Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: TEPCO risks all at Fukushima [View all]RC
(25,592 posts)6. 171,000 people dead is not a catastrophic consequence?
You're also comparing apples and oranges. It's not how many have been killed to date. It's about the catastrophic consequences of one major disaster.
Wrong, it is about how many have been killed to date. That is how we calculate disasters, by the number of people killed. Whether it is war, air plane crashes, disease, 9/11, whatever.
Where are these 10 of millions of people you speak of? Japan? First some facts. The Earth is round, not flat. Radiation goes in straight lines, so the curvature of the earth acts as a shield. Normally anything over 20 miles away is safely below the horizon. Next, the radiation drops off with the square of the distance. Twice as far= 1/4 the radiation. It does not matter what kind of radiation. The wind and ocean currents protect Japan south of Fukushima, by flowing North and East, where the radiation get diluted to barely detectable levels. They have to use isotopes, not Geiger counters to detect the radiation, because the radiation is below the normal background levels. Also the distance between Tokyo and Fukushima is 148 miles, with mountains in between. Those mountains act as a shield. Tokyo is in not much danger here.
The cause of both disasters can be traced back to politics, not the engineers.
Fear mongering often comes from ignorance for use against he ignorant.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
37 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
she probably means moving them deep into the southern hemisphere, like Australia. n/t
CRH
Nov 2013
#16
If I understand what the "worst case scenario" involves, I'm not sure any place will be safe.
Lochloosa
Nov 2013
#17
It's not about how many have been killed to date. It's about the catastrophic consequences of a
magical thyme
Nov 2013
#4
What's wrong? Aside from the point that you don't understand the meaning of 'values'?
kristopher
Nov 2013
#15
They haven't had it right so far, they had better be right now. Where are these rods going?
marble falls
Nov 2013
#5