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  « < 3 4 5 6 7 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Nuclear Disaster Unfolding In Fukushima

bill
post Mar 20 2011, 07:20 PM
Post #81





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



http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=4870



Ibaraki 2040
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
p.w.rapp
post Mar 21 2011, 06:36 AM
Post #82





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,743
Joined: 19-October 06
From: European Protectorate
Member No.: 110



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 20 2011, 07:46 PM) *
With all the respect I think this misinterpretation of reality for several reasons.

First, globally the solar and wind not even remotely have the cappacity to substitute for coal and gas used for electricity generating given the human population and the energy needs projected, yet we must substitute coal and gas already in first half of this century, before fossil peak, otherwise a global economical and subsequent malthusian catastrophe would quicky occur.

Second, there is nothing like "nuclear waste" if we proceed to 4th generation nuclear technologies.

Third, frankly, whether you want or not the nuclear energy, at least the China and possibly other developing countries too, will build the nuclear plants like hundreds of them next decades, to achieve their national energetic security and independence, so only what the countries with enough activistic pundits to persuade gullible public to politically interfere with markets and stop the nuclear energy development argumenting with irrational fears would achieve is to stay behind and that this "green" countries - in the wake of everrising fossil resources prices - will become relatively very quickly a dependent "third world" - as is already happening at the large scale in the USA, making it most dangerous nation in the world, waging illegal wars to steal the last fossil resouces in Middle East (to meet everrising energy demand there which is the highest per capita in the world) and desperately staging so repugniant pretenses to it as 9/11 - just ~20 years after they decided there to stop nuclear energy development under the pressure of the professional activists. The promoted "renewables" besides not having needed potential also cannot economically compete even with the nuclear power of the present 3rd generation, not speaking about the 4th generation nuclear power (burning btw the so called "waste"). So it's your choice, don't wonder when "the bill" will arrive to you and especially to your children and grandchildren if you join proceeding this way - paradoxicly it would end that USA will have the old gradually more and more unstable plants posing considerable risk, which USA then couldn't shut down, because not having an alternative, while the others will have new, relatively very cheap and very safe energy resources which are essential to maintain a stable economics...

thumbsup.gif handsdown.gif

I agree with most of what you say, Tume, and I wonder why some P4T members, who (although they have proved to be able to see the big picture and see through most of the facets of the 9/11 scam) can't wrap their heads around other strategies of the global oligarchy i.e. their grab for the control of the global energy-supply.

They™ have been crude oil mongers for decades, controlling nearly 100% of the world's business with energy based on mineral oil (fuel etc.)

Nuclear power has always been a thorn in their flesh, which is the main reason why developement of the 4th generation nuclear technology was not funded and blocked, why dangers and threats of nuclear power and radiation have been widely exagerated if not invented, why Iran must not have their own nuclear plants... etc...

So why are they™ not changing their strategy and 'globalize' (=control) nuclear power, especially if they will allegedly run out of 'fossil' energy in a few years???

Because mineral-oil is not 'fossil' !!!

And it is not 'peaking' because there is plenty of it in the earth's shell and it is being generated by a geological process like natural gas.
Also the Russians know that, but they would be crazy to uncover the scam as long as they profit from an everrising oil price too.

So it is easyer to defend their (nearly) perfect global oil-monopoly on the commercial side and continue their efforts (and wars) to get a 100% grip on all the sources and the mining side of the business (see Irak...Libya...)


I perfectly agree with Tume on renewable energies.

QUOTE
I'm not against the renewables where it is suitable, even not against minor subsidies to it (not like in EU where the taxpayers effectively pay substantial part of the whole thing and profits to the renewables company) but I'm after studying facts extremely skeptical it can ever cover the power needs of the future mankind (not speaking it is beyond the available resources including financial to make it possible and sustainable)


In Europe many countries are now paddling back for the simple reason, that wind- and solar based equipment on a large scale is unable to supply power, when power is needed, which should have been obvious from the beginning, looking at the statistics (hours of sunshine or wind per week).
Electric power is needed on a constant level, which can only be assured by hydraulic and nuclear power-stations.
Gas and coal stations are being used for peak-hours and are known for their adverse effects on ecology!


Seems as if it is getting more and more difficult to fight against their 'reality' in the corporate media.
Earthquake, tsunami AND "nuclear desaster"
- what a perfect combination for the fear mongers.
Far better than "Chernobyl".

Hard times for factual arguments pro nuclear power. wink.gif

This post has been edited by p.w.rapp: Mar 21 2011, 06:38 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 21 2011, 08:16 AM
Post #83



Group Icon

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



The timing of this disaster in Japan was a perfect distraction from the re-rommelization of North Africa.

One thing that i wondered about, was the way the water was dumped from helicopters on the reactors...

If the object was to "top up" the water in the cooling ponds, why did so much of that dumped water miss the building?
Poor piloting?
No.
Was it to cool the rods blasted from the building from the giant explosion?

(they sprayed wtc for a long time after 9/11, too)
Water cools nuclear reactions.

Why did Japan change the names of the reactors after the accident?

cpm, rems, radioactivity...

Not only is it invisible but the different methods of measuring it, make it difficult to understand something that one does not want to stand under.
They are now putting up new radiation detectors all along the west coast of N.A. Both Canada and US.

All the potassium iodide pills are withheld from the public, and have been stockpiled by government here in BC, and there was a run on health-food stores, for kelp concentrates.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Mar 21 2011, 09:05 AM
Post #84





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



http://www.kirotv.com/news/27248974/detail.html


The USO said about 200,000 U.S. personnel are being evacuated from Japan to U.S. West Coast cities including San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle/JBLM.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 21 2011, 09:41 AM
Post #85





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



QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 21 2011, 01:16 AM) *
Was it to cool the rods blasted from the building from the giant explosion?

To be honest, yeah this is a possibility at the No3. We cannot exclude it given how the building in detail looks like after the explosion from the photographs.

But the whole thing would become really dangerous not just locally only in a case the rods would start to burn, which can't happen even if they would not be cooled by water from above -if they're dispersed around - because the cooling by air would be then sufficient to prevent this to happen by wide margin - Oxide fuels can't start to burn (I mean only the Zirconium clading-Water reaction, which in larger assemblies would be maybe able to melt the fuel if it occurs, but not in a case of isolated fragments - and solid Zirconium alone can't catch fire itself under its boiling point of 4409! C, Uranium and Plutonium oxides can't burn at all !) - if they wouldn't have a temperature of 900+ C - nothing like that we see even remotely at the thermal images from the plant, where the maximum temperature seen was 128 C at the top of the No 3 reactor primary containment -which is very expectable temperature at PWR given the inside pressures. The risk which this could pose - if the rods were ejected from the pool, which to be honest I think could be the case - is more like it could considerably hamper the efforts of the rescuers there, because making the suroundings having considerably higher dosage readings close to such fuel fragments, which I think - if it is the case - should first be meticulously gathered and put into shielded secure containers to considerably lower the overal possible dose (of gama and also because they could further release the gaseous radionuclides, posing internal contamination risk) at the compound and make the rescue efforts considerably less dangerous for the brave workers at the site.

I think the hysteria of utter nonsenses about the MOX fuel -the activists started with after they realized no new Chernobyl would happen at Fukushima- just show the pathetical desperateness of this fearmongering disinfo efforts. The Plutonium oxide has the boiling point way above 2000 C so the possibility the Pu-239 and especially the even more immediately dangerous Pu-241 and Pu-238 would be released into the environment in significant amounts is extremely low and in fact it didn't much happened even in the Chernobyl, where the core experienced nuclear explosion, containing at the moment very considerable portion of Plutonium isotopes from the U-238 transmutation - however also in the oxidated form with very high melting (2400 C) and boiling (2800 C) points. -just to avoid confusion a metal Plutonium has the boiling point even higher (3228 C - which hardly can occur even in the melting reactor core - without boiling it the volatility of Plutonium is close to zero and without melting it IS zero).

I hope this helps to cool down the fears.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Mar 21 2011, 11:00 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 21 2011, 10:33 AM
Post #86





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



QUOTE (p.w.rapp @ Mar 20 2011, 11:36 PM) *
So why are they™ not changing their strategy and 'globalize' (=control) nuclear power, especially if they will allegedly run out of 'fossil' energy in a few years???

Because mineral-oil is not 'fossil' !!!

Yeah, this is very much the possibility.

But the problem is the electroenergetics is not based on the oil (there almost aren't any powerplants burning oil) but coal, which is the largest used source of energy and is clearly limited and will at the present trends of consumption inevitably globally peak around half of this century -and the natural gas by wide margin has NOT the cappacity to substite coal even if we would frack'n'destoy everything not having enough water to do it anyway and which is barely enough for the relatively clean heating applications, neither the oil, which is needed for other applications than generating electricity, especially transportation and wide variety of chemical industry applications.
QUOTE
So it is easyer to defend their (nearly) perfect global oil-monopoly on the commercial side and continue their efforts (and wars) to get a 100% grip on all the sources and the mining side of the business (see Irak...Libya...)

I absolutely agree, now they very much look they also want the Libyan oil and gas...
QUOTE
In Europe many countries are now paddling back for the simple reason, that wind- and solar based equipment on a large scale is unable to supply power, when power is needed, which should have been obvious from the beginning, looking at the statistics (hours of sunshine or wind per week).

Yeah, for example in the Czech Republic the parliament recently have passed the unprecedented scheme to tax solar plants to mitigate the nonsensful decisions of previous adminstrations to subsidize the solar energy - which as was calculated would effectively end by state bankruptcy if continued -already at the end of this decade - while generating less electricity than are just the losses in the grid due to the crazy unstability of this source output which also threatens that if there would be more of this wonderful plants it would effectively take the grid down resulting in blackouts. (and the wind is even worse! - and I think it should be never used for other than local, uncentralized energy source applications, without a connection to the grid)
QUOTE
Seems as if it is getting more and more difficult to fight against their 'reality' in the corporate media.
Earthquake, tsunami AND "nuclear desaster"
- what a perfect combination for the fear mongers.
Far better than "Chernobyl".
Hard times for factual arguments pro nuclear power. wink.gif

Yeah, especially now. But I think the Fukushima cleanout would last just several months - as even the much much worse Chernobyl cleanout lasted - and the media bubble will gradually burst - when the sober and responsible among us will realize that even the 9 Richter quake, 10+ m tsunami, killing thousands instantly including paradoxicly hundreds in the fires and explosions of hydrocarbons at the oil refinery - and the subsequent horribly looking accidents at Fukushima didn't resulted in significant radioactive contamination -as the coal burning plants do 24/7 all over the world emiting considerably more radioactivity than Chernobyl -every year! and definitely several orders of magnitude more than all the normally working nuclear powerplants. So we must humbly continue with argumenting, because the future of mankind literally vitally depends on whether we tranform the energetics to nuclear, preferably 4th generation which is unlike the 3rd fully sustanable, or we would face a violent civilization and population decline -some circles around Club of Rome are openly wishing, because they gradually prove to be more and more unable to control multibillion humankind which strives for freedom.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Mar 21 2011, 11:01 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Mar 21 2011, 11:41 AM
Post #87





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



greg palast has an interesting article on the nuclear power industry in the april edition of the rock creek free press available for free:

http://rockcreekfreepress.com/

paints a rather unflattering picture. more of a reality based one sans rose colored glasses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Mar 21 2011, 11:57 AM
Post #88





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



http://www.kirotv.com/news/27248974/detail.html


The USO said about 200,000 U.S. personnel are being evacuated from Japan to U.S. West Coast cities including San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle/JBLM.





200,000


is this sinking in yet ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Mar 21 2011, 12:27 PM
Post #89





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



http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14926992,00.html





Workers at the quake-stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan were evacuated on Monday after gray smoke was seen rising from reactor 3, which is among the most badly damaged at the six-reactor complex, a plant spokesman said.

The workers had only been pulled out of the immediate area around the reactor and not from the whole plant.

At 3:55 p.m. local time (6:55 p.m. GMT), a "light gray plume of smoke" rose from the fuel storage pool of reactor number 3, a Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) spokesman told reporters.

"Due to this problem, the operator temporarily pulled out the workers, while checking on the condition of the site," the spokesman said.

The smoke ceased shortly afterwards, but smoke was then observed rising from reactor 2.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 21 2011, 03:11 PM
Post #90





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



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 21 2011, 04:41 AM) *
greg palast has an interesting article on the nuclear power industry in the april edition of the rock creek free press available for free:
http://rockcreekfreepress.com/
paints a rather unflattering picture. more of a reality based one sans rose colored glasses.

Many statements in the article are more than overstaments. Just for example:
"However, its kind of hard to mail back a reactor with the warranty slip inside the box if the fuel rods are melted and sinking halfway to the earths core."

However the question of safety must be discussed further, not with rose, nor with black glasses.

I personaly find even the 3rd generation not completely inherently safe, although much safer than 2nd generation BWR's in Fukushima - for various reasons Mr. Palast names just few of, and because it is still not fool and corruption proof. That's why I think we should quickly proceed to 4th generation, especially the Liquid Fuel Technologies, where no meltdown can occur, because the fuel is already melted, which have also much bigger inherent safety, because they work at atmospheric pressure and have always negative void coeficient (the positive void coeficient - higher reactivity of the fuel in a case of coolant loss accident - was the primary reason for the disaster in Chernobyl, but fortunately not in Fukushima with much other design without any graphite moderator, which apparently survived without disatrous radioactivity release even the whole coolant usually covering the reactor core was lost and the dammage of the fuel most probably occured).

Just a personal note: I think the whole situation was considerably aggravated paradoxicly because of the safety system at the plant.
-If at least one of the 6 reactors which clearly survived even the 4th largest quake and tsunami in measured history intact, would be restarted while the emergency cooling was running on batteries, then there a source of energy would be maintained for cooling and it is very likely the situation would be very quickly managed better and no venting - which caused the explosions and which for example was the reason the TMI accident was then assessed as level 5, even nobody was even injured there - would be needed. An alternative would be for TEPCO to bring a large Megawatt scale emergency generators - which I'm sure the military has -including the means how to get it into Fukushima plant -to maintain the same. Apparently there was no such possibility envisioned and being part of the safety protocol, which in a seismically very active country is extremely weird (and it almost looks like the TEPCO LIHOP and leaved the plant to get into the state to be completely written off and paid by insurance - especially when one considers the plant happen to be planned for decommission in this very year).
I hope the future standards would include this high emergency possibilities and the review of the safety protocols in all nuclear plants in the world would ensue to make the plants safe even in the cases all the power system for after scram cooling will fail.

EDIT: I'm just adding the new measueremts of the sea water 100 meters from the plant's water outlet, where it shows I-131 127 times over normal (so it will decay to normal level in ~7 weeks), Cs-134 25 times over normal and Cs-137 16,5 times over normal, other isotopes OK, although quite fishy looks to me the ommission of the Sr-90 from the measurements.

EDIT2: Just another example how the "renewables" are safe - here in the case of a very same quake:
"When the magnitude-9 earthquake hit Japan last Friday week, a dam used for hydroelectric power in the Fukushima district collapsed, obliterating, according to some reports, 1800 homes. It is not known how many people were killed in the torrent, but it is likely to be hundreds at least."
SOURCE

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Mar 21 2011, 04:14 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 21 2011, 03:14 PM
Post #91



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (bill @ Mar 21 2011, 08:27 AM) *
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14926992,00.html





Workers at the quake-stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan were evacuated on Monday after gray smoke was seen rising from reactor 3, which is among the most badly damaged at the six-reactor complex, a plant spokesman said.

The workers had only been pulled out of the immediate area around the reactor and not from the whole plant.

At 3:55 p.m. local time (6:55 p.m. GMT), a "light gray plume of smoke" rose from the fuel storage pool of reactor number 3, a Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) spokesman told reporters.

"Due to this problem, the operator temporarily pulled out the workers, while checking on the condition of the site," the spokesman said.

The smoke ceased shortly afterwards, but smoke was then observed rising from reactor 2.


White smoke, gray smoke, black smoke, steam,
hmmm what does it mean, other than something is very hot?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Mar 21 2011, 03:44 PM
Post #92





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



tume, you are missing the forest from the trees.

how for example will any generation reactor deal w/:

"The failure of emergency systems at Japans
nuclear plants comes as no surprise to those of us
who have worked in the field."

that's a pretty damning statement, not of the technology, but the implementation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Mar 21 2011, 03:46 PM
Post #93





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



QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 19 2011, 06:14 PM) *
White smoke, gray smoke, black smoke, steam,
hmmm what does it mean, other than something is very hot?


what's that line again....where there is smoke there is fire?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 21 2011, 04:20 PM
Post #94





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



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 21 2011, 08:44 AM) *
tume, you are missing the forest from the trees.

how for example will any generation reactor deal w/:

"The failure of emergency systems at Japan’s
nuclear plants comes as no surprise to those of us
who have worked in the field."

that's a pretty damning statement, not of the technology, but the implementation.

I would sign it, because it is generally true and - need to say - considerably caused not by technogy imaturity - but by the lack of political support for this indispensable industry.
But still, the danger from the nuclear plants to the people is much lower, I would say incomparably lower, than from the coal plants - which as estimated kill 20000+ people yearly just in USA.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Mar 21 2011, 04:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 21 2011, 04:22 PM
Post #95





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



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 21 2011, 08:46 AM) *
what's that line again....where there is smoke there is fire?

Maybe there's a fire, who knows, but as I explained above, it is not possible it comes from a fire caused by burning spent fuel rods.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Mar 21 2011, 04:46 PM
Post #96





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



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 19 2011, 07:20 PM) *
I would sign it, because it is generally true and - need to say - considerably caused not by technogy imaturity - but by the lack of political support for this indispensable industry.
But still, the danger from the nuclear plants to the people is much lower, I would say incomparably lower, than from the coal plants - which as estimated kill 20000+ people yearly just in USA.


nobody asked you to sign anything. if english is not your strong language, then ok, but the point was that palast stated:

"The failure of emergency systems at Japans
nuclear plants comes as no surprise to those of us
who have worked in the field."

there is the rub, the failure of the emergency systems should have shocked/surprised everyone. clearly some people know something about the inner workings..

why not mitigate the risks of coal fired power plants? impossible? not cost effective? what? please share.
and to further broaden the subject, why put all of humanities eggs in one basket? why not use any and every technology as long as it is safe?

in retrospect, i suppose the impediments to peace and harmony on this planet wouldn't make any money that way. how much energy do you think it takes to run all the governments/bureacracies and war machines around the world? i would bet it's quite a lot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 21 2011, 05:15 PM
Post #97





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



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 21 2011, 09:46 AM) *
nobody asked you to sign anything. if english is not your strong language, then ok, but the point was that palast stated:

"The failure of emergency systems at Japan’s
nuclear plants comes as no surprise to those of us
who have worked in the field."

there is the rub, the failure of the emergency systems should have shocked/surprised everyone. clearly some people know something about the inner workings..

why not mitigate the risks of coal fired power plants? impossible? not cost effective? what? please share.
and to further broaden the subject, why put all of humanities eggs in one basket? why not use any and every technology as long as it is safe?

in retrospect, i suppose the impediments to peace and harmony on this planet wouldn't make any money that way. how much energy do you think it takes to run all the governments/bureacracies and war machines around the world? i would bet it's quite a lot.

I think I understand english enough to understand what Palast have written and my reply that I would sign it meant just that I completely agree with his cited statement, because I happen to also know something about how the superbig companies work - it is not just corruption and criminal negligence, but unfortunately often also stupidity of the feeling that nothing can happen to them and that security measures are often decided there not by people who know the job, but by bureaucrats which are there just because they're politically fit - Murphy's laws are amplified the more the company grows. And the basic one is that shit happens. An there's also the other law of bureaucracy that the least fit one to do a job becomes the director. I think Japan is not an exception.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Mar 21 2011, 05:25 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Mar 21 2011, 05:24 PM
Post #98





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



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Mar 19 2011, 08:15 PM) *
I think I understand english enough to understand what Palast have written and my reply that I would sign it meant just that I completely agree with his cited statement, because I happen to also know something about how the superbig companies work - it is not just corruption and criminal negligence, but unfortunately often also stupidity of the feeling that nothing can happen to them and that security measures are often decided there not by people who know the job, but by bureaucrats which are there just because they're politically fit - Murphy's laws are amplified the more the company grows. And the basic one is that shit happens.


ok , so having said 'that shit happens', you're of the opinion then, that 'shit' happening at a nuke plant is less of an issue than 'shit' happening at a conventional power plant? that's what you are on the record as attesting to?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 21 2011, 05:34 PM
Post #99





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



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 21 2011, 10:24 AM) *
ok , so having said 'that shit happens', you're of the opinion then, that 'shit' happening at a nuke plant is less of an issue than 'shit' happening at a conventional power plant? that's what you are on the record as attesting to?

Yeah looks like the by quake breached hydro plant in Fukushima killed hundreds of people adding another tsunami this time going from inland. At the Fukushima nuclear plant nobody died so far. With the coal plants you even don't need an accident, it is apparently considered perfectly normal that the pollution from the coal plants in USA kill 20000+ people yearly and just the J. Hansen is protesting against it and when he does so, than all cry, he misuses his position in NASA. (I strongly don't agree with Hansen's crazy "Venus run-out" AGW scaremongering, but I think he's right when protesting against the coal plants, because they daily kill the people - moreover paradoxically by radiation pollution which is 100 times bigger than from a nuke plant producing the same amount of electricity - because the burned coal and subsequently the dust in the smoke is relatively highly radioactive and toxic, because coal is one of the best binders of heavy metals including the radioactive ones - that's like you would take the nukeplant fuel rods, grind them and time to time put the powder in the fire there)

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Mar 21 2011, 05:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 21 2011, 06:31 PM
Post #100





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



QUOTE (bill @ Mar 21 2011, 04:57 AM) *
200,000

I always thought the US military are little cowardly bastards, they attack just the weak, going in Libya to make another illegal war for oil, but they fear little bit of uranium they so liked to shoot all over the Iraq, Japanese sift through the rubble to find something to eat, but the famos US military what they deliver? Again just bombs...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

19 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 10th December 2019 - 05:43 PM