fukushima

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by justtrying, Aug 24, 2013.

  1. justtrying

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Mar 9, 2011
    329
    349
    Just wanted to share an article
     
    PackratKing and MrChips like this.
  2. Georacer

    Moderator

    Nov 25, 2009
    5,142
    1,266
    The problems never really stopped there. I see related articles about once a month in my newsfeed.
     
  3. justtrying

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Mar 9, 2011
    329
    349
    I just thought they summarized the issues and future problems quite well, compared to just reporting the on-going status.
     
    loosewire likes this.
  4. Georacer

    Moderator

    Nov 25, 2009
    5,142
    1,266
    The weird part is that we, the simple people, still haven't (and can't) grasp the full extent of the destruction, nor its future projection.
     
    justtrying likes this.
  5. Metalmann

    Active Member

    Dec 8, 2012
    700
    223
    Fukashima is so screwed up, no one knows how to fix the problem of radioactive waste/contamination.
    These large problems, are usually swept under the rug for generations. Hoping people will forget about them.

    A few people, and animals; still live in the contaminated zones.
     
  6. justtrying

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Mar 9, 2011
    329
    349
    Yes, I live in coastal BC, so at least one part of the problem from that event could not be ignored - the so called "debris" that has been landing on the beaches along the shore. Every once in a while an article pops up - who will pay for the clean up? But it amazes me that there has been no discussion for all this time about a much larger issue of how the nuclear contamination problem has been (or not) dealt with. There is no solution at the moment. Swept under the rug is the right way to put it.

    I was 6 when Chernobyl happened and I was in USSR at the time, I have researched how that was covered up, but I came to a conclusion that the government there actually did more to contain the damage than what is happening now. Containment tanks with rubber seals?

    Isn't the problem is that the simple people are mired in mundane everyday problems?

    Anyway, sorry for the rant... haven't had time to post anything in a long time so maybe I got a little carried away. Taking me a while to get used to my new job in a new place all by myself ;)
     
  7. loosewire

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 25, 2008
    1,584
    435
    People do not stop to think about being connected.
     
    PackratKing likes this.
  8. strantor

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 3, 2010
    4,302
    1,988
    I have more than a layman's understanding of nuclear power, but still not an expert. I don't fully understand what happened at Fukushima, or what is still happening, and I can't predict what will happen. There are not very many people who do truly understand it, and there is NOBODY who can predict what will happen.

    I was stationed aboard a nuclear submarine and spent 4 years no less than 150ft away from the reactor as long as I was on the ship. My job wasn't anything to do with the reactor, but half the crew was there to support nuclear operations, and we talked. To this day, I am friends with a lot of guys who either are still operating those Navy reactors or who have gone on to operate reactors in the civilian sector or become nuclear engineers.

    One trend that I have been able to identify given my experiences, and that my nuke friends can and frequently do attest to, is that nuclear safety/danger/risks/mishaps are almost always blown out of proportion. Misguided (or just plain dishonest) reporters with an anti-nuclear agenda love throw out unfathomable numbers with attached units that nobody is familiar with. While their numbers might (might) be correct, they aren't included to inform, but to motivate by fear. Unwarranted fear. AKA fearmongering. It's absolutely rampant in the media regarding nuclear power. So I have learned to tune out when I start to hear a news segment on "fukushima this," "Fukushima that," "The Milk is Irradiated," "Radioactive Produce Found on American Shelves," "Apocalyptic Meltdown Imminent" and so forth. Your article is the first time I've let my mind engage the topic since a brief open-minded period around the time of the tsunami, and before that it was ~2005.

    Now I hope you'll understand my perspective (call it bias if you must) but when I read through this, I'm looking for the usual chinks in the armor. What I find is this:

    Now, again considering my perspective and my firm belief that nuclear issues are almost exclusively exaggerated, why should I believe this one source who claims that the entire planet is conspiring to downplay it? What's the motive to downplay it? What nuclear lobby exists in countries where there is no lobby?

    I'm sorry, (predictable, I know) but this seems like garbage to me.

    It's a shame you know, the people who are so ardent about finding a clean renewable energy source are most often the same people who seek to tear down nuclear energy - the ULTIMATE clean energy source. I blame ignorance, multiplied by fearmongering. Think about it; who has the means and incentive to sway the opinion of the world against nuclear power? Well, just about anybody who wants to control you! How do you control people who have unfettered access to abundant low cost energy? Do you think that oil companies have means and incentive? You bet! So why not focus your efforts there? Follow the money, always leads to the truth.

    Like I said, I don't fully understand it, and the "expert" Christina Consolo (whose credentials aren't stated to be anything more than "fallout researcher") could be entirely correct. The situation could be much more dire than I give it credit for being. We could be on the brink of extinction. But if not, we will still die from something, like cancer caused by coal plants or respiratory disease caused by vehicle emissions. In any case, thank God we are getting more people on board with the idea of shutting down these clean, safe, not-ancient-and-badly-designed-like-TEPCO American nuclear plants and keeping them suckling on the fossil fuel teat.

    One more thing; google the scholarly fallout researcher "Christina Consolo" and tell me the results aren't reminiscent of googling "HOJO Motor"
     
    Metalmann likes this.
  9. Georacer

    Moderator

    Nov 25, 2009
    5,142
    1,266
    This is a reminder that politics is a restricted topic. Two posts in this thread where moderated for that reason.
     
  10. lotusmoon

    Member

    Jun 14, 2013
    203
    4
    Thank you for posting this thread I had been wondering what was going on at Fukushima, I like the web site that the article is on, do you know of other similar web sites.
     
  11. justtrying

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Mar 9, 2011
    329
    349
    to keep order, I'll just point to another forum where a more civil discussion seems to be going on :)

    I actually meant to post a more credible article but got my links mixed up. The error produced some interesting results!
     
    strantor likes this.
  12. loosewire

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 25, 2008
    1,584
    435
    The other place ,they say 20,000 years before its livable , makes you think about

    time lines reported. Just have to keeptrying.
     
  13. JoeJester

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 26, 2005
    3,373
    1,159
    justtrying,

    When I looked over your first link, it certainly seemed to have an agenda. I was waiting for Jesse Ventura to pop out with an episode of Conspiracy Theories. I did see a little of his show when he visited the HAARP in AK.

    Nice blog you linked to.

    Loosewire,

    I do find it interesting that Hiroshima and Nagaski have been repopulated, in less than the 20,000 plus years quoted as the half-life.

    Are there dangers. Sure. There are dangers everywhere. I have friends that received high radiation doses from vacuum tubes due to the "bremsstrahlung" effect. In fact, it was recently recognized by the VA and was retroactive to the 1940s. A recent test showed 3 Rems per hour at one of the transmitting locations. That certainly exceeds the x milliRems per year specified in the safety publications.

    I don't believe everything I read on the internet. I noticed the first link posted had a nice list of patents. I then thought of all the scams that claim patents.

    It wasn't until the MIT lit that lamp using electromagnetic waves that I found out some don't believe that process was "not RF", when clearly the international community identifies the stated frequency as a "radio frequency."

    To borrow a phrase from the X-files, "the truth is out there."
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2013
  14. strantor

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 3, 2010
    4,302
    1,988
    Good to see better spoken and more prudent people than myself agree with me ;). If you want to post your other link, I promise to go gentle. I already got the hulk out of my system. Sorry for that.
     
    justtrying likes this.
  15. JoeJester

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 26, 2005
    3,373
    1,159
    Strantor,

    That's a nice blog, has some standards of evidence besides any old web page. Someone over there stated Christina's credentials.
     
  16. loosewire

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 25, 2008
    1,584
    435
    Joe ,wrong place ,the place that was near the S.U. can't recall name.
     
  17. justtrying

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Mar 9, 2011
    329
    349
    Hi Strantor,

    I was going to PM you about it first, but really the mistake was mine at posting that link in error. I think if I was a new member I would not have gotten off so easy. If I find the other link I will post it, but it is in my work computer and I believe they erase history automatically every day ;(

    To me it is never about technology, but management of it. Many technologies have great potential to be clean and safe, but they have to be well managed. Can anyone provide an example where private or public company put safety before profit? This is where the topic gets political, so I will stop.

    V.
     
  18. strantor

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 3, 2010
    4,302
    1,988
    Are you referring to this?
     
  19. JoeJester

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 26, 2005
    3,373
    1,159
    Yeah...you got it.

    Someone saved me a lot of reading associated with her.
     
    strantor likes this.
  20. strantor

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 3, 2010
    4,302
    1,988
    For reasons that could be construed as political, there are plenty of examples. American industry has really stepped up its safety game, because it has become profitable to do so. My father lost his arm on the job in the early '80s. The company didn't give him anything except his job back when he had to go back to work still with bloody bandages because he spent his meager life savings at the hospital. If that happened to him today, he could make millions off it. It is in companies best interest to maintain at least the OSHA required level of safety. In my line of work, I am exposed to the inner workings of lots of companies in various industries, and my observation has been that there are more companies who go above and beyond OSHA requirements than those who fail to comply. Things are turning around. Companies are taking the initiative to ensure their workers are safe.

    But this point is sort of small scale, only applicable to workers. In the larger scale we have industries whose operations have the potential to affect large numbers of civilians. Like fukushima or the BP oil spill. I have less of a grasp on the status of progress being made to ensure the safe guards in this picture. But I assume that the same or similar incentives to keep things safe that exist on a small scale exist on a large scale as well. I don't know how much BP had to pay for that spill, or if it was enough to send a message, but I predict that the consequences will get worse each time it happens, until companies pour billions into research to make things as safe as ultimately possible.

    Or I might just be naive ;).
     
Loading...
Related Forum Posts:
  1. lotusmoon
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    676