Japanese N-Plant Explosion
- Thread starter ULTRA
- Start date
Elaborate.
You must be very fortunate to be in a country where the Government does not try to control the Press.
You must be very fortunate to be in a country where the Government does not try to control the Press.
Trying to control the press and being able to are not the same thing and Japan today and the prevalence of social media/internet make the situation far different than 1/4 century ago in the Soviet Union.
This is already under international scrutiny and GE engineers (it's a GE reactor) are working with TEPCO to control these reactors, hence the idea of keeping what's going on secret seems far fetched. Indeed the stream of information released seems to have been consistant with what independent experts have said one would expect in this situation, and they appear to have been candid about their efforts, for instance they warned of the chance of a second hydrogen explosion a day before it happened at the #3 plant.
Arthur
Thanks for the answer.
Certainly, complete truthfulness would be in their own interest given the gravity of the disaster, but the company who own the plant have been caught out lying before. There will be a huge enquiry.
The Government seems to be doing a very good job considering that they have another, even greater disaster, occurring at the same time.
Certainly, complete truthfulness would be in their own interest given the gravity of the disaster, but the company who own the plant have been caught out lying before. There will be a huge enquiry.
The Government seems to be doing a very good job considering that they have another, even greater disaster, occurring at the same time.
Tone of voice - you slanted the facts, to make it appear as if serious concern or worry about the explosion, pointing to it as a sign of loss of control, were signs of panic or ignorance.trippy said:
As you say - just stating the facts.trippy said:
Uh, when you want to know how to refer to my home river and lifelong place of residence, when speaking English, just ask, OK?trippy said:
Their uncertainty is fairly large when dealing with large midcontinent quakes. They are rare, of unclear mechanism, and seem to come in flurries.trippy said:
The question at hand is: what odds does a sane person accept for the loss of the upper Mississippi River? Or "Mississippi", whatever New Zealand dudes want to call it?
If you are going to keep on making insulting and silly presumptions about what I have and haven't read, do and do not know, etc, the least you could do is simply accept correction when I say, for the dozenth time in dealing with you and your jerk behavior, that I read that stuff, all of it, and followed the news involved, and so forth. . All the links, all the stuff.trippy said:
Just to point to one that's in front of your face, the reference I made to CNN's attempt to deflect Nye into "bomb" irrelevancies (above) was a reference to their expert Nye's admirably succinct and unpanicked TV summary of meltdowns and the dealing with them, including specifically the role of boron. If you would just assume that kind of context from now on, it would save me and the thread the trouble of defensively correcting your inaccurate and insulting presumptions over and over and over.
Unless they are tactical?
Arthur is claiming that a meltdown is impossible.trippy said:
My entire point here is that the apologists and proponents in favor of nuclear power are handling long odds against large disaster negligently, even dishonestly. They are on one hand improperly and imprudently estimating the odds (Challenger Logic abounds), and on the other obliviously and unethically minimizing the potential harm (Chernobyl only killed 70 people etc). The differences between impossible and various degrees of very unlikely is a key, critical issue.
It's possible right now that this nuke plant side effect of the tsunami will do more harm, in the long run, than the wave itself with its hundreds or thousands dead. This possibility needs to be remembered as a reality, in the future, if it turns out that the odds broke in our favor once again.
No its not, its is impossible for these nuclear reactors to do more harm then the earthquake did, not in the short term or long term. That is the fundamental problem here: unfounded fear.
Last edited:
Something that seems relevant to me:
"7 Lessons from TMI" an IAEA media specialist offers his take on the media coverage of Three Mile Island and its implications:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull472/htmls/tmi2.html
"7 Lessons from TMI" an IAEA media specialist offers his take on the media coverage of Three Mile Island and its implications:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull472/htmls/tmi2.html
Bullshit.
You made an ASSumption and it bit you in the ASS.
Bullshit. Or perhaps you have some proof of an IAEA cover up?
I'm sorry I know more about American Geography than you do.
I'm sorry I know more about your home river than you do.
More Bullshit.
Generally large intracontinetal earthquakes in the US are related to the failed New Madrid rift zone. There is a rift zone in the US which has failed, I believe, on three seperate occasions.
Do you actually know anything about the design of these reactors?
You're the one that makes "Insulting and silly presumptions" and indulges in "jerk behaviour" remember?
And as for accepting correction, you haven't actually corrected anything I've said.
Yes. Because the whole world watches CNN and 'Bill Nye, Science Guy' right?
I generally prefer to get the facts for myself, rather than someone elses interpretation of them.
And you're the one making "Inaccurate and insulting presumptions over and over and over" remember:
Right. but what I said, in context was:
I didn't say Show me someone claiming a meltdown is impossible, I said show me a post where I claim a meltdown is impossible.
So what you're saying then is that, in your opinion, people should plan for something that there's no evidence of happening?
There's a crucial difference between this and Challenger - IIRC with challenger they miscalculated the probability of the O-Ring failure, something an engineer might do, but a statistician probably wouldn't. They failed to recognize that the probability of the 2nd and 3rd O-rings failing were independent of whether or not the first one fails. It's not, because there's a third variable to consider.
In the case of Fukishima Daiichi an event which was unanticipated occured. As I understand it there was no evidence to indicate that what happened could happen. Science has improved since those plants were commissioned, we now know about blind thrust faults and mega thrust faults, and mega tsunamis, not things that we really knew about 30-40 years ago. In the case of Fukishima Daichi, i'd wager they're already planning the improvements they can make to stop the generators from getting flooded out by a repeat Tsunami, and doing so with a comfortable margin.
Somehow I doubt it.
It's projected that by 2065 Chernobyl will have, even if you take the most pessimistic figures used by Green Peace, killed 90-110,000 people.
The Banqiao Hydro Dam failure in 1975 killed 26,000 people outright, and 145,000 people died as a result of the ensuing plagues and famine.
The situation at Fukishima Daiichi at the moment has more in common with the Sellafield incidents (The Windscale Fire specifically) than anything else, or maybe three mile island at worst.
The three mile island incident, incidentally, resulted in a partial core melt down which was successfully contained.
Incidentally, were you also aware that as of lastnight (I haven't checked since I've been up) the peak radiation released has been 155mrem?
That might have been true in the '70s, however that was 40 years ago.
DwayneD.L.Rabon
Registered Senior Member
Well, this disaster certainly is a problem, huge death tolls, and lingering potenial problems of nuclear accidents.
It appears to be a problem this reactor or reactors as bussiness is not completed, this is the fifth day. Certainly the Nuclear Power Plant has to be completely dismantled. Its hard to believe that their was ideas of saving or using the plant, it should have been destroyed from the start, and as it stands it should be completely demolished, its seems that the encasement design plan entailed sealling the reactor at the location where it would go disfuntional, 3 disfunctional sealed reactors is a continual on going danger.
As such reactors using uranium,plutonium ectra... atomic elements can achieve very high tempitures at any time, tempitures that excceed the tempiture of the surface of the SUN, For example a tempiture of 413,000 degrees Celsius can stablize, most atomic elements are exsplosive at such tempitures.
So the Nuclear Plant should be destroyed, being cryogenic frozen and the detonated.
Dwayne D.L.Rabon
It appears to be a problem this reactor or reactors as bussiness is not completed, this is the fifth day. Certainly the Nuclear Power Plant has to be completely dismantled. Its hard to believe that their was ideas of saving or using the plant, it should have been destroyed from the start, and as it stands it should be completely demolished, its seems that the encasement design plan entailed sealling the reactor at the location where it would go disfuntional, 3 disfunctional sealed reactors is a continual on going danger.
As such reactors using uranium,plutonium ectra... atomic elements can achieve very high tempitures at any time, tempitures that excceed the tempiture of the surface of the SUN, For example a tempiture of 413,000 degrees Celsius can stablize, most atomic elements are exsplosive at such tempitures.
So the Nuclear Plant should be destroyed, being cryogenic frozen and the detonated.
Dwayne D.L.Rabon
This has been updated to 310mrem.
Typical Rabon nonsense.
Shhhhh! Don't respond to the troll!
Has it occurred to you that insisting on telling the local residents who speak the local language what their name really is for the local river, is kind of - how does one put it without getting banned - damaging to your overall credibility?trippy said:
While you're at it, you could try correcting the official maps, Wikipedia, the major dictionaries, and the rest of the world.
You keep telling yourself that - and banning people who point out the increasingly obvious: you're not behaving well, and you get especially belligerent when you don't know what you're talking about or have made an embarrassing mistake (which is what your explosion comment was, as originally posted - I didn't bother with it, because it was no big deal and not central to anything I wanted to say, and I assumed a momentary slip of the tongue).trippy said:
Yep. Not that it's relevant, much. Do you actually have any idea how to answer the question you pretended to be responding to?trippy said:
The whole world isn't making silly and insulting presumptions. You are.trippy said:
I have corrected your goofy (and sometimes already invalidated on the very thread) presumptions about what I have and haven't read, know, seen, etc, several times. You don't seem to have learned to quit making them. Now you are telling me what the name of the Mississippi River is. Christ almighty.trippy said:
I showed you a post where you agreed with Arthur that a meltdown is impossible once sea water flooding has begun. If that was unintentional and accidental, so be it - we all make mistakes, especially when agreeing with adoucette. More to the actual point, it was in the context of you minimizing the hazard of this nuke plant situation - that's why I bothered at all. I was contrasting the claims of panic mongering with the actual situation on this thread and in general, which is dominance by invalid reassurances and persistent attempts to downplay the critical factor of risk.trippy said:
It was the statisticians who blew the call - the engineers were more worried.trippy said:
And what is the crucial difference in the reasoning? It looks quite similar to the arguments here and all over - that repeated surprising close calls and unexpected emergency situations that do not end in disaster are evidence of safety.
According to the professional there, it was still true in 2004. And it's what we see here on this thread. And it's what I see on the limited major media I catch - a big hoorah about "panic mongering", and the media filled with false reassurances (that actually abet panic, of course, so maybe there's a sort of reverse case or conspiracy argument to be made if anyone's interested).trippy said:
I don't need to ask - I already know. Wrongly.
It's right up there with Lake Tahoe, Salsa Sauce, Cheese quesadilla, Rio Grande River, Sierra Nevada Mountain range, and one of my personal favourites, the La Brea Tarpits.
iceaura,
What is there to panic about, tell us, hum? I won't to hear a detail concern from you, not appeals to unknown fear.
Also I live in Minnesota, and don't care what name or how people define the Mississippi, honestly when threads go off topic!
What is there to panic about, tell us, hum? I won't to hear a detail concern from you, not appeals to unknown fear.
Also I live in Minnesota, and don't care what name or how people define the Mississippi, honestly when threads go off topic!
Well, your assumed "translation" is probably wrong, for starters. The original Ojibwe is not usually identified as the direct source of the English word, but rather the French mangling of it, in which the meaning was already lost. Further, "Big River" would be more accurately from "Gichi - ziibi" - you want "Great River", at least if the standard sources around here have it laid out right.trippy said:
The repetition of "river" in the root remains, but two languages back, and no longer in the content.
The official band name of the local Ojibwe, in English, is "The Mississippi River Band of Chippewa", btw. The name in their own language is " Gichi-ziibiwininiwag ", according to Wiki, with the "Gichi" part referring to the specific river. I've never heard them call themselves either one of those - Ojibwe is more common, and the rest in English - but "Mississippi River" is standard, as with all English speaking people.
Life's complicated, eh?
Well, what would you propose?
Solar is non-viable for large-scale energy production without utilizing massive swaths of landscape OR high-pressure boiler vessels (power towers)... both of which are vulnerable to simply cloudy days.
Wind requires, again, vast tracts of land, moving parts which are exposed to the elements, and (supposedly) interrupts birds and other such critters, plus the volume to energy ratio is terrible.
Coal/Oil/LP/Natural Gas/et al - we know what's wrong here
GeoThermal - a possibility, but largely unexplored AFAIK
Cold Fusion/Fission - yeah...
M/AM Reactions - supercharged nuclear reactions that are currently non-viable due to the immense issue of GENERATING antimatter.
BioFuel - right, we've seen how well THIS little gem worked with the Ethenol Debacle (and face it, Ethenol is a joke atm).
What's really left?
Recognising a Tautology is damaging to my credibility?
Interesting.
Just because a wrong thing has entered the common parlance doesn't make it right.
More Bullshit.
Or do you have some proof that the explosion at Fukushima Daiichi #1 was caused by something other than Hydrogen? And that it was caued by something otehr than the deliberate venting of primary coolant to preserve structural integrity?
Are you that certain of the irrelevance of my question?
And yet you continue making inane comments that suggest that you haven't actually read them. For example, below.
No. You showed me a post of Arthur making a statement.
I aknowledged that Arthur might be right. I did not state that Arthur IS right, and I did not state that I agree with him.
The ONLY occasion I have explicitly agreed with him was on the possibility of a (nuclear) explosion resulting from a complete core meltdown AND posted evidence, from Chernobyl, to support that assertion.
Again we come back to this Bogus claim.
I minimized nothing. I stated the facts, as they stand (or stood at the time at any rate).
A claim which I have since qualified, and still stand by. There IS a lot of panic mongering that seems to be going on in relation to this issue - here's a clue for you though. My statement that there is panic mongering going on does not imply that I don't think it's bad. That's your inference purely and simply, and we all know how you came to that conclusion, don't we.
You lumped me in with the pro nuclear apologists because you didn't think I was saying things are as bad as yout thought I should be, which I called you out as doing here:
To which you responded with the above quote.
What reassurances, precisely have I provided?
I outlined the facts as the stood at the time.
I've compared what's happened to what happened at Three Mile Island and Sellafield, and suggested (or implied) that, to date (as of the writing of this post) such a comparisson is more accurate than Chernobyl.
Oh, and I've quantified the estimated deaths of Chernobyl by comparing them to a Hydro Dam failure that occured as a result of a 1 in 2000 year event.
The difference is that the failure of all three O-rings was a known, quantified risk, and they operated under conditions that they thought minimized those risks.
Meanwhile what just happened in Japan, is, as far as I know, without precedent. As far as I know, up until the other there was no physical evidence to support the idea of something of that magnitude occuring.
Therein lies the difference. In respect of Challenger, they knew it was a possibility, in respect of a Tsunami of that magnitude, they had no reason to consider it a possibility.
As I have stated, repeatedly now, it's not what I see on the media that I catch.
Has it occured to you that you may simply not be looking at the same media that I am?