login
Chernobyl (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2011-03-17 3:50 PM in reply to: #3399830 |
Member  47  Deutschland |  Subject: RE: ChernobylHere's what I don't understand about the coverage of the Japan nuclear situation: No one has died as a result of the nuclear power plant issues (some may in the future, but it would be very minimal numbers-wise), but all the media is questioning the safety of nuclear power. This is pretty much a worst case scenario for a nuke plant... and no one is dying. Everyone should be praising the robustness of the technology. Thousands of people died from the tsunami... either washed out to sea or crushed or whatever. Why is no one questioning the wisdom of living within tsunami range of the coastline? Seems that allowing people to live close to the coastline is a greater risk to public safety than living close to a nuclear plant... |
| 2011-03-17 3:54 PM in reply to: #3402587 |
Pro 3906    St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Chernobyl Fireball Small - 2011-03-17 3:50 PM Here's what I don't understand about the coverage of the Japan nuclear situation: No one has died as a result of the nuclear power plant issues (some may in the future, but it would be very minimal numbers-wise), but all the media is questioning the safety of nuclear power. This is pretty much a worst case scenario for a nuke plant... and no one is dying. Everyone should be praising the robustness of the technology. Thousands of people died from the tsunami... either washed out to sea or crushed or whatever. Why is no one questioning the wisdom of living within tsunami range of the coastline? Seems that allowing people to live close to the coastline is a greater risk to public safety than living close to a nuclear plant... Don't bring logic into this! Leave us to our irrational fears! |
| 2011-03-17 4:11 PM in reply to: #3402595 |
Member 47 Deutschland | Subject: RE: Chernobyl coredump - 2011-03-17 4:54 PM Fireball Small - 2011-03-17 3:50 PM Here's what I don't understand about the coverage of the Japan nuclear situation: No one has died as a result of the nuclear power plant issues (some may in the future, but it would be very minimal numbers-wise), but all the media is questioning the safety of nuclear power. This is pretty much a worst case scenario for a nuke plant... and no one is dying. Everyone should be praising the robustness of the technology. Thousands of people died from the tsunami... either washed out to sea or crushed or whatever. Why is no one questioning the wisdom of living within tsunami range of the coastline? Seems that allowing people to live close to the coastline is a greater risk to public safety than living close to a nuclear plant... Don't bring logic into this! Leave us to our irrational fears! You're right. I apologize. Carry on!
|
| 2011-03-17 9:58 PM in reply to: #3402595 |
Pro 4612 MA | Subject: RE: Chernobyl coredump - 2011-03-17 4:54 PM Fireball Small - 2011-03-17 3:50 PM Here's what I don't understand about the coverage of the Japan nuclear situation: No one has died as a result of the nuclear power plant issues (some may in the future, but it would be very minimal numbers-wise), but all the media is questioning the safety of nuclear power. This is pretty much a worst case scenario for a nuke plant... and no one is dying. Everyone should be praising the robustness of the technology. Thousands of people died from the tsunami... either washed out to sea or crushed or whatever. Why is no one questioning the wisdom of living within tsunami range of the coastline? Seems that allowing people to live close to the coastline is a greater risk to public safety than living close to a nuclear plant... Don't bring logic into this! Leave us to our irrational fears!
The irrational fear has infected China within a day. Today, it was reported that massive buying of table salt is happening in many Chinese cities. The reason being table salt contains iodine, which can help prevent cancer when exposed to radioactive substances....
|
| 2011-03-18 8:40 AM in reply to: #3402284 |
| Davenport, IA | Subject: RE: Chernobyl menglo - 2011-03-17 1:23 PM Gaarryy - 2011-03-17 9:21 AM >> Picking up this thread, there's a bit of consternation here that the jetstream will carry radioactive fallout from Japan to the west coast. There has been a run on potassium iodide here (and elsewhere, but mostly west coast). There was even a hoax map showing the entire western US being covered by 750 rads, which I read is a pretty lethal dose. Officials have said it isn't going to be a problem. My wife, who has a few friends into "alternative therapies" is getting a bit worried about it, and I am trying to keep her feet on the ground about it.
seriously ??? Chris ... please tell me your joking on the news reports saying the whole jet stream stuff, and that level of dose? That is so unfounded it's not even funny. I wish I had more time to explain why but basically to get stuff up into the jet stream isn't going to happen without a nuc blast, if it does the time needed would be quite a bit, toss in the fact about the 1/2 half of the material. then transport time to the west coast, coming out of the jet stream at that high of a dose??? jezzz how do people make this sutff up... I'm in a seminar tomorrow, I might take that time to figure out what the does would have to start out at to end up with 750 Rads in the states. I'm sure all of Japen would be gone but maybe not. Good math fun though
All I can do when I hear stuff like this is shake my head. People are afraid of nuclear power because of its association with nuclear war. I am by no means a nuclear expert, but by my findings most plants use a (more stable) uranium based fuel rod, rather than Plutonium (weapons grade material). Please correct me if I'm wrong on this. The situation in Japan is FAR beyond tragedy and nuclear power plant problems was an "aligning of the stars" in terms of the reactors shutting down, losing power, and the generators being knocked out by the tsunami. The workers that have stayed behind deserve "hero" status and I hope that everyone comes out alive. Nuclear power has GREAT potential for the future, people just need to be better educated on how safe this technology can be when applied properly. Question: What is considered a lethal amount of radiation? At what levels would there be side effects?
Some of the reactors are using re-purposed fuel made from decommissioned nuclear bombs. Reactor 3 at the Japanese site is using this, so it's a combination of Uranium and Plutonium. |
| 2011-03-18 10:13 AM in reply to: #3403267 |
Expert 1087 Portland | Subject: RE: Chernobyl Sprint_DA - 2011-03-18 8:40 AM menglo - 2011-03-17 1:23 PM Gaarryy - 2011-03-17 9:21 AM >> Picking up this thread, there's a bit of consternation here that the jetstream will carry radioactive fallout from Japan to the west coast. There has been a run on potassium iodide here (and elsewhere, but mostly west coast). There was even a hoax map showing the entire western US being covered by 750 rads, which I read is a pretty lethal dose. Officials have said it isn't going to be a problem. My wife, who has a few friends into "alternative therapies" is getting a bit worried about it, and I am trying to keep her feet on the ground about it.
seriously ??? Chris ... please tell me your joking on the news reports saying the whole jet stream stuff, and that level of dose? That is so unfounded it's not even funny. I wish I had more time to explain why but basically to get stuff up into the jet stream isn't going to happen without a nuc blast, if it does the time needed would be quite a bit, toss in the fact about the 1/2 half of the material. then transport time to the west coast, coming out of the jet stream at that high of a dose??? jezzz how do people make this sutff up... I'm in a seminar tomorrow, I might take that time to figure out what the does would have to start out at to end up with 750 Rads in the states. I'm sure all of Japen would be gone but maybe not. Good math fun though
All I can do when I hear stuff like this is shake my head. People are afraid of nuclear power because of its association with nuclear war. I am by no means a nuclear expert, but by my findings most plants use a (more stable) uranium based fuel rod, rather than Plutonium (weapons grade material). Please correct me if I'm wrong on this. The situation in Japan is FAR beyond tragedy and nuclear power plant problems was an "aligning of the stars" in terms of the reactors shutting down, losing power, and the generators being knocked out by the tsunami. The workers that have stayed behind deserve "hero" status and I hope that everyone comes out alive. Nuclear power has GREAT potential for the future, people just need to be better educated on how safe this technology can be when applied properly. Question: What is considered a lethal amount of radiation? At what levels would there be side effects?
Some of the reactors are using re-purposed fuel made from decommissioned nuclear bombs. Reactor 3 at the Japanese site is using this, so it's a combination of Uranium and Plutonium. Thank you for clearing that up. I was under the impression that nearly all nuclear reactors were using Uranium fuel rods. |
| 2011-03-20 5:14 PM in reply to: #3399899 |
Champion 7233 | Subject: RE: Chernobyl Fred Doucette - 2011-03-16 7:02 AM scoobysdad - 2011-03-16 8:56 AM Just saw on the "Today" show that they are re-opening Chernobyl as an "extreme tourism destination". It's also supposed to be haunted. Who's in? Interesting facts: They actually ran the remaining reactors at Chernobyl until the year 2,000! (disaster was 1986). There are areas near the reactor that will be un-inhabitable for 20,000 years. The abandoned towns are very interesting as they have essentially become wildlife preserves as the animal and plant life have flourished without humans living nearby. Apparently the dominant mammal living in the non-human areas is the simple 'feral cat' They reproduce quickly and can hunt extremely well for insects, rodents and birds. I saw a show on this and the place was literally crawling with cats. The show was about when people are no longer on the earth and what it will look like. They point out that it's CATS, not cockroaches that would inherit the earth so to speak. Interesting. I did a lot of research/reading/work on this in school as an independent study simply because it was something i was interested in (happened on the same day/date i was born), and i remember seeing a lot about how cats were doing much better than other animals i nthe area even close to the event while dogs/horses were dying fairly quickly. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK