[Merged] nuclear power safe? - Page 9

excaza · 14th March 2011, 11:51 AM

It's a shame, this will probably set US nuclear back another 20 years

Skwinty · 14th March 2011, 11:52 AM

I have not seen this map until now.

When Chernobyl exploded, Cs 137 from the event was detected by the Environmental Survey Lab where I work within a week or two.

This Cs 137 spike was attributed to the Chernobyl incident.

Of course Chernobyl and Fukushima are totally and absolutely different kettles of fish.

MarkCorrigan · 14th March 2011, 11:52 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12733393

Ugh. It's such a shame the BBC is so hell-bent on this. One choice gem:

Quote:

But as with the first explosion, Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) said the thick containment walls shielding the reactor cores remained intact. It also said radiation levels outside were still within legal limits.

'Not optimistic'

What wonderful juxtaposition.

excaza · 14th March 2011, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Thunder

but if the core melts, won't it spew highly radioactive crap into the air..for days?

It will spew highly radioactive crap into the air if godzilla rips the roof off of the core too.

Instead of playing 'what if' games, one should play the 'how likely is' game instead. There's a containment area for a reason.

MarkCorrigan · 14th March 2011, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Thunder

but if the core melts, won't it spew highly radioactive crap into the air..for days?

No.

Not unless you imagine a nuclear core inside a perfectly working containment area is exposed to the open air, at any rate.

Skwinty · 14th March 2011, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Thunder

but if the core melts, won't it spew highly radioactive crap into the air..for days?

Not if the pressure vessel and concrete containment are intact and North Korea abstains from testing a nuclear bomb at Fukushima.

timhau · 14th March 2011, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Thunder

but if the core melts, won't it spew highly radioactive crap into the air..for days?

Was this a serious question?

Thunder · 14th March 2011, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by timhau

Was this a serious question?

yup

Thunder · 14th March 2011, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Skwinty

Not if the pressure vessel and concrete containment are intact and North Korea abstains from testing a nuclear bomb at Fukushima.

ok, good to know.

so even if the core melts, we can still be ok?

that's good to know.

Skwinty · 14th March 2011, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by Thunder

ok, good to know.

so even if the core melts, we can still be ok?

that's good to know.

I suspect that the cores have melted substantially already, so you need not worry any further.

BenBurch · 14th March 2011, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Thunder

ok, good to know.

so even if the core melts, we can still be ok?

that's good to know.

TMI melted. Melted a lot more badly than anybody thought at the time, too.

All of it was still inside the reactor.

MattusMaximus · 14th March 2011, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Thunder

but if the core melts, won't it spew highly radioactive crap into the air..for days?

No. If the core melts, it will sit as a nasty puddle of goo in the bottom of the containment vessel until it is cleaned up.

Bottom Line: As long as the containment vessel holds, which it appears to be doing quite well, then no substantial radioactivity will escape into the environment.

Hamradioguy · 14th March 2011, 12:06 PM

I am astonished by how little critical thinking there is among the press. (You'd expect it for the general public of course.) Maybe I'm a bit prejudiced: I'm a retired Health Physicist and worked for years in the radiological protection field. (Primarily nuclear attack but with a fair amount of nuclear plant emergency response work.) But with all the good credible sources available on-line, both the public and news outlets are still doing a lot of fear mongering. Sadly, nothing new: The "most trusted news source in journalism" Walter Cronkite, mentioned in a broadcast that radiation was detected penetrating the 3ft thick TMI containment shell. Experts knew better of course, but you can imagine the panic among the public when they thought how bad radiation levels must be to go through three feet of concrete. I'm not sure the press has learned much in the ensuing quarter century.

excaza · 14th March 2011, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Hamradioguy

I am astonished by how little critical thinking there is among the press.

I'm not. Critical thinking seems to be declining in the press as years pass. Either that or I'm just noticing it more as I get older (I'm only 22).

timhau · 14th March 2011, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Thunder

so even if the core melts, we can still be ok?

Yes. Core meltdown does not result in a nuclear explosion.

The real world is a bit different from Civilization II in this respect.

MattusMaximus · 14th March 2011, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Thunder

ok, good to know.

so even if the core melts, we ~~can~~ WILL still be ok? !!!

that's good to know.

Ftfy, Thunder.

Take some deep breaths, pal. It'll be okay.

BobTheDonkey · 14th March 2011, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by technoextreme

Having actually worked with industrial equipment I'm calling ********. There is no *********** plug on those generators.

Head hurts immensely. That is a horribly stupid idea that has a good chance of completely destroying the cooling system.

Agreed (with the 2nd part).

WRT the plug, it's not entirely uncommon for mobile generators to have a plug for hooking up to a building (or aircraft, as the case may be). Chances are,however, that if the plug didn't fit it's because the generators weren't set up to produce the "right" kind of power. Which would by why the generators weren't just hardwired in. That's my initial impression and completely unsupported by anything other than my own personal experience working in an industrial/electrical/aircraft maintenance field.

BenBurch · 14th March 2011, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Reading the Wikipedia page on Chernobyl, they mention a recent study that mentions "985,000" deaths resulting from the incident.

Isn't that like 100 times more than liberal estimates used to say ? Is that even possible ?

That is a BS number. I encourage you to research the real number and fix that entry (with proper citations and etc.)

Thunder · 14th March 2011, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Ftfy, Thunder.

Take some deep breaths, pal. It'll be okay.

its just a lot to take in, seeing two nuclear plant cooling towers blow up like in a Hollywood action flick.

BenBurch · 14th March 2011, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Thunder

its just a lot to take in, seeing two nuclear plant cooling towers blow up like in a Hollywood action flick.

Actually what blew off was mostly the metal skin of the building built on top of the containment.

Skwinty · 14th March 2011, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Thunder

its just a lot to take in, seeing two nuclear plant cooling towers blow up like in a Hollywood action flick.

No cooling towers were involved.

What you saw blowing up was the panel walls that shielded the crane and the crane operator.

See page 16 of the pdf. The mark 1 BWR building.

OMGturt1es · 14th March 2011, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Officials were clearly struggling to keep ahead of the crisis and prevent a worst case scenario: a complete reactor meltdown.

In that case, the uranium core melts through the outer containment shell, releasing a wave of radiation and resulting in major, widespread health problems.

From a local paper: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/14/347...#ixzz1GbVU4nDn

My understanding is that this isn't really possible, but I'm not a nuclear engineer. Many here seem far more knowledgable than I. Is this even possible? If so, how likely?

Skwinty · 14th March 2011, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by OMGturt1es

Is this even possible? If so, how likely?

If they ignored the cooling system failure and made no attempt to flood cool the pressure vessel then it is possible for the heat generated by the melting fuel to melt the steel pressure vessel.

Of course no responsible power utility would ignore the cooling requirements, so not possible.

technoextreme · 14th March 2011, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey

WRT the plug, it's not entirely uncommon for mobile generators to have a plug for hooking up to a building (or aircraft, as the case may be). Chances are,however, that if the plug didn't fit it's because the generators weren't set up to produce the "right" kind of power. Which would by why the generators weren't just hardwired in. That's my initial impression and completely unsupported by anything other than my own personal experience working in an industrial/electrical/aircraft maintenance field.

I would agree with that but that would imply some inept stupidity on the part of someone.

BobTheDonkey · 14th March 2011, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by technoextreme

I would agree with that but that would imply some inept stupidity on the part of someone.

I can see the conversation going:

"Do you have portable generators? Get them here ricky-quick."

when it should have been:

"Do you have portable generators? What power do they output? Well, **** me, do you know anyone else that's open that does? No, the plant has no power and no cooling, have to find a generator or we're **********. You don't know of anyone else? Alright, thanks. Bye."

10-15s later, after finding the next entry in the yellow pages:

"Do you have portable generators? What power do they output?..."

Belz... · 14th March 2011, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

That is a BS number. I encourage you to research the real number and fix that entry (with proper citations and etc.)

I'm not very knowledgeable about which sources to look for in this instance. They say it comes from the New York Academy of Sciences. Are they reliable but misquoted ? Or what ?

timhau · 14th March 2011, 01:02 PM

So, even newspapers get their nuclear power info from Sid Meier.

Nosi · 14th March 2011, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Rasmus

Yes, things can go wrong. Horribly wrong beyond our wildest dreams and way more wrong than we ever anticipated. Then, things would get really bad. But before I start worrying about that I should spend a lot of time planning my finances for the time when I will hit the lottery jackpot 5 times in a row ...

People are busy browning themselves on the news channels about the 30 year old nuke plants in the USA, particularly the ones in California. A calmer head said that someone's bound to take a page from Japan's book and tighten the girding under them.

Looking at the before and after maps of Japan, the nuke plants are some of the better looking real estate post quake.

MattusMaximus · 14th March 2011, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Nosi

Looking at the before and after maps of Japan, the nuke plants are some of the better looking real estate post quake.

This point needs to be continually emphasized. The bottom line is these plants were built to be very, very tough, and they held up under the worst conditions when pretty much everything else was laid waste.

BenBurch · 14th March 2011, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

I'm not very knowledgeable about which sources to look for in this instance. They say it comes from the New York Academy of Sciences. Are they reliable but misquoted ? Or what ?

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/.../en/index.html

Not sure reading this if the estimate is 4000 or 8000 as they mention 4000 twice and I am not clear if they mean the same group...

See also;

http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/Howbad.htm
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html

NOWHERE near the number you say the Wiki article has.

I am utterly snowed-in with work today or I would fix this stupidity.

Nosi · 14th March 2011, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Rasmus

Yes, but until Chernobyl that was also true for all the nuclear power plants, wasn't it? And until last week the Japanese plants were quake safe, too ...

No one gave a rat's backside about Japanese nuke plants two weeks ago!

Ranb · 14th March 2011, 01:13 PM

The media generally sounds more juvenile when discussing nuclear power than they do guns. I did not think it was possible, but I was wrong. My wife was asking about what she heard on the news. I assured her that while the overheating and subsequent use of seawater to cool the reactor cores ruined them, I was in no danger if the shipyard sent me to Japan to remediate any US ships involved.

Ranb

MarkCorrigan · 14th March 2011, 01:15 PM

Apparently the British expert on the BBC warned of meltdown causing a leak.

Thunder · 14th March 2011, 01:20 PM

why don't they just dump a few million cubic yards of concrete onto all 4 cores?

timhau · 14th March 2011, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Ranb

The media generally sounds more juvenile when discussing nuclear power than they do guns.

It seems like many of the journalists writing/talking about this are environment correspondents (like the BBC guy doing the analysis here). What you'd want is a technical correspondent, but I suppose they're few and far between -- most journalists these days seem to have degrees in journalism and social sciences, and their technological and scientific illiteracy is just as bad as that of Joe Average.

MarkCorrigan · 14th March 2011, 01:48 PM

Apparently it was some expert on nuclear power. I didn't actually see who it was, so I can't give a name, sadly.

Nosi · 14th March 2011, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Architect

I was speaking to a former design engineer who was part of the team working on the British nuclear programme in the 1980s and he is resolute that this (i.e. the power stations) is a commercial rather than environmental disaster. I think his phrase was "expensive pile of slag".

I bet they had quake insurance!

Travis · 14th March 2011, 02:02 PM

The problem with the press is not a lack of critical thinking. They know damned well what is really going on. They also know that so long as they keep people scared of nuclear Armageddon they will keep watching. Ratings take precedence over facts.

Nosi · 14th March 2011, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by excaza

It's a shame, this will probably set US nuclear back another 20 years

People fear high prices more than high fallout.

LoudHoward · 14th March 2011, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Nosi

I bet they had quake insurance!

Unfortunately, the insurance won't be paid out as the damage wasn't from the quake but from the tsunami (obviously unrelated)! They only took out the low level drain overflow insurance as I understand it

14th March 2011, 11:51 AM	#321
excaza Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 3,632	It's a shame, this will probably set US nuclear back another 20 years
	__________________

14th March 2011, 11:52 AM	#322
Skwinty Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The far side Posts: 4,972	I have not seen this map until now. When Chernobyl exploded, Cs 137 from the event was detected by the Environmental Survey Lab where I work within a week or two. This Cs 137 spike was attributed to the Chernobyl incident. Of course Chernobyl and Fukushima are totally and absolutely different kettles of fish.
	__________________ What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch. --Lily Tomlin

14th March 2011, 11:52 AM	#323
MarkCorrigan Winter is Coming Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Middle of nowhere, UK. Posts: 7,112	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12733393 Ugh. It's such a shame the BBC is so hell-bent on this. One choice gem: Quote: But as with the first explosion, Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) said the thick containment walls shielding the reactor cores remained intact. It also said radiation levels outside were still within legal limits. 'Not optimistic' What wonderful juxtaposition.
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz "the captain gives the order to osedlání/ he drives the horses to the groin/ There on the lunch/waiting women"

14th March 2011, 11:53 AM	#324
excaza Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 3,632	Originally Posted by Thunder but if the core melts, won't it spew highly radioactive crap into the air..for days? It will spew highly radioactive crap into the air if godzilla rips the roof off of the core too. Instead of playing 'what if' games, one should play the 'how likely is' game instead. There's a containment area for a reason.
	__________________ Last edited by excaza; 14th March 2011 at 11:54 AM.

14th March 2011, 11:53 AM	#325
MarkCorrigan Winter is Coming Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Middle of nowhere, UK. Posts: 7,112	Originally Posted by Thunder but if the core melts, won't it spew highly radioactive crap into the air..for days? No. Not unless you imagine a nuclear core inside a perfectly working containment area is exposed to the open air, at any rate.
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz "the captain gives the order to osedlání/ he drives the horses to the groin/ There on the lunch/waiting women"

14th March 2011, 11:55 AM	#326
Skwinty Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The far side Posts: 4,972	Originally Posted by Thunder but if the core melts, won't it spew highly radioactive crap into the air..for days? Not if the pressure vessel and concrete containment are intact and North Korea abstains from testing a nuclear bomb at Fukushima.
	__________________ What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch. --Lily Tomlin

14th March 2011, 11:56 AM	#327
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: East of Sweeden Posts: 9,661	Originally Posted by Thunder but if the core melts, won't it spew highly radioactive crap into the air..for days? Was this a serious question?
	__________________ When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

14th March 2011, 11:57 AM	#328
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by timhau Was this a serious question? yup

14th March 2011, 12:00 PM	#329
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by Skwinty Not if the pressure vessel and concrete containment are intact and North Korea abstains from testing a nuclear bomb at Fukushima. ok, good to know. so even if the core melts, we can still be ok? that's good to know.

14th March 2011, 12:02 PM	#330
Skwinty Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The far side Posts: 4,972	Originally Posted by Thunder ok, good to know. so even if the core melts, we can still be ok? that's good to know. I suspect that the cores have melted substantially already, so you need not worry any further.
	__________________ What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch. --Lily Tomlin

14th March 2011, 12:04 PM	#331
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,142	Originally Posted by Thunder ok, good to know. so even if the core melts, we can still be ok? that's good to know. TMI melted. Melted a lot more badly than anybody thought at the time, too. All of it was still inside the reactor.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

14th March 2011, 12:06 PM	#332
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by Thunder but if the core melts, won't it spew highly radioactive crap into the air..for days? No. If the core melts, it will sit as a nasty puddle of goo in the bottom of the containment vessel until it is cleaned up. Bottom Line: As long as the containment vessel holds, which it appears to be doing quite well, then no substantial radioactivity will escape into the environment.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin' Last edited by MattusMaximus; 14th March 2011 at 12:18 PM.

14th March 2011, 12:06 PM	#333
Hamradioguy Pyrrhonist Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Northern Vermont Posts: 2,272	I am astonished by how little critical thinking there is among the press. (You'd expect it for the general public of course.) Maybe I'm a bit prejudiced: I'm a retired Health Physicist and worked for years in the radiological protection field. (Primarily nuclear attack but with a fair amount of nuclear plant emergency response work.) But with all the good credible sources available on-line, both the public and news outlets are still doing a lot of fear mongering. Sadly, nothing new: The "most trusted news source in journalism" Walter Cronkite, mentioned in a broadcast that radiation was detected penetrating the 3ft thick TMI containment shell. Experts knew better of course, but you can imagine the panic among the public when they thought how bad radiation levels must be to go through three feet of concrete. I'm not sure the press has learned much in the ensuing quarter century.

14th March 2011, 12:08 PM	#334
excaza Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 3,632	Originally Posted by Hamradioguy I am astonished by how little critical thinking there is among the press. I'm not. Critical thinking seems to be declining in the press as years pass. Either that or I'm just noticing it more as I get older (I'm only 22).
	__________________

14th March 2011, 12:10 PM	#335
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: East of Sweeden Posts: 9,661	Originally Posted by Thunder so even if the core melts, we can still be ok? Yes. Core meltdown does not result in a nuclear explosion. The real world is a bit different from Civilization II in this respect.
	__________________ When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

14th March 2011, 12:18 PM	#336
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by Thunder ok, good to know. so even if the core melts, we ~~can~~ WILL still be ok? !!! that's good to know. Ftfy, Thunder. Take some deep breaths, pal. It'll be okay.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

14th March 2011, 12:19 PM	#337
BobTheDonkey Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 4,501	Originally Posted by technoextreme Having actually worked with industrial equipment I'm calling ******. There is no ********* plug on those generators. Head hurts immensely. That is a horribly stupid idea that has a good chance of completely destroying the cooling system. Agreed (with the 2nd part). WRT the plug, it's not entirely uncommon for mobile generators to have a plug for hooking up to a building (or aircraft, as the case may be). Chances are,however, that if the plug didn't fit it's because the generators weren't set up to produce the "right" kind of power. Which would by why the generators weren't just hardwired in. That's my initial impression and completely unsupported by anything other than my own personal experience working in an industrial/electrical/aircraft maintenance field.
	__________________ TSIG: Everyone wants to be 'special' but nobody wants to admit they ride the bus.

14th March 2011, 12:20 PM	#338
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,142	Originally Posted by Belz... Reading the Wikipedia page on Chernobyl, they mention a recent study that mentions "985,000" deaths resulting from the incident. Isn't that like 100 times more than liberal estimates used to say ? Is that even possible ? That is a BS number. I encourage you to research the real number and fix that entry (with proper citations and etc.)
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

14th March 2011, 12:22 PM	#339
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Ftfy, Thunder. Take some deep breaths, pal. It'll be okay. its just a lot to take in, seeing two nuclear plant cooling towers blow up like in a Hollywood action flick.

14th March 2011, 12:23 PM	#340
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,142	Originally Posted by Thunder its just a lot to take in, seeing two nuclear plant cooling towers blow up like in a Hollywood action flick. Actually what blew off was mostly the metal skin of the building built on top of the containment.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

14th March 2011, 12:29 PM	#341
Skwinty Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The far side Posts: 4,972	Originally Posted by Thunder its just a lot to take in, seeing two nuclear plant cooling towers blow up like in a Hollywood action flick. No cooling towers were involved. What you saw blowing up was the panel walls that shielded the crane and the crane operator. See page 16 of the pdf. The mark 1 BWR building.
	__________________ What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch. --Lily Tomlin

14th March 2011, 12:33 PM	#342
OMGturt1es Muse Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Elk Grove, California Posts: 851	Quote: Officials were clearly struggling to keep ahead of the crisis and prevent a worst case scenario: a complete reactor meltdown. In that case, the uranium core melts through the outer containment shell, releasing a wave of radiation and resulting in major, widespread health problems. From a local paper: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/14/347...#ixzz1GbVU4nDn My understanding is that this isn't really possible, but I'm not a nuclear engineer. Many here seem far more knowledgable than I. Is this even possible? If so, how likely?
	__________________ “Science is an integral part of culture. It's not this foreign thing, done by an arcane priesthood. It's one of the glories of the human intellectual tradition.” - Stephen Jay Gould

14th March 2011, 12:37 PM	#343
Skwinty Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The far side Posts: 4,972	Originally Posted by OMGturt1es Is this even possible? If so, how likely? If they ignored the cooling system failure and made no attempt to flood cool the pressure vessel then it is possible for the heat generated by the melting fuel to melt the steel pressure vessel. Of course no responsible power utility would ignore the cooling requirements, so not possible.
	__________________ What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch. --Lily Tomlin

14th March 2011, 12:42 PM	#344
technoextreme Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,786	Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey WRT the plug, it's not entirely uncommon for mobile generators to have a plug for hooking up to a building (or aircraft, as the case may be). Chances are,however, that if the plug didn't fit it's because the generators weren't set up to produce the "right" kind of power. Which would by why the generators weren't just hardwired in. That's my initial impression and completely unsupported by anything other than my own personal experience working in an industrial/electrical/aircraft maintenance field. I would agree with that but that would imply some inept stupidity on the part of someone.
	__________________ It's amazing how many of these "paranormal" icons seem to merge together. There always seem to be theories about how they link together in some way. I'm sure someone has a very good explanation as to how Bigfoot killed JFK to help cover Roswell.-Mark Mekes This isn't rocket surgery.-Bill Nye

14th March 2011, 12:45 PM	#345
BobTheDonkey Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 4,501	Originally Posted by technoextreme I would agree with that but that would imply some inept stupidity on the part of someone. I can see the conversation going: "Do you have portable generators? Get them here ricky-quick." when it should have been: "Do you have portable generators? What power do they output? Well, ** me, do you know anyone else that's open that does? No, the plant has no power and no cooling, have to find a generator or we're ********. You don't know of anyone else? Alright, thanks. Bye." 10-15s later, after finding the next entry in the yellow pages: "Do you have portable generators? What power do they output?..."
	__________________ TSIG: Everyone wants to be 'special' but nobody wants to admit they ride the bus.

14th March 2011, 01:00 PM	#346
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,500	Originally Posted by BenBurch That is a BS number. I encourage you to research the real number and fix that entry (with proper citations and etc.) I'm not very knowledgeable about which sources to look for in this instance. They say it comes from the New York Academy of Sciences. Are they reliable but misquoted ? Or what ?
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

14th March 2011, 01:02 PM	#347
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: East of Sweeden Posts: 9,661	So, even newspapers get their nuclear power info from Sid Meier.
	__________________ When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

14th March 2011, 01:04 PM	#348
Nosi Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,731	Originally Posted by Rasmus Yes, things can go wrong. Horribly wrong beyond our wildest dreams and way more wrong than we ever anticipated. Then, things would get really bad. But before I start worrying about that I should spend a lot of time planning my finances for the time when I will hit the lottery jackpot 5 times in a row ... People are busy browning themselves on the news channels about the 30 year old nuke plants in the USA, particularly the ones in California. A calmer head said that someone's bound to take a page from Japan's book and tighten the girding under them. Looking at the before and after maps of Japan, the nuke plants are some of the better looking real estate post quake.
Nosi Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,731	__________________ __________ Hiding from the

14th March 2011, 01:07 PM	#349
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by Nosi Looking at the before and after maps of Japan, the nuke plants are some of the better looking real estate post quake. This point needs to be continually emphasized. The bottom line is these plants were built to be very, very tough, and they held up under the worst conditions when pretty much everything else was laid waste.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

14th March 2011, 01:11 PM	#350
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,142	Originally Posted by Belz... I'm not very knowledgeable about which sources to look for in this instance. They say it comes from the New York Academy of Sciences. Are they reliable but misquoted ? Or what ? http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/.../en/index.html Not sure reading this if the estimate is 4000 or 8000 as they mention 4000 twice and I am not clear if they mean the same group... See also; http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/Howbad.htm http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html NOWHERE near the number you say the Wiki article has. I am utterly snowed-in with work today or I would fix this stupidity.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

14th March 2011, 01:13 PM	#351
Nosi Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,731	Originally Posted by Rasmus Yes, but until Chernobyl that was also true for all the nuclear power plants, wasn't it? And until last week the Japanese plants were quake safe, too ... No one gave a rat's backside about Japanese nuke plants two weeks ago!
Nosi Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,731	__________________ __________ Hiding from the

14th March 2011, 01:13 PM	#352
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,101	The media generally sounds more juvenile when discussing nuclear power than they do guns. I did not think it was possible, but I was wrong. My wife was asking about what she heard on the news. I assured her that while the overheating and subsequent use of seawater to cool the reactor cores ruined them, I was in no danger if the shipyard sent me to Japan to remediate any US ships involved. Ranb

14th March 2011, 01:15 PM	#353
MarkCorrigan Winter is Coming Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Middle of nowhere, UK. Posts: 7,112	Apparently the British expert on the BBC warned of meltdown causing a leak.
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz "the captain gives the order to osedlání/ he drives the horses to the groin/ There on the lunch/waiting women"

14th March 2011, 01:20 PM	#354
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	why don't they just dump a few million cubic yards of concrete onto all 4 cores?

14th March 2011, 01:29 PM	#355
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: East of Sweeden Posts: 9,661	Originally Posted by Ranb The media generally sounds more juvenile when discussing nuclear power than they do guns. It seems like many of the journalists writing/talking about this are environment correspondents (like the BBC guy doing the analysis here). What you'd want is a technical correspondent, but I suppose they're few and far between -- most journalists these days seem to have degrees in journalism and social sciences, and their technological and scientific illiteracy is just as bad as that of Joe Average.
	__________________ When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips