This message was self-deleted by its author

[betsuni]

This message was self-deleted by its author (betsuni) on Sat Jul 16, 2022, 12:34 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[catbyte]

1. Robots "dying" from too much radiation at Fukushima doesn't sound good at all.

Robots keep “dying” from radiation in Fukushima, making the nuclear fallout investigation impossible

Thursday, March 09, 2017 by: Tracey Watson

On 11 March 2011, Japan was hit by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake, followed shortly thereafter by a huge tsunami, leaving 16,000 people dead and 160,000 homeless. The Fukushima Daiichi power plant, one of the 15 largest in the world, sustained serious damage in the disaster, resulting in the meltdown of three nuclear reactors. The Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) – the company that operated the plant before the disaster – has spent the last six years trying to contain the mess and figuring out how to clean it up.

In spite of all their efforts to contain the radiation and prevent it from contaminating the groundwater, TEPCO has made very little progress. It is estimated that the decommissioning of the plant will take 40 years and cost many billions of dollars. Part of the problem is the fact that radiation levels are so high that humans would die if they got close, but it is vital to try to find out what damage has been sustained. Robotic engineer, Hiroshi Endo, told the LA Times that what happens inside a nuclear reactor after a meltdown is unknown, and the environment is less predictable than space. TEPCO’s solution has been to send more than 100 robots in to try to assess the damage, but this plan has proven less than satisfactory, because the radiation is proving to be too much for the robots, and they, too, keep “dying.” (RELATED: Find out how radiation from Fukushima has tainted U.S. milk supplies.)

Last month, TEPCO sent a robot built by Toshiba Corp into the No. 2 reactor core to try to find the 600 tons of debris and nuclear fuel trapped by the disaster. It “died” in less than a day without getting to the grate that would have given the company a view of the area where they suspect the residue is located.

Robots sent in on two previous occasions met with similar fates; one got itself stuck in a gap, and the other was abandoned after finding no fuel despite six days of searching.

Naohiro Masuda, the head of decommissioning for TEPCO, has acknowledged that they will have to start thinking “out of the box” if they are ever going to be able to examine the bottom of the core and determine where the melted debris is located.

And that out of the box thinking needs to happen quickly if they are to meet their schedule of beginning the actual clean-up work in 2021.

snip...........

What a goddamned disaster, and no end in sight.



http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-03-09-robots-keep-on-dying-from-radiation-in-fukushima-making-the-nuclear-fallout-investigation-impossible.html

[betsuni]

2. We're supposed to forget about it, it's hardly ever mentioned.

An unpleasant topic. Sometimes I remember it with a shock, and think what the hell.

[NNadir]

8. Are you laboring under the illusion that a robot would do well in the combustion chamber...

...of a coal plant?

Do you not care that the coal plant, whenever it operates will kill people, lots of people.

Are you absolutely certain that the computer you are using to complain about an minor engineering problem at the reactors is not powered by coal, gas, or oil that will kill people immediately at a rate of about 800 human beings an hour - the death rate from air pollution on this planet?

Have you heard of anyone at all who has died from the materials inside the reactors, or are you simply more concerned about robots than human beings.

Something here is disgusting, and trust me, it's not the robots.

[catbyte]

9. Is your post a joke?!?

I was under the impression that the topic was Fukushima. The radiation level is so catastrophically high that it fries METAL. Do you think that bodes well in any way for marine life, flora, fauna, and humans not only near it, but anywhere on the planet?

On edit: I just read your later post. I didn't realize that you were a cheerleader for the nuclear power industry. You don't have a goddamned clue what Fukushima will do the Pacific Ocean if it melts down further, so you are just championing one form of poison over another.

I find your post still insulting and unnecessary. Have a nice day.

[NNadir]

10. Is yours? Fries metal? Fries metal? Really?

Last edited Sat Mar 11, 2017, 05:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Try opening a science book.

Fries metal? Oh Jesus christ. How exactly, in purely physical terms, does one, um, fry metal?

I am very much a cheerleader for the nuclear power industry. I'm trying to save lives from stupidity.

Anyone, and I do mean anyone who prattles on endlessly about Fukushima while seven million people um, die each year from air pollution is insulting anyone with a modicum of ethical depth, knowledge and intelligence.

So don't talk to me about being insulting, OK?

I've spent thirty years of my life, ever since Chernobyl blew up, spending thousands upon thousands of hours in university libraries - some of the best libraries in the world, and I really, really, really, really don't want to hear an ethical lecture from someone who thinks one can, um, fry metal.

Here a systematic and pretty much universal account in something called the primary scientific literature of the major causes of risk on this planet:

A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (Lancet 2012, 380, 2224–60: For air pollution mortality figures see Table 3, page 2238 and the text on page 2240.)

Now if you give a rat's ass about humanity, you might access this article - it can be done at pretty much any university library - and look and see where nuclear energy appears in this comprehensive list of pretty much every major risk on this planet.

But you won't do that. Instead you'll offer up stuff like fries metal.

You can't make this kind of stuff up.

And don't talk to me about what is and what it not a joke either. There's nothing funny about people sentencing future generations to death and climate change because they can't open a science book or a scientific paper, like this one, co-authored by one of the world's most famous climate scientists, including an in depth analysis of Fukushima and Chernobyl and comparing them to the lives lost because of the selective attention of poor thinkers.


Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

In any case if you did go to a library and try to find things out, rather than repeating pablum and complaining of being insulted, you would find that deaths from nuclear power don't even compare to deaths from occupation cadmium exposure, not that you give a shit who dies from anything other than nuclear power.

Personally, in my experience, I have never met a rote anti-nuke who has the ethical depth of a turnip, not that I wish to state that I have anything against turnips by making the comparison.

Nuclear power need not be perfect, it need not be without risk, to be vastly superior and safer than everything else. It only needs to be vastly superior to everything else, which it fucking is. Got it? No? Trust me, future generations, should they survive the ignorance of this generation will get it and history will not forgive them.

Have a nice day. And don't go near the ocean. It contains 500 billion curies of potassium-40. Every sample of potassium on the entire planet is radioactive, including the potassium in, um, people who would die without it. I include in the list of people who would die those people who get insulted when presented with an argument for basic human decency, without knowing what decency in fact, is.

[catbyte]

11. Feel better now? I didn't ask for this screed. Take it elsewhere.

[NNadir]

12. Yeah. Absolutely. I know you DIDN'T ASK for the screed. Uniformly...

...ignorance is proud of itself and when presented with something other than itself, runs away.

If one wants to confront me with moral indifference, one cannot insist that they didn't ask for a response.

The "screed" is a remark demonstrating that you "didn't ask" because you, um, don't give a rat's ass about 7 million deaths per year from air pollution, a fact which I feel compelled to point out.

Whenever I confront fatal ignorance, I certainly do feel better when I confront it, whether it is racism, hatred or, as in this case, indifference.

I hear a lot of stuff from ignorant people, and much of it doesn't stick in my mind, but, um "fried metal" is a classic though, as amusing as anything can be when one is talking, as I am, about 70 million deaths per decade.

Have a nice day tomorrow. Like I said earlier, don't go near the ocean.

[catbyte]

13. Insulting people does nothing for your cause, but it tells me a lot about you. Please go away.

On edit, welcome to ignore. You're my first since 2002. Congrats!

[NNadir]

14. And what you choose to ignore says everything we need to know about you.

Ignorance kills people.

[betsuni]

4. Oh dear, thank you!

Numbers are hard.

[yuiyoshida]

5. Its that time again ..sad.

[MFM008]

6. I watched this

Having an appendix attack the night before surgery.

[NNadir]

7. How many people died from RADIATION at Fukushima?

Anyone?

Seven million people die each year, every year from air pollution, not a result of Tsunamis, not a result of accidents, but from the normal operations of biomass, coal, oil and gas plants.

A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (Lancet 2012, 380, 2224–60: For air pollution mortality figures see Table 3, page 2238 and the text on page 2240.)

Nobody gives a rats ass about these millions of deaths, although there are millions of people all around the planet who will burn more gas and coal to complain about the reactors at Fukushima.

If one thousand people died from radiation from Fukushima over the next ten years - they won't - it still wouldn't amount to two hours of air pollution deaths.

Nuclear energy saves lives. It need not be perfectly safe in a tsumai and 9.0 earthquake to be vastly superior to everything else.

I note that the people cheering for rising seas - seas are very much involved in tsunamis - by opposing nuclear energy - haven't been complaining about the failures of buildings in the tsunami. They think buildings are "safe." Which called more deaths in the tsunami and earthquake, buildings or radiation? Which caused more deaths in the tsunami, drowning in a coastal city or radiation?

The selective criteria utilized by the anti-nukes, including the barely scientifically literate reporters for the New York Times, is criminal. It's killing people, every damned day.

There are on this planet, about 1.8 million people who are alive today because nuclear energy prevented the air pollution that otherwise would have killed them. There might be tens of millions more were it not for the selective attention of anti-nukes.

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

[betsuni]

15. I do not appreciate hysterical mean pro-nuclear power commercial posts

every time Fukushima is brought up. Vulgar.

[NNadir]

16. I do not appreciate hysterical anti-nuke pro-gas posts every damned day.

The word "hysteria" - its sexist etymology notwithstanding - means freaking out over something of small consequence.

Lots of oil, gas, and coal is burned to run computers for people freaking out over Fukushima.

The people who do this freaking out want to pretend that bad mouthing one alternative of energy is divorced from ever other alternative, for instance, that shutting nuclear plants will have no effect on the use of gas, coal, oil.

This is a shallow, and frankly deadly lie.

I spend most of my free time reading about environmental issues in the primary scientific literature.

Here is a list of serious - very serious - environmental issues that vastly outstrip Fukushima in importance.

1. Climate change.

2. The toxicology of air pollutants.

3. Atmospheric ozone distribution.

4. Degradation of surface water effects.

5. Persistent organic pollutants such as PFOS, PFA, PCBs...etc.

6. Heavy metal pollution.


Each of these effects is responsible for millions of deaths and health consequences over the last several decades.

The scientific literature teems with discussions of the health and mortality consequences of Fukushima and Chernobyl. Anyone with enough intelligence and enough concern can seek this information out, as I have been doing for 30 years. There is no reputable claim anywhere in the primary scientific literature that indicates that these two events even remotely approach the seriousness and consequence of the above 6 listed massive and extremely dangerous environmental issues, which uniformly, anti-nukes disregard.

The use of dangerous fossil fuels is rising not falling. This is the main effect of anti-nuke hysteria.

The people freaking out hysterically about Fukushima want to divorce their picayune bullshit from all of the above. They are clueless, and in my opinion know nothing, nothing at all about the environment. The word "ignore" is the root of the word "ignorance," and ignorance is not ethically or morally neutral. Ignorance kills people.

You say you don't appreciate hysteria. Neither do I, and since I believe with all my heart, and all my soul that ignorance is a moral issue, I call out hysteria when I see it.

In my experience, many, if not all, anti-nukes are very bourgeois consumerist brats, and they argue, like right wing Republicans, that the only reason anyone does anything is for money. This, more than anything else, reflects their moral depth. They throw around the word "commercial" like a slur.

They're ethically clueless.

[betsuni]

17. ...

[NNadir]

18. Another feature of this set of trivializing fools, uniformly here...

...is that they can't express a thought without an emoji, the giggle one.

Like I said, they're a morally Lilliputian bunch.

Seven million people die every fucking year from air pollution because of their ignorance and they, um, laugh.

I'm a scientist, not a mindless flake.

The very stupid, whiny, "I don't appreciate..." post that appeared in this very stupid and very trivializing thread did inspire me to write something about a serious issue that I came across in my regular library research.

Accumulation of Perfluoroalkylated Substances in Oceanic Plankton.

Of course, we can be sure that all those folks with stupid obsession with robots at Fukushima - who generally end up giggling as the planet is destroyed for all future generations - couldn't care less about this issue or any other issues that are serious.

They're giggling flakes, who wouldn't know a serious thing if it bit them in their asses.

Have a nice intellectually and morally paralytic evening.

[Cha]

19. Mahalo betsuni