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
 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
10. I did not say that 170,000 is not a catastrophe.
Reply to RC (Reply #6)
Mon Nov 18, 2013, 11:10 AM
Nov 2013

so you can stop putting words in my fingers, so to speak. It's a matter of scale. Instead of apples and oranges, maybe I should have said apples and watermelons.

As far as it not threatening Tokyo, you may want to let Japanese officials know that.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/18/fukushima-nuclear-power-workers-spent-fuel-rod-removal

"Some experts have warned that a collision involving the fuel assemblies, a sudden loss of coolant water or another big earthquake could cause a chain reaction and the release of huge quantities of radiation into the atmosphere***."

"After the explosion, one big challenge was to deal with the spent fuel pool because if the water evaporated it would cause a radioactive cloud stretching all the way to Tokyo, which would have to be evacuated," Yuichi Okamura, deputy manager of the water treatment department at Fukushima Daiichi, told the Guardian on Monday."

"The head of Japan's nuclear safety agency, Shunichi Tanaka, recently warned that removing the fuel involved huge risks, particularly if any attempt was made to force fuel assemblies that have become impeded by debris. "The process involves a very large risk potential," he said. "In a sense, it is more risky than the radioactive water crisis.""


***Note: the last time I checked, stuff that goes up into the atmosphere has a way of traveling over mountains and can even travel quite a long distance before it comes back down to earth.

And then there is this:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/15/fukushima-nuclear-power-plant-cleanup

"Yet as the scale of the challenge has become clearer with every new accident and radiation leak, the men working inside the plant are suffering from plummeting morale, health problems and anxiety about the future, according to insiders interviewed by the Guardian.

Even now, at the start of a decommissioning operation that is expected to last 40 years, the plant faces a shortage of workers qualified to manage the dangerous work that lies ahead.

"Commenting on the leak, the head of Japan's nuclear regulator, Shunichi Tanaka, told reporters: "Mistakes are often linked to morale. People usually don't make silly, careless mistakes when they're motivated and working in a positive environment. The lack of it, I think, may be related to the recent problems.""

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

TEPCO risks all at Fukushima [View all] unhappycamper Nov 2013 OP
We can hope madokie Nov 2013 #1
The quote from the article that makes you go WTF! Lochloosa Nov 2013 #2
Unless she has a starship and an Earthlike planet to fly to... caraher Nov 2013 #8
Hyperbole to make a point pscot Nov 2013 #12
Seems closer to a non sequitur than hyperbole caraher Nov 2013 #13
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
The Forgotten Legacy of the Banqiao Dam Collapse RC Nov 2013 #3
It's not about how many have been killed to date. It's about the catastrophic consequences of a magical thyme Nov 2013 #4
171,000 people dead is not a catastrophic consequence? RC Nov 2013 #6
People can't care about a disaster unless it is the greatest of all time? kristopher Nov 2013 #7
Denigrating the messenger, instead of disproving the facts I provided? RC Nov 2013 #9
ROFLMAO kristopher Nov 2013 #11
Maybe to you it sounds dumb. But what was wrong with what I stated? RC Nov 2013 #14
What's wrong? Aside from the point that you don't understand the meaning of 'values'? kristopher Nov 2013 #15
No, radiation does NOT go in a straight line. bananas Nov 2013 #18
You are trying to confuse the issue. RC Nov 2013 #19
1.1 The Skyshine Problem bananas Nov 2013 #21
google "site:nrc.gov skyshine" - get "About 1,960 results" bananas Nov 2013 #23
Try reading them. FBaggins Nov 2013 #25
How is that any less relevant kristopher Nov 2013 #26
Simple FBaggins Nov 2013 #28
I didn't make any errors. bananas Nov 2013 #32
Don't be silly... Of course you did FBaggins Nov 2013 #34
SAME MISTAKE - basically NOT UNDERSTANDING the Physics. PamW Nov 2013 #36
100% WRONG!!! PamW Nov 2013 #20
1.1 The Skyshine Problem bananas Nov 2013 #22
Sorry... no. FBaggins Nov 2013 #24
More STUPIDITY from Arnie Gunderson???? PamW Nov 2013 #27
Well... to be fair to Arnie... FBaggins Nov 2013 #29
PamW is 100% WRONG!!! bananas Nov 2013 #30
Of course it was Arnie FBaggins Nov 2013 #31
No, it was by Michael S. Bassett, and it was written in the 1980's. bananas Nov 2013 #33
Lol... oh come on. FBaggins Nov 2013 #35
Physicists support nuclear power by 98% PamW Nov 2013 #37
I did not say that 170,000 is not a catastrophe. magical thyme Nov 2013 #10
They haven't had it right so far, they had better be right now. Where are these rods going? marble falls Nov 2013 #5
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»TEPCO risks all at Fukush...»Reply #10