The Fukushima Effect

[Safetykitten]

Can you learn a lot of shit in a breakroom! It's amazing the things you learn about the current world. First Obama will declare complete control over the military and he will be the President for life. Not a horrible concept for me, although a society in an arrested stage of development in anything, let alone no high speed rail would be a fucking monumental bummer. Another person is postulating on the effects of gun control in Arizona, this ties in nicely with the Obama/God/Dictator/Anti-Christ theory, another person is wondering if their HC will be effected by the new HC laws.

But the thing about all this talking with fellow workers in a break room is that all the stuff that went before it, that stuff is not important. How we got here is never really discussed and the issue is good or bad right now and what happened before is well, ok they guess, or real bad they guess...but really who cares about that past stuff.

Right now home values in Phoenix are way up. Good? Bad? Indifferent? Well it's GOOD! Banks, investment groups, your neighbor are busy inflating another bubble. This is so good, and it's good news for everyone. Well...except for those people that were screwed over royally by corrupt banks. Oh they got money didn't they? That's what I heard, so it's all good. All those people and ruined lives? What about them?

The healthcare thing is on a roll. California published the goods on it's plan. Look! It's affordable... kinda, maybe, well let's just go with it. It looks good on paper and Jesus if you can't afford it, you probably are a loser. Really. How did we get this? Oh some shit about the congress doing something and Obama wanting something and he did something and well here it is. Is it THAT important how it happened? Look what we got...well we got something but it looks good now!

Unemployment is down too! It's in a great zone. What kind of jobs? So what, who cares. All I know is that it is down. What about those numbers? Please do not bore me with the huge groups of people that gave up, retired, or just wasted away by trying to get a job. And they really should be happy to have a part time job if they got one.

Everyone loves the ocean, and spending time at the beach is great, except when it is full of radiation. What? Who said it was? I have not heard about that fuckishimito thing for a while, so it must be all good? Why are people like you such a buzz kill? If there was something wrong they would say something. So jump in the surf and shut up.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Are the levels of radiation in the ocean above background? Dangerous?

Lethal?

What are the levels of radiation in the ocean where you live?

[RobertEarl]

3. It's all fine

Quit worrying. Radiation is good for you. It's like sunshine, bananas and flying in an airplane, and who doesn't like to fly?

Besides, oceans are lethal to humans. Humans can't live in the ocean, so who cares if the oceans are more poison-us? There are more important things than oceans to worry about. So, that is why they make sure that people like you don't know about background radiation and all that other sciency stuff.

[Silent3]

4. So asking what the actual radiation levels are...

...is to you the moral equivalent of saying "Who cares? It's all fine!"?

[Rex]

6. I think that is sarcasm.

nt.

[Silent3]

9. I interpreted the comment as sarcasm...

...rather absurd, misdirected sarcasm.

[RobertEarl]

13. Well, yes, indeed

Fukushima blowing sky-high is rather fucking absurd. Its radiation in the ocean is too.

Silent3, are you a nuke supporter, or anti-nuke?

[Buzz Clik]

16. Are you with us or against us. Right, brother Earl?

Let's draw the line in the sand and see who the true believers really are.

[Silent3]

62. Why would you need to know that...

...in order to deal with whether or not radiation hazards can or cannot ever be exaggerated?

Do you imagine pro-nuke means you never, ever worry about any amount of radiation?

Do you imagine anti-nuke means that any quantity of radiation leakage in Fukishima must be interpreted as all oceans everywhere being lethally radioactive?

[RobertEarl]

63. I don't need to know

Just a question. You don't have to answer.

Radiation problems have been played down ever since we bombed Hiroshima and the governments tried to cover up the lasting effects. You have to wonder if there is a correlation between the nuclear age and cancers. We know radiation kills. It causes gene damage. Especially in small rapidly reproducing creatures. Like birds and insects.

It does seem pro-nukers do tend to ignore the science and claim that radiation is somehow good for you, so pro-nukers are like people who are climate change deniers. Not too smart.

We shall see what Fukushima does to the Pacific ocean. We do know that the Atlantic got dosed via air deposition, but the Pacific has also a lot of water pollution. There have been reports of sea lion problems in the Pacific. Salmon runs last year in Alaska were at record lows.

Like I say, considering the lies from the industry which are well known, any blind support for nukes from a poster here, does put one in a bad light. Like to know what kind of person I am conversing with, that's why I asked if you were pro-nuke.

I know way too much to be a pro-nuker. I've seen through the lies.

[Silent3]

64. Please link to serious claims that "radiation is good for you".

Really? You think "have some radiation, it's good for you!" is a typical pro-nuke argument? Or are you so dedicated to absurd black/white thinking and creating straw men that if someone compares the intensity of a man-made radiation leak to natural background radiation, in your book that's as good as saying "radiation is good for you!"?

Besides, why are you worried about radiation at all? Can't you simply believe that it's harmless, and your belief will make is so? Can't you simply choose to be immune to any ill effects from radiation, and your act of will will make it so?

[RobertEarl]

66. Eh?

Yes. Pro-nukes have many times made the claim that radiation is good for you. Indeed, radiation is good for you.

The line is whether the radiation is natural, like the sun's radiation, which life as we know it could not exist, and across that line is the man made radiation that comes from plutonium and a host of others.

So, as you can see, I am not a black/white thinker. Tell ya what, you have personally gone after me several times now, and you and I have never conversed before. Seems you have a bug somewhere the sun don't shine?

Just let it out. Bring it.

[Silent3]

74. So, you agree that radiation is good for you...

...a position you scoffed at before? Either you're contradicting yourself, or you know damn well you meant radiation in the sense of "radioactive materials", in the sense of alpha, beta, and gamma emmissions, and that my request for links to validate that "radiation is good for you" is a common pro-nuke defense would have to apply to that meaning.

Of course, I don't expect you'll provide the requested links. I suspect you'll just be evasive and vague and muddled some more, likely in a scattershot way that would give me too many different directions to have to chase down if I bother to argue with you.

No, we've never conversed before. I've just happened to stumble across your posts recently, starting with the silly "The Secret" type drivel in the Religion forum, and they've all been annoying enough to be worthy of comment.

[RobertEarl]

75. Good dancing,

I take you are a pro-nuke person?

And that you hate the truth that man made nuclear radiation is being called out for the deadly way it effects life?

[Silent3]

78. You took it wrong.

This response to another post will do well as a response to your post as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2919289

[xenoturkey]

79. Discussion

Were you not a Mod for a long time? I guess i'll find out in my answer...

Nobody is pro radiation or will say radiation is good for you. I think Madame Curie put that issue to rest.

Being pro nuke (Which im not totally, im kinda polarized on the issue) doesn't mean you want to hurt the world or something. Nuclear technology has gotten so much safer over the years. Fukushima was a disaster, I readily admit.

I also live in Alaska and the salmon runs have been up or down for decades and who knows why.

Anyway also English is not my first language so sorry if anything is not what I meant to type.

Laila tov.

[RobertEarl]

80. No. No mod

For 18 months now, I have been here discussing Fukushima and radiation. As I relate in my first post in this thread, people did try to tell us that radiation you get from bananas, airplane flights, and sunshine is the same as what we get from Fukushima. I kid you not. Have no links because they have stopped saying that.

Being pro-nuke does not mean someone wants to hurt the world. It means they don't understand the damage nukes can do to hurt the world. The proof is there. The science is there.

True, salmon runs do have highs and lows. But I read sometime back that in one pristine place the run had been so low they had to close it down. Fukushima has polluted the Pacific more than ever, see this thorough report about the science:

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewPrintedIssue.do?archives=true&sortBy=printed&o=read&id=422

Thanks for your kind reply, mostly what we get is replies like the silent's, or worse. I discuss this matter because I feel it is a very grave threat to the future. Old men like me probably won't be too affected, but the wildlife and future humans will be if we don't get serious and clean it all up, soon.

[SidDithers]

84. "For 18 months"...

C'mon. Who are you trying to fool. You've been discussing nuclear issues at DU since at least 2004. You can admit that you created a new account in Dec 2011, and abandoned your old one in Feb 2012.

I don't think it's a big deal that you changed your name, but you should disclose your old identity, so posters know who they're dealing with. And you certainly shouldn't pretend that you've only been here or 18 months. DU3 is all about transparency. It's not really right that only one side of a discussion (you) knows when there has been history between posters.

Sid

[RobertEarl]

8. Buzz is lightyears beyond us mere mortals

Him asking about radiation is a joke.

Hahahaha.

I'm sure he'll pop in soon again and clear all that up for you. Eh, Buzz?

[Buzz Clik]

14. Somthing relevant to shine a little light on our sarcastic friend:

Some scientists would sell their mothers

Some.

So here's an English major sitting there and some mother seller comes along with a piled high degree and seduces the writer into believing they are god. Yeah, it's a problem.

So damn easy to just bend over and repeat what 'god' says.

It seems our friend is more interested in fear than science.

Gee, RobertEarl, I am sorry to be such an inconvenience to you.

[marions ghost]

7. Sunshine, bananas, and flying

I'd laugh, if it weren't so unfunny --these stupid comparisons people have made to the radiation release at Fukushima.

Oh darn. Just don't eat fish.

[Rex]

10. Or get around a wind turbine farm!

Evidently they cause cancer...NO LIE, I heard it here on DU!

[Silent3]

65. The fact that some people are clearly motivated to underplay and deny real radiation hazards...

...does not mean that the only solution to this problem is to take a hard opposite stance, to adopt an absurd fear that every blip on a Geiger counter is a hideous corporate death ray of a type that benevolent Mother Nature would never, ever inflict on her precious children, and that anyone who's hair isn't on fire about every radiation risks must either be engaged in a cover-up, or be a fool that fell for a cover-up.

[marions ghost]

67. Radiation is cumulative

it's worth being aware of how much is in the food chain, the water and air. Do you really want us to raise the "allowable levels" like Japan has done?

Check out:

http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radstds/cbgnirspsrlascfscommentstoncrp41513.pdf

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/04/27/inspector-general-faults-epa-radiation-monitoring/

"Broken monitors, parts shortages, “relaxed quality controls” and a lack of volunteer operators left 25 of the EPA’s 124 stationary monitors out of service for an average of 130 days at the beginning of the Fukushima disaster, according to the OIG. Two monitors—in Harlingen, Texas and Raleigh, North Carolina—were out of service for more than a year.

“EPA’s RadNet program will remain vulnerable until it is managed with the urgency and priority that the Agency reports it to have to its mission,” the Inspector General concludes in an audit released last week.

“If RadNet is not managed as a high-priority program, EPA may not have the needed data before, during, and after a critical event such as the Japan nuclear incident. Such data are crucial to determine levels of airborne radioactivity that may negatively affect public health and the environment.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/04/27/inspector-general-faults-epa-radiation-monitoring/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/04/10/epa-draft-stirs-fears-of-radically-relaxed-radiation-guidelines/

[Silent3]

68. Did I ever say, or even come close to hinting, that "allowable levels" should be raised?

Did I deny cumulative effect?

If not, then why your particular questions and remarks in response to my post?

[marions ghost]

69. I took your post to mean

that there's no cause for concern.

[Silent3]

70. And it would exactly prove the point of my post...

...interpreting it that way, demonstrating a lack of ability (or desire) to account for anything in the middle ground between a total lack of concern and hair-on-fire paranoia.

[marions ghost]

71. If you equate 2 extremes as you did

you don't give credibility to the middle. You imply that the two extremes dominate the issue.

The middle position is left undefined with no parameters.

[Silent3]

73. You're supposed to be able imagine and account for the range of middle positions yourself.

I was illustrating the extremes, not arguing from them or for them. You're the one who started with "Sunshine, bananas, and flying", acting as if that was the prime illustration for anyone who would ask, as Buzz Click did, "Are the levels of radiation in the ocean above background? Dangerous? Lethal?" -- all of which are valid questions, deserving answers, not a rush to find the nearest straw man.

[marions ghost]

76. If these are valid questions

why do they feel like traps?

Are we going to sit here and trade sarcasms?

This kind of ridiculous twisting is what happens when you can't get accurate data from the government and when they take the teeth out of the EPA.

Obviously you are pro nuclear, so you & I will never agree.

[Silent3]

77. Obviously?

Actually, I'm not pro-nuclear.

I'm not stridently opposed to nuclear power either. Is that too subtle for you? Does my position have to be a distinct binary choice so you can gather your presuppositions together and figure out which convenient box to shoehorn me into?

I can see limited use of nuclear as a stop-gap measure while we put more effort into better, cleaner, renewable sources of energy, but only with safer, standardized reactor designs, a clear plan for waste disposal, and much smarter location management (instead of doing stupid things like parking reactors on seismic faults or in the path of tsunamis). That's pretty close to a "no" position on nuclear given that all of those conditions aren't likely to be met.

But it's not like coal and oil are actually so much safer. The deaths and environmental degradation they cause simply aren't as sudden as spectacular as reactor meltdowns -- the occasional Gulf of Mexico oil spill aside. We're not going to somehow switch to wind and solar and geothermal or some new thing like fusion overnight, so it's all a matter of timing and tradeoffs.

"why do they feel like traps?"

Because you're taking an intellectually lazy approach to evaluating the questions?

[marions ghost]

81. If you have to use

insults I'm not listening.

Arguments plus insults are a trademark of the pro nuke, nuclear apologist crowd.

Nuclear as a stop-gap's days are over. The downside isn't worth it (same with fracking).

Cya

[Silent3]

82. You wouldn't listen no matter what...

...to anything that didn't conform to your preconceived oversimplifications anyway. Not liking my tone just gives you a convenient excuse to feel more smug about sticking with your poor reasoning and failed guesswork about my positions.

[marions ghost]

83. Who would like your tone?

Who would respond to your condescending snark?

Get real.

[Silent3]

85. Of course you don't like the tone.

After all, I'm just giving you back the "Sunshine, bananas, and flying... Oh darn. Just don't eat fish." tone you started with. Who would expect you to like that?

[marions ghost]

86. I was replying to RobertEarl Post #3

who originally said "sunshine, bananas and flying"-- because I agree with him. The arguments from nuclear apologists often go down the road of ridiculous comparisons, and that's what he was referring to. "Don't eat fish" is a reality in many places, now in areas of the Pacific after Fukushima. That makes me very sad how little we value the animals and benefits of the sea.

So if you took my reply to RobertEarl personally, that's not my fault. You're going to read lots of things on message boards you don't agree with. You can disagree in a non-inflammatory tone, unless you're just looking for a fight. Less caffeine maybe?

[Silent3]

87. Agreeing with that and then expanding upon it...

...even if you aren't directly being rude to any one particular poster in the thread is still participating in a ludicrously oversimplified broad-brush attack of anyone who would question the accuracy of your rhetoric. The tone still sucks, it was snarky and snide, and hardly deserving of a gentle, oh-so-sensitive reply.

If you say earthquakes are bad, then say "An earthquake killed one million people is San Francisco in 1906!", and someone then challenges your "fact" and asks you, "One million? Really?" (the death toll was closer to 3000), that doesn't make the questioner "pro earthquake".

That's pretty much how you and RobertEarl are handling any questioning of over-the-top radiation exaggeration and paranoia.

[marions ghost]

88. Are you the thread police?

I flock with my like-minded peeps. You can fly with yours. Nobody attacked you personally. It's all opinion. It's all chat. There's no reason to have interaction that involves negativity or insults or anyone getting themselves all hot & bothered. Why feel you have to be a vigilante for stomping out whatever you don't like to see on a message board. That's too big a job. Relaaaaxxxx.

Develop Your Sense of Humor:

[Silent3]

89. In other words...

"Yeah, I'm full of shit, but it's just idle chit-chat, I'm having fun, so leave me alone!"

[marions ghost]

91. Yep

[Buzz Clik]

12. Quick rejoinder followed by a loaded question.

Follow-up details with a pithy concluding comment.

[RobertEarl]

18. You really are clueless?

And here you try to come across as the smartest one on DU. Fooled me. Not.

What is the background level of the ocean? That is like asking what temperature is the ocean.

So don't be cute. Don't even try. Disney characters can be cute, but willful radiation ignorance, and purposely dumb questions are not.

[Buzz Clik]

19. That's right, Earl. Ignorance is your friend. When all you have to sell is fear, keep science away.

Seriously -- who the hell would ever measure the radiation levels in the ocean? Who'd want to know?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/california-radiation-levels/

Keep it coming, Earl. This is going to turn out quite badly for you.

[RobertEarl]

20. Radiation levels around California

So what are they? Come on, out with it, Buzz. Tell us what you know about the radiation levels around California.

Tell us there is nothing to worry about. All the science I have seen says that manmade radiation is NOT good for anything but rocks. That includes radioactive cesiums, strontiums, plutoniums, and another hundred -iums, that man had conjured up in his nuke plants.

Here's your chance to save us all... go for it, be a hero!

[Buzz Clik]

21. Such ugly, ugly responses. Do you think that the data do not exist?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/california-radiation-levels/

Silly, silly person.

You are going to regret this, and I will enjoy this quite thoroughly.

[RobertEarl]

22. Are you pro-nuke?

Do you have a bias for protecting nuclear power plants?

[Buzz Clik]

23. I asked a question of the author of the OP if they had any knowledge of rad dangers in the ocean.

And this is where you've taken us?

I don't play fetch. I will not chase you down the rabbit hole. If you want to debate the topic at hand, I am anxious to do so.

If you want to trumpet your causes, I am under not obligation to follow your lead.

So, let's get back to the complete lack of knowledge of background radiation in the ocean. Do you still stand by that claim? The radiation levels in the ocean are as variable as the temperature and/or we know nothing at all about them?

[RobertEarl]

25. What do you know?

You have managed a link. Did you read your link? What info did it impart to you? Can you tell us what your link claims?

[Buzz Clik]

27. Here's more.

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm

Lots and lots of data. Find any you like?

[zappaman]

30. 'Find any you like?'

I doubt he will.
But he has the right to Be Free to not understand what is presented to him.

[RobertEarl]

31. Did you find anything you liked at your link?

The problem with radiation is the accumulation over time. Most natural radiation is of a transitive nature in that it decays rapidly leaving benign daughters.

The dark ugliness of some of the man made stuff is that it has sits around decaying for a long long time and many of the daughter isotopes are themselves deadly.

The science says that life on this planet has grown with, and adapted too, natural radiation. This new, man made radiation is a killer. But over time, say 1,000 years, life may adapt.

[zappaman]

24. Heh.

This thread is a winner!
But Be Free to continue to embarrass yourself.

[RobertEarl]

26. Heh. Hmmm

Another long term poster with an empty journal. What are y'all hiding?

You and Buzz, empty, empty, empty.

[RobertEarl]

34. Seriously?

You post a link to a website that is just an advertising site as if it were some kind of science based site? Seriously?

Well, sadly, that is what we have come to expect from the nuke supporters. They have nothing to stand on. All they can do is post links anymore to some joe-blow's site who needs money so he can travel the world. Buzz, please, tell me you did not donate to Ken.

[Buzz Clik]

35. You didn't like Rockwell's data (or your first response to it)?

No problem. I gave you another: http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm

Do you hate Idaho State University, too? Or just data...

[RobertEarl]

37. OMG, you did donate to him?

Jeeez, Buzz, you shouldn't have. That is just so wrong.

Say, tho, I have some nice real estate you can't live without. Cheap. It is close to Fukushima, but it's all safe there now. They've washed all that junk into the sea and you can't see the radiation from shore. The company there is monitoring and it's all like, y'know, 23cpm, forever more. Just mail me a check and it's all yours.

[Buzz Clik]

39. You really aren't going to comment on any of the data, are you?

Or the fact that the data exist.

Let me pose the same question to you that I posed in response to the OP: is the Pacific ocean toxic with radiation? Harmful? Above background?

Is there any real justification for getting hysterical, or do you stir up fear just for fun?

[RobertEarl]

40. Buzz, buzze, buzzed

You have lost it, dude.

Support for nukes is so yesterday. Time and again we have discussed this on DU and I have tried to help you get past the "Radiation is good for you" bullshit. Really, you are just NO fun anymore. Why, you can't even come up with anything in your own words that makes anyone feel nukes are good for us. But I'm sure Ken is sending you postcards from his journeys?

[Buzz Clik]

43. And, we're done for this thread.

You have defined yourself. I'll know to dismiss you much earlier next time.

[RobertEarl]

44. What's the background radiation in the ocean, Buzz?

You never did tell us what you think you know. And you have an empty journal.

It has been my pleasure to try and educate you. I find that bringing anyone up and away from such ignorance as we found you -- posting a link to some guy's site begging for money, as nuke science -- as a public service.

Too long of a sentence for you to grok? Here is is in short: Now you fucking know better.

[Buzz Clik]

45. Nice try. I gave you links with that information. Now, goodbye.

[FBaggins]

46. Many many MANY times the amount that Fukushima released

as has been pointed out to you many times.

Watch the video here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=44705

Let us know if you need any of the big words explained.

[RobertEarl]

48. You again?

How much has been released from Fukushima?

Where are the cores?

How did building 4 turn to rubble?

Why are numbers 1, 2 and 3 reactors not safe enough for humans, or even robots?

Frankly, dude, what you have to offer about Fukushima makes Buzz look like a genius. And he's posting up advertising sites !

In short, you are imo, a nuclear salesman. A used nuke salesman. Nobody is buying that bs anymore.

[FBaggins]

49. Wow! You watched that entire 30-minute video...

... in seven minutes?

Impressive.

As for your nonsense questions... they've been answered here on more than one occasion. Why would anyone waste their time replying yet again when you obviously have some form of memory impairment on the issue?

But don't worry... I'm sure that nobody else noticed your attempt at diversion.

[RobertEarl]

50. Hey, genius

I did not watch that fucking video. Why the fuck should I?

The cores have melted through the containment and groundwater is flushing them into the Pacific. 24/7.

They can't get close to the cores because they are continuously radiating. So bad robots stop working.

#4 spent fuel pool caught on fire because it lost cooling water and burned down the concrete structure.

Nothing much has changed since the explosions and fires and it will take over 40 years to be cleaned up.

There is a plume of radiation from Fukushima in the middle of the Pacific headed for California.

And all you have is a video? A 30 minute video to explain what I just did in seconds?

[FBaggins]

51. Aww... poor baby

The video is from Helen Caldicott's sham "symposium". What better source could an anti-nuke nutcase get?

Why should you watch it? No particular reason. It would just make you look slightly less ridiculous to insist on a source and then actually review it when provided.

But I agree... at this point, that "slightly" is so small it's probably not worth the effort.

I see that you've reposted your oft-debunked nonsensical screen. But since this is GD... let's repeat the debunking for the audience.

The cores have melted through the containment and groundwater is flushing them into the Pacific. 24/7.

Nope. The cores remain within the primary containment.

They can't get close to the cores because they are continuously radiating.So bad robots stop working.

Now you shift from "can't enter the buildings" to "can't get close to the cores"? Think anyone wonders why that is? Nobody gets "close to the cores" in normal reactors either.

#4 spent fuel pool caught on fire because it lost cooling water and burned down the concrete structure.

Nope - another wild fantasy-land world you're living in. SFP #4 never caught fire at all... nor lost cooling water... nor burned down. There was a hydrogen explosion that blew the top off of the building... but the (unburned) fuel is still right there in the pool.

There is a plume of radiation from Fukushima in the middle of the Pacific headed for California.

A "plume" that is now at around 10 Bq per ton of water. Big deal. The drinking water standard (prior to any debate about adjustments) is hundreds of times higher than that.

And all you have is a video? A 30 minute video to explain what I just did in seconds?

Nope. A video that answers your question about how much radiation was already in the Pacific ocean.

[RobertEarl]

52. The oceans had radiation?

Well hell yeah, of course they did. Duh.

And now they have more. Can you add? 1 + 1 = 2. More. And this plume consists of long lasting man made radioactive particles. This is a situation we have never had to deal with before. And you try to sell it as normal. You are the one living a fantasy, thinking nothing will change. Or has changed. Shows you have no science background or basic knowledge besides what you are being fed.

And your fantasy that #4 fuel pool stayed intact is just plain dumb. The plant will never return to service. It is waste. Total ruins. They are building a new structure just so they get at the rods and then we'll see just how melted they are.

The cores in the other reactors are not contained. Except you could say they are contained by the ground and the sky. You may be the last person on earth that doesn't understand that.

Of course if you could prove otherwise, you would show the video. Instead you cherry pick out the comments of a pro-nuke asswipe that Helen was kind enough to let be included in her symposium.

Good on Helen, she is a class act, who agrees with me.

[FBaggins]

53. You should stick with "duh"

At least you wouldn't be pretending knowledge that you lack.

And this plume consists of long lasting man made radioactive particles.

Just like the far larger amounts of manmade cesium/plutonium/etc that had been there for decades.

This is a situation we have never had to deal with before.

Check that previous reply again. We've been dealing with FAR larger amounts for several decades.

And your fantasy that #4 fuel pool stayed intact is just plain dumb. The plant will never return to service.



So those are the two options in your world? Either it will return to service by next friday or it burned down?

They are building a new structure just so they get at the rods and then we'll see just how melted they are.

You don't think the multiple images from inside the pool show pretty clearly that the fuel isn't melted? Even with your "three monkeys" aproach to science, you're stuck with the fact that what you pretend happened wasn't physically possible unless the water rapidly drained from the pool (because the explosion was LONG before the water could have heated up and boiled off). And we now know beyond any shadow of a doubt that there's no such leak in the pool. At one point, we thought that the much larger explosion at #3 had damaged the pool at #4... but it didn't take long to realize that that wasn't the case.

The cores in the other reactors are not contained. Except you could say they are contained by the ground and the sky. You may be the last person on earth that doesn't understand that.

There is no credible source that says that the cores are anywhere but right there in the primary containment. Not one. There is lots of speculation regarding how much of the core is still within the RPV and how much fell to the floor of the containment... but nobody with any credibility at all thinks that they burned through several feet of steel reinforced concrete.


Instead you cherry pick out the comments of a pro-nuke

I pointed you to the entire video that was not only from a nutty anti-nuke group, but was posted by one of our most anti-nuke DUers (obviously without watching it). The speaker is in no way "pro-nuke".

He's merely incapable of lying about what the science says just because the audience is used to it. Poor guy must have had a hard time keeping a straight face.

[RobertEarl]

54. Heh.

We've been dealing with FAR larger amounts for several decades.

You can't name any far larger plume in the Pacific. There has never been one.

Cores: So, before the explosion the cores were contained and not leaking to the atmosphere, right? The idea of contained is that the atmosphere is separate from the radiating cores. Duh! But now the cores are radiating to the atmosphere and you say the cores are contained? The plume in the Pacific is from the cores. Particles from the cores are spread out all over the planet. Some of the cores remain somewhere within the building or underneath. Some of the core from Chernobyl, the best idea we have of a core melting, is found under the building. And in ten, twenty years, we'll know about Fukushima's core.

[FBaggins]

55. I can't?

You can't name any far larger plume in the Pacific. There has never been one.

Really?

I'll give you a hint.




Cores: So, before the explosion the cores were contained and not leaking to the atmosphere, right?

Not if you come up with the false definition of "contained" that instead refers to all radioactive materials rather than the cores themselves. Because there were radioactive releases well before the explosions.

The idea of contained is that the atmosphere is separate from the radiating cores. Duh!

Nope. But I can see why you would want to cling to that strawman.

But now the cores are radiating to the atmosphere

No they aren't. You have yet again confused radiation and radioactive elements. There has been (and continues to be) a release of radioactive material... but the cores themselves have not excaped the primary containment.

The plume in the Pacific is from the cores. Particles from the cores are spread out all over the planet. Some of the cores remain somewhere within the building or underneath.

Pretty ridiculous. What does a core weigh? What percentage of that core weight is somewhere other than within the containment? Hint... you're going to need extra decimal places. Lots of 'em.

Some of the core from Chernobyl, the best idea we have of a core melting, is found under the building.

Yep. And the difference between the two is obvious. Because the percentage of the core that really is outside of containment (if Chernobyl had one... which it really didn't) is orders of magnitude greater than at Fukushima. In that case, the core really did explode.

[RobertEarl]

56. The nuclear power industry is dying

And before Fukushima, just two years ago, it was coming back.

Now that Fukushima has spread its crap around the world, the nuclear renaissance is dead. We tried to tell the world this was what would happen, but they did not listen. They said they had it all under control. They lied. They are still lying.

The whole world has been effected and no amount of spin is going to change that fact. Fukushima is and will be spreading its nuclear waste and its pollution for years and years.

No amount of spin is going to change any of that.

[FBaggins]

57. Having trouble sticking to one topic (or six)?

Think anyone here is having a tough time understanding why that is?

Go ahead... tell us again how silly it is to think that scores of nuclear weapons exploding in the Pacific miraculously failed to create any "plumes" in the ocean.

The nuclear power industry is dying - And before Fukushima, just two years ago, it was coming back.

Really? You may have missed the news. It isn't "coming back" as strongly/quickly as it was pre-Fukushima, but there are LOTS of reactor projects in development around the world right now (and more in planning). You're nuts if you think it's "dying".

Only a tiny number of countries that previously had nuclear construction plans have changed them... but several countries have pushed right ahead. China, India, Russia, U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Turkey. The UK is expected to announce in the next few weeks and Canada just approved new reactors... and of course five reactors are under construction here in the US (including one right down the road from you).

And no amount of spin is going to change any of that.

[RobertEarl]

59. It is dying

Solar is taking over. Nukes are too expensive, too dangerous, too polluting.

Now we just sit and wait for another big explosion. It will happen. The plants are doomed to explode. Ticking time bombs.

Sure, there are a few fucking idiots that are building new plants. Just as there are idiots who still deny global warming.

Japan's economy is being eaten alive by their nukes sitting unused. Here there is no private financing for nukes, it has to be subsidized. Germany is closing their plants and France will soon. Nukes cost too much.

Meanwhile the planet reels from the Fukushima pollution. It is pollution on the grandest scale. It took 50 years for the idiots to STFU about air pollution, it will only take another 2 years for the pro-nukers to be in the same boat.

People are rising up, casting off the lies of the nuke industry and saying no. The chorus is everyday a little louder. The real info is getting out.

[FBaggins]

60. Having trouble getting a visa, eh?

Look... if you want to visit reality... maybe I can sneak you over the border.

Solar is taking over. Nukes are too expensive, too dangerous, too polluting.

Solar is doing great... but it isn't close to "taking over". Even at prices where they can't break even (and with continued government support), they can't seem to sell their supply glut. Go ahead and take the most successful expansion (Germany) and compare the total generation from solar last year to that produced by nuclear plants. "Taking over" is a pipe dream.

Sure, there are a few fucking idiots that are building new plants. Just as there are idiots who still deny global warming.

A few? Is your alternate reality chemically enhanced? That's much be some good stuff!

Japan's economy is being eaten alive by their nukes sitting unused.

Lol. Which is why they won't leave them unused.

Here there is no private financing for nukes

That's strange. The four newest ones still haven't received any public financing and yet they are about 40% complete.

Germany is closing their plants and France will soon.

Reallly? France is closing their plants "soon"? How long is "soon" in your imaginary world?

Meanwhile the planet reels from the Fukushima pollution

"Reels" eh? You've confused the irrationally paranoid fraction of 1% with "the planet".

[RobertEarl]

61. That's all you have?

Sad isn't it, to see your cherished industry dying?

People are no longer believing the lies from the nukers. Even here on DU nuke support has gone from 50% to about 10% in two years. Bad trend for the pro-nukers.

Saw a report from France that stated when they have a Fukushima like event, the country will not be able to afford the clean up. Like Japan. Latest estimate is over 1 trillion for cleanup and we all know how the estimated costs are always real low.

1 trillion dollars to clean up Fukushima. 40 + years! My God, what a stupid fucking mess they have on their hands. It will break Japan down so bad they will never recover.

And the liars from the industry said it couldn't happen. Hell, they even now after 50 years don't have a safe way to store the waste. The private insurers got smart from the beginning when they denied writing insurance policies for nukes. They know what the gig is.

Jimmy Carter tried to get us off nukes and fossil fuels, but the liars won, and here we are facing a more polluted and more dangerous world. I feel sorry for the children. Their world is being altered right before their eyes, because of the lies.

[marions ghost]

90. +++++

Nukes & fracking = loser.

[Octafish]

41. Nothing in all that 'data' to indicate presence of radionuclides from Fukushima.

Specifically, strontium, americium, plutonium or any other radioactive element that your "data" did not measure.

Of course, there is no mention of "hot particles."

[Buzz Clik]

42. You're kinda coming in the middle of this. I was illustrating that background data are available.

However, let me point out that if the ocean water is sitting at background for radiation, attempting to trace the source of radiation is pointless other than as an academic exercise. "Hot particles" will register as radiation unless the water is heavily filtered first.

[FBaggins]

47. See the link in post #46 for a comparison.

Specifically, strontium, americium, plutonium

They can't do that because the levels in the ocean (except for right off of the plant and right after the event) are too low to identify any difference with existing levels. The pre-existing levels are many orders of magnitude above what was released.

[hunter]

2. One thing I do know, if a tsunami ever hits the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station...

... we are all screwed.

Have a nice day.

[FBaggins]

15. I'll say!

Especially since the plant is 200+ miles from the Pacific (and about 1,000 feet above sea level). That would have to be one heck of a tsunami.

[Buzz Clik]

17. LOL!

Shhh!

Probably meant Diablo Canyon.

[siligut]

28. Do you mean after California falls into the ocean?

Or do you mean that a tsunami that large would signal weather so extreme that it would be the end of life as we know it?

[Buzz Clik]

36. In all fairness, he is correct:

"if a tsunami ever hits the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, we're screwed."

It's hard to argue against that, improbable as such an event may be.

[siligut]

38. I believed him, I was just trying to figure out how

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is landlocked.

[FarCenter]

5. The internet is like a great big breakroom

Or a neighborhood bar an hour before closing time.

[Buzz Clik]

11. +1

[RC]

29. I'll give that one a 10.

And throw in a long Happy Hour at midnight.

[WinkyDink]

32. Hey---My supermarket advertises "Gulf Shrimp!" like that's a good thing!

[marions ghost]

33. Meanwhile my marine science friends say

"ask where your shrimp comes from..."

[WinkyDink]

72. Yep!

[upi402]

58. my sig line

explains why chickens support colonel sanders


easy to fool chickens