insure Nukes, Wall Street wont touch investing in Nukes.,
and if they are so safe, clean, cheap why does the Govt & congress guarentee
the loans.

I dont doubt that todays Nukes are more safe. I hope we can use Nuclear, but please dont
complain when you get the Bill.

All the aging Nuke plants on earth. especially built on faut lines..
Who is going to pay to clean them up..??

Not to mention that a Nuke plant is the perfect Terror target.
One more reason why I think 911 was a inside job.
Real terrorists with 4 jumbo jets would of attacked NYC`s Indian Point Nuke,..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Mar 19 2011, 01:46 PM
Post #45





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



Update March 19 22:00H
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/...1300544332P.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 19 2011, 04:38 PM
Post #46





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (Johnny Angel @ Mar 19 2011, 06:31 AM) *
No offense.. but your last sentence.. False arguments..
You state that Nuclear is the cheapest.. Actually its the most expensive..

No offense, but false

(based on todays costs, not envisioning 4th generation, which will be even considerably cheaper and more efficient and I bet no so called "Renewables" will be able to compete it if not supported by large subsidies - taxpayers money)
QUOTE
One of the most safe.. Unless you live within 50 mles of a plant.

false
see here
QUOTE
No Insurance companys will Insure Nukes, Wall Street wont touch investing in Nukes., and if they are so safe, clean, cheap why does the Govt & congress guarentee the loans.

Ask them, I'm not an insurance agent, nor US govt. speaker.
QUOTE
I dont doubt that todays Nukes are more safe. I hope we can use Nuclear, but please dont
complain when you get the Bill.

a bill for what?
QUOTE
All the aging Nuke plants on earth. especially built on faut lines..

Especially in US - if the activists payed by fossil lobby and their gullible followers would not politically block building of new plants, the old would be already decommissioned.
QUOTE
Who is going to pay to clean them up..??

The obligatory reserve funds made for decommision and fuel handling - only nuclear energy producers are obligated to pay this externalities. Better if you ask who will pay the recyclation or liquidation of the forests of windmills, solar plants which if we look at the technology used are all surely nonfunctional after 20 years etc.... Taxpayers!
QUOTE
Not to mention that a Nuke plant is the perfect Terror target.

Your argument intimately reminds me the kind of G. Bush rhetoric after 9/11... rolleyes.gif
No it isn't, because it hasn't a cappacity to kill many people - whenever the reactor scrams (in matter of seconds in case of any emergency) the probability of fatalities is very low (military knows it and largely uses nuclear power at their ships even the're intended for war operations, where large callibers and rockets often could strike) - as we see also in Fukushima, which was hit by something, a real terrorist (not a US military...) is not able to put together - a 9M quake and 10+ m tsunami. Yet there still are no large fatalities in Fukushima the terrorists want to inflict and the dangerous contamination I would bet (in fact I've calculated it for myself from the multiple sets of available measurements -in, around and dozens of kilometers from there) will not last more than several weeks at an area larger than ~3km around the plant, because it is by decay trend signature mostly short half-life isotops, with no dangerous levels of Cs-137 and Sr-90, not speaking about a Plutonium all the activistic pundits now look like crazing about, because no real catastrophe as in Chernobyl unfolded -as they apparently, quiverly, were fervently "predicting" and maybe even wishing - and I found their rants not just pathetic, but being a real hyenism, because they in fact don't much care about japanese people who were affected, just their petty agendas.
QUOTE
One more reason why I think 911 was a inside job.

I don't think, I now know it and I know who did it..but at the moment it is against the policies of P4T to write it here and directly blame for 9/11.
QUOTE
Real terrorists with 4 jumbo jets would of attacked NYC`s Indian Point Nuke,..

A nonsense. Why? It would not have a cappacity to kill 3000 people in 2 hours, not being a spectacular attack on nation's symbols (nuke plants are largely unpopular in US) for the media campaign -even if you would hit a reactor building with multiple jetliners, the primary containment is projected to withstand it. ...As were the Twin towers...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Mar 19 2011, 05:02 PM
Post #47





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



Natural News has this to say on MOX fuel.
QUOTE
(NaturalNews) Largely absent from most mainstream media reports on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster is the fact that a highly-dangerous "mixed-oxide" (MOX) fuel in present in six percent of the fuel rods at the plant's Unit 3 reactor. Why is MOX a big deal? According to the Nuclear Information Resource Center (NIRS), this plutonium-uranium fuel mixture is far more dangerous than typical enriched uranium -- a single milligram (mg) of MOX is as deadly as 2,000,000 mg of normal enriched uranium.

On March 14, Unit 3 of the Fukushima reactor exploded, sending a huge smoke plume into the air. This particular reactor, of course, contains the rods fueled with MOX. You can watch a clip of that explosion here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_N-...

If even a couple milligrams of MOX were released during this explosion -- or if other explosions at the plant inflict any damage on the MOX-filled rods -- then the consequences could be exponentially more devastating than the mere leakage of enriched uranium. And since nobody knows for sure exactly which rods have been damaged, and whether or not the situation can actually be contained, it is only a matter of time before the world finds out for sure.

An exact quote from the report reads:

"In the event of such accidents (involving the accidental release of MOX), if the ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) recommendations for general public exposure were adhered to, only about one mg of plutonium may be released from a MOX facility to the environment. As a comparison, in [sic] uranium fabrication facility, 2kg (2,000,000 mg) of uranium could be released in the same radiation exposure."

A simple calculation reveals that one mg of MOX is basically two million times more powerful than one mg of uranium. This is clearly not a good thing when the plutonium-containing fuel rods in Fukushima may be damaged from the recent explosions and leaking into the environment.

A recent National Public Radio (NPR) piece explains that the half-life of plutonium-239, a component of MOX, is an astounding 24,000 years. The same piece explains that if even a small amount of this potent substance escapes from the plant in a smoke plume, the particles will travel with the wind and contaminate soil for tens of thousands of years (http://www.npr.org/2011/03/16/13460...).

Amazingly, most mainstream reports that mention MOX discount it as a non-threat. But the truth of the matter is that the threat posed by MOX is very serious. The NIRS report explains that inhalation of MOX radioactive material is significantly more dangerous than inhalation of normal uranium radioactive particles. You can read the entire MOX report for yourself here:
http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/469-47...

Sources for this story include:

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/469-47...

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/16/13460...



Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031736_plutoniu...l#ixzz1H56jfuJ7




Kind of gives you that warm fuzzy feeling. Real safe this nuclear energy.

This post has been edited by Ricochet: Mar 19 2011, 05:03 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 19 2011, 06:09 PM
Post #48





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (Ricochet @ Mar 19 2011, 10:02 AM) *
Natural News has this to say on MOX fuel.
(blahblah1.gif)
Kind of gives you that warm fuzzy feeling. Real safe this nuclear energy.

Maybe you've missed it but above I explained in detail, why the Plutonium argument is more than less a nonsense. There is Plutonium in all the Fukushima reactors but a potential of it's release in the air in significant amounts is much lower than is technically conceivable -even in the circumstances we see in the Fukushima. Many orders of magnitude more Plutonium -that can ever leak from the plant- was released by nuclear tests, yet we're still alive and somehow the ecomical crisis stirring pundits, which bring you the warm fuzzy feeling, don't protest. -it would not help them, because one of the rare almost true information in the article is that the Pu-239 has the stated halflife (in fact it is 24,110 years, and btw the most dangerous is not the Pu-239, but Pu-241 with halflife of 14 years -which makes overwhelming bulk of radioactivity of Plutonium in the exposed MOX -go buy a rope... rolleyes.gif ).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 19 2011, 06:10 PM
Post #49



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



radiation sickness

n.
Illness induced by exposure to ionizing radiation, ranging in severity from nausea, vomiting, headache, and diarrhea to loss of hair and teeth, reduction in red and white blood cell counts, extensive hemorrhaging, sterility, and death.

http://www.answers.com/topic/radiation-poi...g#ixzz1H5J3O2OY

i don't think that there is, a safe limit.

This will be more catastrophic than Chernobyl, at least locally.

i think i heard the phrase "radioactive volcano", fitting in with Clif Highs' web bot predictions, with the "ill winds", that are supposed to travel around the planet 9 times?

halfpasthuman.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 19 2011, 06:24 PM
Post #50





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 19 2011, 11:10 AM) *
This will be more catastrophic than Chernobyl, at least locally.

This is nonsense. It will not and can't happen. The radioactivity at Chernobyl was steadily 25-750 times higher than the peak values at Fukushima immediately after venting and explosions at No3, where unlike Chernobyl no nuclear explosion occured.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Mar 19 2011, 06:34 PM
Post #51



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (bill @ Mar 18 2011, 08:54 PM) *
Still patient here

but no data

they must be really busy

I think maybe your browser must be blocking that EPA page, bill. The map worked fine for me under Firefox (after I unblocked the epa.gov and google.com scripts on that EPA page). Dunno what to tell you for Internet "Exploder" or other browsers though. After clicking on one of the blue or white "balloon" icons, you should see some details for that monitor location pop up. The "show detail" link below the "Gamma Energy Range" readings will give you an option to download an Excel spreadsheet file of that data.

I took this earlier today for Portland, OR:



https://cdxnode64.epa.gov/radnet-public/showMap.do
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 19 2011, 06:50 PM
Post #52



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 19 2011, 02:24 PM) *
This is nonsense. It will not and can't happen. The radioactivity at Chernobyl was steadily 25-750 times higher than the peak values at Fukushima immediately after venting and explosions at No3, where unlike Chernobyl no nuclear explosion occured.

is it "out" yet?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Mar 19 2011, 08:03 PM
Post #53





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 17 2011, 09:50 PM) *
is it "out" yet?


maybe next week. if not then, definitely by april..june at the latest, but don't hold me to that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 19 2011, 08:17 PM
Post #54



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 19 2011, 04:03 PM) *
maybe next week. if not then, definitely by april..june at the latest, but don't hold me to that.

What if there is another tsunami, there, again, even after that?

How does one leave a sign to warn people about the radioactivity of an area, 1000 years into the future?

The entire nuclear industry was a byproduct of the development of the nuclear bomb. nuclear power generations usefulness is very short term compared to how long into the geological timescale that these elements remain dangerous.

It would probably be best to subduct them into the Earth,
but even the future of that science is questionable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Johnny Angel
post Mar 19 2011, 10:12 PM
Post #55





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 192
Joined: 15-April 07
From: Pittsburgh Pa USA
Member No.: 956



Tume.. I am not going to argue your facts and charts with mine. Nukes are much more expensive to build and finance. I work Construction, it costs the same to build the generator, the Electrical output faciliys and transmission systems. The part about boiling the water/steam to spin the generators is where the cost of the Nuke is at least 10 times the cost, compared to Coal. Advanced cooling systems, Waste, emergency power capability to ensure cooling in case of emergency.

About the terror attacks. You dont attack the containment building, you attack the Nuclear waste storage facilitys, a light steel building with spent fuel under cold circulating water. Tons of waste waiting years to cool before it is safe to transfer to a dump which has to be safe for a few thousand years.
The damage to the Spent fuel waste facility would cause high radiation release, which would effect the humans entering the power plant, and a large Radiation release would kill thousand downwind..

Double check that insurance.. No companys will ensure Nukes, Wall street wont invest in them.
Its Govt guanentees that invest in Nukes.. a spin=-0ff from the MIlitary Industrial Complex..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BarryWilliamsmb
post Mar 19 2011, 10:37 PM
Post #56





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 243
Joined: 30-September 07
From: Regina, Sask, Canada
Member No.: 2,278



In my naivety of the Japanese culture I get the feeling that one of their officials crying in public is akin to falling beside one's sword.

So when I see one of the top dogs of TEPCO breaking down over this horrific, yet predictable disaster, I am concerned.

Found this comment and a photo of the upset, soon to be litigation saturated fellow at: http
://www.zerohedge.com/article/tepco-dir...shima-disaster


From the comments of that story:

"Haywood Jablowme
on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 14:31
#1072472

From someone who has had the experience of working with Japanese Executives and Upper Management, for a Director (or someone in a high position as his) to start crying in shame is a big fucking deal.

This incident alone is enough to tell me that this is one mega cRuster-FRUCK."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BarryWilliamsmb
post Mar 20 2011, 12:07 AM
Post #57





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 243
Joined: 30-September 07
From: Regina, Sask, Canada
Member No.: 2,278



I've been following this event from the beginning and I live in a Canadian province (Saskatchewan) which depends on nuclear reactors for much of its revenue.

However, I had no idea how secret and nefarious the nuclear energy industry was.

From the Manhattan Project to present - this is one of the more screwed up enterprises of mankind!

When I was two years old, the same shite was happening then as is occurring today.

Only the culprits / victims names have changed...

Simi Valley Nuclear Disaster 1959
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Mar 20 2011, 07:21 AM
Post #58





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (BarryWilliamsmb @ Mar 18 2011, 01:37 AM) *
In my naivety of the Japanese culture I get the feeling that one of their officials crying in public is akin to falling beside one's sword.


it used to be that 'losing face' was what you describe. i'm in the ignorant boat on this one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 20 2011, 07:29 AM
Post #59



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



How radioactive?
there seems to be only 3 levels of radiation in the news,
high-levels, traceable-levels, and dropping-levels.


QUOTE
BBC Philharmonic Orchestra instruments were so radioactive following a tour of Japan that they triggered off an airport alarm when they arrived back in Britain.

The cargo was stopped for inspection by radiation protection officers at Manchester airport.

When the earthquake struck the orchestra was on a coach crossing a suspension bridge 200 miles from the stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant.

Radiation contaminated the instruments which were seized on Thursday and have been held for inspection at a secure underground location at the airport.

But the 90 members of the orchestra passed through the airport without incident.

It was initially feared that their instruments were so contaminated they would have to be destroyed. But a Home Office spokesman said last night that the radiation is now believed to be harmless.

The alarm system, called Cyclamen, is used at British airports to detect nuclear ‘dirty bombs’ or materials that terrorists may try to smuggle in.

A source at the airport said it
is ‘rare’ for the alarm to activate there, even though it handles millions of tons of cargo each year.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...l#ixzz1H8b5eTkY
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 20 2011, 12:15 PM
Post #60





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (Johnny Angel @ Mar 19 2011, 03:12 PM) *
About the terror attacks. You dont attack the containment building, you attack the Nuclear waste storage facilitys, a light steel building with spent fuel under cold circulating water. Tons of waste waiting years to cool before it is safe to transfer to a dump which has to be safe for a few thousand years.
The damage to the Spent fuel waste facility would cause high radiation release, which would effect the humans entering the power plant, and a large Radiation release would kill thousand downwind..

Sorry, but this argument of "thousands killed downwind" reminds me about the disinfo argument about the threat of a "dirty bomb", which is another nonsense the disinfo pundits terrorized the public with before was soberly assessed the threat is minimal even if it would explode in the center of Washington DC.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

19 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 6th December 2019 - 09:59 PM