What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Meltdown in Japan's Reactors (2 Viewers)

'Osaurus said:
Caught the very beginning of ET (not a fan) and glad to see they are concerned with this issue as well. I may have missed whether they asked celebrities about it or not.
Click to expand...
Damn. I was really hoping Charlie Sheen had come up with something to fix the problem. ;)
 
From the Washington Post:

Helicopter mission deemed unsafe; Japan struggles to cool radioactive materialsBy Brian Vastag and Rick Maese, Wednesday, March 16, 7:20 AMA Japanese military helicopter flew toward a radiation-leaking nuclear plant Wednesday afternoon, a bucket of seawater dangling beneath it, the latest desperate attempt to cool overheated materials that are emitting potentially lethal radioactive steam.But the operation was deemed too dangerous and aborted, because of high radiation levels in the air above the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Officials were left to find another way to address the explosions and leaks at the stricken facility, which have stoked fear and panic across the nation. Television cameras first spotted plumes of white steam emitting from unit 3 Wednesday morning, hours after an explosion at unit 2 seems to have breached the main protective shield around the reactor’s uranium-filled core. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said officials were trying to determine the source of the steam coming from unit 3, and presumed it to be radioactive. As radiation levels rose, the lone 50 workers charged with cooling efforts were temporarily relocated. Hundreds of other workers had been evacuated Tuesday because conditions were deemed so dangerous.Within an hour, though, the radiation levels dropped again, and the small group was permitted to return. In order for them to resume trying to cool the damaged sectors, Japan’s Health and Welfare minister had to waive the nation’s standard of radiation exposure, increasing the level of acceptable exposure from 100 millisieverts to 250 — five times the level allowed in the United States. Wednesday afternoon, the military dispatched two helicopters from Kasuminome Air Base in Sendai. A lead chopper flew to the plant, less than 150 miles north of Tokyo, to determine whether radiation levels were low enough to continue with the operation.The second helicopter, a Boeing CH-47 was scheduled to make several passes to drop seawater onto unit 3, where an explosion on Monday resulted in structural damage that appears to have compromised the reactor. But the crew on the lead chopper found radiation levels were too high to carry out the risky mission. The rising steam from the breached sector was just the latest problem for the embattled plant, which suffered heavy damage to its cooling systems after Friday’s devastating earthquake and tsunami. Since, the Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power Co, which owns the facility, have struggled mightily to keep the plant’s six reactors cool. Each day has brought new problems.Tuesday’s blast at unit 2 was not outwardly visible, but was potentially more dangerous than some of the earlier explosions, because it may have created an escape route for radioactive material bottled up inside the thick steel-and-concrete reactor tube. Radiation-laced steam is probably building between the reactor tube and the building that houses it, experts said, creating pressure that could blow apart the structure, emitting radiation from the core.“They’re putting water into the core and generating steam, and that steam has to go somewhere. It has to be carrying radiation,” said nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen, who has 40 years of experience overseeing the Vermont Yankee nuclear facility, whose re­actors are of the same vintage and design as those at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.Such a breach would be the first at a nuclear power plant since the Chernobyl catastrophe 25 years ago in what was then the Soviet Union. Nuclear experts have repeatedly stressed that radiation releases on the scale of Chernobyl are unlikely or even impossible, given the Japanese plant’s heavier engineering and additional layers of containment. Still, Tokyo Electric said radiation briefly rose to dangerous levels at the plant Tuesday morning and again on Wednesday. The explosion, combined with a fire in a different unit and the pulling back of workers marked the deepest setbacks yet in the five-day battle to stabilize the Daiichi facility. Other explosions occurred earlier at two of the plant’s reactors.Crews noted a drop in pressure after the blast inside the unit 2 reactor and within a doughnut-shaped structure below, called a suppression pool. The simultaneous loss of pressure in those two places indicates serious damage, nuclear experts said.The explosion probably happened after the streams of seawater that crews have been pumping into the reactor faltered. The fuel rods were left completely exposed to the air for some time, Tokyo Electric said in a statement. Without water, the rods grew white-hot and possibly melted through the steel-and-concrete tube. The power company said a skeleton crew of 50 to 70 employees — far fewer than the 1,400 or more at the plant during normal operations — had been working in shifts to keep seawater flowing to the three reactors now in trouble. Their withdrawal on Wednesday temporarily left the plant with nobody to continue cooling operations.Also on Tuesday, and again on Wednesday morning, fires flared up in unit 4, triggering fear that spent uranium fuel sitting in a pool above the reactor was burning. Such a conflagration would generate intense concentrations of cesium-137 and other dangerous radioactive isotopes. But a spokesperson for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry lobbying group, said Tokyo Electric concluded that the first fire in unit 4 was not in the spent fuel pool, “but rather in a corner of the reactor building’s fourth floor.”Using a helicopter, or fire hoses, to spray water through holes in the breached buildings would be a risky, last-ditch effort to prevent the spent fuel from burning. With the outer containment building at unit 2 primed for a possible explosion, any fire crews would be in grave peril. “This is scary,” said Lake Barrett, a nuclear engineer who directed the cleanup of the Three Mile Island nuclear facility in Pennsylvania after the 1979 accident there. “The plans in a severe accident are to just get a fire hose in there, get any kind of water to keep water in the pool above the fuel. ”During normal plant operations, uranium fuel rods that can no longer produce enough heat for generating electricity are periodically removed from a reactor and placed into the spent fuel pools above the reactors. These rods continue to generate heat and radioactive isotopes for many years.Keeping this material covered with water is sufficient to cool it. But water levels may have dropped dramatically during the crisis, exposing fuel rods to the air. Robert Alvarez, an analyst at the Institute for Policy Studies who has long warned of the dangers of spent fuel pools, said that — unlike the reactors themselves — the fuel pools typically do not have backup pumps to maintain water flow. “They were so overwhelmed,” he said of the workers straining to contain the disaster, that they were unable to maintain enough water in the pool to prevent boiling. If the fuel pools are exposed to the air, the radiation doses coming from them could be life-threatening up to 50 yards, Alvarez said.Concerns about the dangers of storing used uranium fuel in relatively poorly shielded pools above reactors increased with the fear of terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, causing industry experts to dispute the design. In 2006, the National Research Council issued a report saying in part that a uranium fuel fire “could result in the release of large amounts of radioactive material.” The NRC report also recommended that nuclear power plants build “redundant and diverse” coolant systems to keep the fuel underwater during a crisis. Late Tuesday, Tepco said water levels were “low” in unit 4’s used fuel pool. Japanese officials said Wednesday that the water level in unit 5 was slightly low but that they plan to use a generator to add more.Satellite photos show steam rising from the facility. The amount of radioactivity carried by the plume is unknown, but small increases in radiation — not enough to affect human health — were reported in Tokyo, about 150 miles to the southwest of the facility, and in other parts of Japan.In response, NHK television reported that the Japanese government had ordered the country’s 47 prefectures to publicly report recorded radiation levels twice a day. Wednesday morning, 33 nuclear disaster experts from the U.S. Department of Energy arrived in Japan with 17,000 pounds of gear to help with the crisis. The team also will help the Obama administration decide what to tell Americans in Japan and at home about the crisis, White House spokesman Jay Carney said. In response to questions about whether Japanese officials were providing complete information, Carney said American teams on the ground will make independent assessments of the situation.When the teams arrive, they will find plenty of work to do. The plant’s reactor cores take about two weeks to lose half of their intense heat, Gundersen said, meaning that the battle between the radioactive cores and Fukushima Daiichi’s badly damaged cooling system will play out for days or weeks to come. In Tokyo, U.S. Ambassador John Roos stressed that Japan would continued to play the lede role in responding to the disaster.“The Japanese government has significant expertise — and that’s probably an understatement saying ‘significant,’” Roos said. “They’re one of the most experienced countries in the world with regard to nuclear power and nuclear power plants.“The United States government also has significant and massive expertise in the nuclear area. . . the United States has and will continue to provide any support it can in continuing to address the issues as they have arisen.”vastagb@washpost.commaeser@washpost.comMaese reported from Tokyo. Correspondent Akiko Yamamoto in Tokyo also contributed to this report.
Click to expand...
 
Grain of salt warning*, this is claimed to be from Kyodo news in Japan, but there was no link provided. I'm going to dig around on their site and see if I can confirm any of this info:

CURRENT REACTOR STATUS 0613 GMT 16/03/2011

From Kyodo:

Status of quake-stricken reactors at Fukushima nuclear power plant TOKYO, March 16, Kyodo

Fukushima No. 1 plant

-- Reactor No. 1 - Cooling failure, partial melting of core, vapor vented, building damaged Saturday by hydrogen explosion, seawater being pumped in.

-- Reactor No. 2 - Cooling failure, seawater being pumped in, fuel rods fully exposed temporarily, vapor vented, building damaged Monday by blast at Reactor No. 3, damage to containment vessel on Tuesday, potential meltdown feared.

-- Reactor No. 3 - Cooling failure, partial melting of core feared, vapor vented, seawater being pumped in, building damaged Monday by hydrogen explosion, high-level radiation measured nearby on Tuesday, plume of smoke observed Wednesday, damage to containment vessel likely.

-- Reactor No. 4 - Under maintenance when quake struck, fire Tuesday possibly caused by hydrogen explosion at pool holding spent fuel rods, pool water level not observed, fire observed Wednesday at building housing reactor, no water poured in to cool pool.

-- Reactor No. 5, No. 6 - Under maintenance when quake struck, temperature slightly rising in spent fuel pool.
Click to expand...
*Confirmed: http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/78614.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The number of nuclear workers at the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant was slashed Tuesday from 800 to 50, but had grown to 180 by Wednesday afternoon, the Tokyo Electric Power Company said.
Click to expand...
Is this enough people? Do they need more?
 
'bueno said:
'Raiderfan32904 said:
'bueno said:
I said that the price of uranium and uranium stocks are likely to fall, while oil is likely to rise. It means I sell uranium stock (assuming I own any at the moment) and buy oil stock. Hardly a vested interest - it could affect my stock trades but nothing more. If I was going to short uranium stocks do you think I would be exagerating the potential dangers? Do you really think that? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You know I really don't care what you do with your money. I appreciate your knowledge on the subject and that's all good and well. I don't have the capatilistic savvy that you have, and am just an average Gov't worker and won't ever be rich and I am fine with that. I certainly didn't think about my portfolio and if I had one I still wouldn't mention it after this kind of calamity.
Click to expand...
I didn't mention portfolios until you implied that I had a vested interest in minimizing the danger. The original post I made was in response to someone wondering how energy policy would be affected. The response was that uranium would drop while oil prices would rise. You took that as me having a vested interest where one didn't exist. Bottom line is I don't have a vested interest in minimizing the danger, because if I chose to, I could make money either way. Not that what I say on a message board would affect that markets anyway - Dodds portfolio ain't that big! I am however, mildly insulted that you implied I was using my specific knowledge of nuclear science (dated as it may be) for personal gain here.
Click to expand...
I do not know what your motivations on this may be. But in only reading a small portion of this thread it becomes clear that you have an agenda that does not include serious consideration of the problem. Your telling people this is no big deal and to put their heads in the sand. What motivates you to do this? :confused: In any case it is not good science whatever it is your selling. How about we take the problem as serious as possible and resolve it before playing politics?
 
'Otis said:
The number of nuclear workers at the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant was slashed Tuesday from 800 to 50, but had grown to 180 by Wednesday afternoon, the Tokyo Electric Power Company said.
Click to expand...
Is this enough people? Do they need more?
Click to expand...
[GilbertGottfried]How Many Japanese people does it take to plug a nuclear reactor?[/GilbertGottfried]
 
'David Dodds said:
and now some of these 50 need to sleep. Should we send in additional people? Nope. Let's just use less than 50 as the problems escalate just like the paragraph above the sea water flush tells us to do.
Click to expand...
Hi David,With your in-depth Nuclear Power Plant knowledge (primarily after plants have been hit by earthquakes and tsunamis) exactly how many people are required to handle the situation? Thanks,Cliff
 
'Cliff Clavin said:
'David Dodds said:
and now some of these 50 need to sleep. Should we send in additional people? Nope. Let's just use less than 50 as the problems escalate just like the paragraph above the sea water flush tells us to do.
Click to expand...
Hi David,With your in-depth Nuclear Power Plant knowledge (primarily after plants have been hit by earthquakes and tsunamis) exactly how many people are required to handle the situation? Thanks,Cliff
Click to expand...
The real Cliff Clavin would know the answer.
 
Why are people so quick to be rude to David? I get that everyone may have a different take on the situation (as is the case with most threads), but can't we voice those disagreements without the digs? :confused:

 
'Otis said:
'Rovers said:
'bentley said:
'bigbottom said:
'Otis said:
As an aside, Anderson Cooper is not nearly impressive live on the streets as he is in the studio with a teleprompter. Not particularly well spoken and always stuttering and stammering.
Click to expand...
But he looks REALLY good in a tight shirt.
Click to expand...
That's what I was thinking. I lost myself in his eyes. Not sure what he said.
Click to expand...
Cooper should never ever leave the sudio again. In one of his first broadacats from Japan, he was freaking out after an explosion. "Oh, is it safe here? Should we pull back? Am I in danger here?" Panic in his voice. Since then all he does is stammer and stutter. He can't put a coherent sentence together. Go home Anderson. The news networks are encouraging panic as much as they can too, and they have an audience licking their chops, apparently preferring to live in fear and panic of ... nothing. Hours, hours after the workers were sent back in, they were still repoerting that they had evacuated. Then they replay those old reports all night long. I don't beleive the workers were gone for much more than an hour. There was a release, once it was over, they went back in. Is it serious? Yes. Is it catastrophic or likely to become so? No. The real problem is Japan hates to keep the public informed, and as a result, people want to beleive the worst. Japan has always been secretive, it's really a cultural thing. The sad thing is this story has over shadowed the real disaster, the real carnage, the real problem. Over 10,000 dead, no food, no water, and freezing to death. No search dogs, just guys walking around sticking poles into the debris. No matter, but OMG! The nuke plants! OMG!
Click to expand...
Bingo. Voice of reason on all points.
Click to expand...
I agree. I started to question things last night as I was watching Anderson Cooper....That's two nights in a row, where the "fear" really ramped up right during his show. Then magically, when his show ended, we had 12 hours of no news.
 
My company deals quite frequently with Caterpillar Japan. One thing we have learned is they are very "by the book".

I think a lot of the problem with what's going on is they have tried everything "by the book" and it has failed.

The Japanese are not very good at split second decisions. They are not good at thinking on their feet.

I would guess nobody is in control.

 
http://english.kyodo...1/03/78622.html



Police eye using water cannon to cool Fukushima No. 4 reactor

TOKYO, March 16, Kyodo

The National Police Agency is considering using a special water cannon truck held by the Metropolitan Police Department to cool a pool storing spent fuel rods at the troubled No. 4 reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, police sources said Wednesday.

The operation could start as early as Wednesday night, they said.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'pantagrapher said:
'Cliff Clavin said:
'David Dodds said:
and now some of these 50 need to sleep. Should we send in additional people? Nope. Let's just use less than 50 as the problems escalate just like the paragraph above the sea water flush tells us to do.
Click to expand...
Hi David,With your in-depth Nuclear Power Plant knowledge (primarily after plants have been hit by earthquakes and tsunamis) exactly how many people are required to handle the situation? Thanks,Cliff
Click to expand...
The real Cliff Clavin would know the answer.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: :goodposting:
 
'Biabreakable said:
'bueno said:
'Raiderfan32904 said:
'bueno said:
I said that the price of uranium and uranium stocks are likely to fall, while oil is likely to rise. It means I sell uranium stock (assuming I own any at the moment) and buy oil stock. Hardly a vested interest - it could affect my stock trades but nothing more. If I was going to short uranium stocks do you think I would be exagerating the potential dangers? Do you really think that? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You know I really don't care what you do with your money. I appreciate your knowledge on the subject and that's all good and well. I don't have the capatilistic savvy that you have, and am just an average Gov't worker and won't ever be rich and I am fine with that. I certainly didn't think about my portfolio and if I had one I still wouldn't mention it after this kind of calamity.
Click to expand...
I didn't mention portfolios until you implied that I had a vested interest in minimizing the danger. The original post I made was in response to someone wondering how energy policy would be affected. The response was that uranium would drop while oil prices would rise. You took that as me having a vested interest where one didn't exist. Bottom line is I don't have a vested interest in minimizing the danger, because if I chose to, I could make money either way. Not that what I say on a message board would affect that markets anyway - Dodds portfolio ain't that big! I am however, mildly insulted that you implied I was using my specific knowledge of nuclear science (dated as it may be) for personal gain here.
Click to expand...
I do not know what your motivations on this may be. But in only reading a small portion of this thread it becomes clear that you have an agenda that does not include serious consideration of the problem. Your telling people this is no big deal and to put their heads in the sand. What motivates you to do this? :confused: In any case it is not good science whatever it is your selling. How about we take the problem as serious as possible and resolve it before playing politics?
Click to expand...
First time reading any of his posts?
 
Question for the nuke guys: are plants always located on a body of water? It seems the ones I know of all are, is this some type of fail-safe?

 
'Otis said:
What have been the health consequences so far to this radiation? Anyone hurt yet?
Click to expand...
"Five workers have died since the quake and 22 more have been injured for various reasons, while two are missing. One worker was hospitalized after suddenly grasping his chest and finding himself unable to stand, and another needed treatment after receiving a blast of radiation near a damaged reactor."http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/954687--the-fukushima-plant-workers-braving-fire-radiation-in-bid-to-stop-meltdown?bn=1
 
'Slapdash said:
Question for the nuke guys: are plants always located on a body of water? It seems the ones I know of all are, is this some type of fail-safe?
Click to expand...
No, not always. Although a large body of water is useful as a giant heatsink though. If you don't have that heatsink, you recycle the coolant (in the non irradiated side of the heat exchanger) through a cooling tower (like the one in the Simpsons). The cooling towers have that shape because they use natural convection to cool and condense the H20.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Mr. Ham said:
'David Dodds said:
Here is a great link explaining what we are likely dealing with (with lots of pics). http://www.youtube.c...h?v=RiXIODVlfXk
Click to expand...
That's really outstanding. Feel far better educated after that...Thanks.
Click to expand...
In general a great clip. She did confuse external containment walls which is inside the plant, with the building surrounding the plant. That is a somewhat important point in understanding where the rods are and how they are contained. Certainly more informative than a lot of segments on other networks.Lots of things we don't know about the fuel rods but we also have to be careful how we interpret "potentially greater," "sometimes," "potentially more dangerous," "can be," "not necessarily," etc.

Her expert (Frank Von Hipple) is pretty good in that he did point out that the spent rods are likely not a danger for a meltdown, which IMO is more serious than just losing what he called

the volatile radioactivity. Volatile radioactivity are radioactive elements that are either noble gases, or elements like iodine (I think I137 is the radioactive isotope) that will evaporate at high temperatures. These elements are lost to the fuel rods when the zirconium casing around the rods are damaged (they melt at 2200 degrees C) then lost when the external containment is breached. Now it would seem to me unlikely that the spent rods could get that hot just from water loss. Residual radiation probably won;t do it, and the rods are no longer capable of fission reactions (which could do it). Remember, the expert said that the rods are unlikely to cause a meltdown, meaning he doesn't believe they can reach that 2200 degree melting point.

So what we have to worry about is physical damage to the casing. I am not sure how he thinks the casing could burst versus crack. Oxidation would affect the outside of the casing, but bursting implies a bit more energy than degradation. A cracked rod is likely to release less radiation than a burst one.

At any rate, the volatile elements released by spent rods are the same elements released by the active rods in the reactor, less perhaps those who have evaporation temperatures higher than what can be reached in a spent rod but lower than those achieved in an active rod. So how are they potentially more dangerous? Radioactivity released is the same and they are substantially less likely to achieve meltdown. More of it perhaps, depending on the quantity of rods stored, maybe by a factor of 2 given that the rods in reactor 4 were the ones most recently replaced. But then less of it if the rods are cracked rather than burst, and depending on how many rods have degraded that far. I guess it will come down to how much "more" is.

I had to laugh at the closing trailer.

 
'KCC said:
Why are people so quick to be rude to David?
Click to expand...
Because Dodds is one step removed from Ham on the crazy scale. He doesn't participate in threads related to current events very often, but when he does, he's always way out there in the fever swamps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'KCC said:
Why are people so quick to be rude to David? I get that everyone may have a different take on the situation (as is the case with most threads), but can't we voice those disagreements without the digs? :confused:
Click to expand...
People pointed out early on that they thought he was overreacting. He responded by dialing it up rather than toning it down. He has also mischaracterized the arguments of those debating with him. Rudeness at that point is apropos.
 
'David Dodds said:
http://english.kyodo...1/03/78622.html



Police eye using water cannon to cool Fukushima No. 4 reactor

TOKYO, March 16, Kyodo

The National Police Agency is considering using a special water cannon truck held by the Metropolitan Police Department to cool a pool storing spent fuel rods at the troubled No. 4 reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, police sources said Wednesday.

The operation could start as early as Wednesday night, they said.
Click to expand...
Hey, I got a huge super soaker that drenches EVERYTHING I could mail over there for them to use on the reactors. I just gotta ask my son first. :unsure:
 
'KCC said:
Why are people so quick to be rude to David? I get that everyone may have a different take on the situation (as is the case with most threads), but can't we voice those disagreements without the digs? :confused:
Click to expand...
Have you been reading any of his posts? He takes one fact or 'report' and then proceeds to stretch it out to its worst conceivable result, Glenn Beck style. Of course, he'll add some innocuous qualifier that it's just his opinion or that he's just speculating, but he's continually trying to fill in the blanks on what they are not telling us. Only he's filling in this blanks with panic and hysteria rather than logic or science.And the ongoing assertion that our opinions must be binary on the topic and we're either running through the streets waving our hands in panic or we're ready to set up a picnic table and roast some hot dogs over the flames is more than a little ridiculous.
 
'Cliff Clavin said:
'David Dodds said:
and now some of these 50 need to sleep. Should we send in additional people? Nope. Let's just use less than 50 as the problems escalate just like the paragraph above the sea water flush tells us to do.
Click to expand...
Hi David,With your in-depth Nuclear Power Plant knowledge (primarily after plants have been hit by earthquakes and tsunamis) exactly how many people are required to handle the situation?

Thanks,

Cliff
Click to expand...
This is sort of what I keep trying to get at. I don't understand all this OMG ONLY 50 PEOPLE THERE?!?! THEY HAVE GIVEN UP AND THE WORLD IS ENDING stuff. What the hell do I know about how many people it takes to not run a nuclear plant (they're all shut off). I suspect when the government says the situation is not the best, and they'd rather be safe and have as few people there as we need and no more, they're doing the right thing, but they're also leaving enough people there to do whatever needs to be done. Again, it's not like these guys are out digging trenches or necessarily performing any task in which more people = better result.

 
'Payne said:
'Biabreakable said:
'bueno said:
'Raiderfan32904 said:
'bueno said:
I said that the price of uranium and uranium stocks are likely to fall, while oil is likely to rise. It means I sell uranium stock (assuming I own any at the moment) and buy oil stock. Hardly a vested interest - it could affect my stock trades but nothing more. If I was going to short uranium stocks do you think I would be exagerating the potential dangers? Do you really think that? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You know I really don't care what you do with your money. I appreciate your knowledge on the subject and that's all good and well. I don't have the capatilistic savvy that you have, and am just an average Gov't worker and won't ever be rich and I am fine with that. I certainly didn't think about my portfolio and if I had one I still wouldn't mention it after this kind of calamity.
Click to expand...
I didn't mention portfolios until you implied that I had a vested interest in minimizing the danger. The original post I made was in response to someone wondering how energy policy would be affected. The response was that uranium would drop while oil prices would rise. You took that as me having a vested interest where one didn't exist. Bottom line is I don't have a vested interest in minimizing the danger, because if I chose to, I could make money either way. Not that what I say on a message board would affect that markets anyway - Dodds portfolio ain't that big! I am however, mildly insulted that you implied I was using my specific knowledge of nuclear science (dated as it may be) for personal gain here.
Click to expand...
I do not know what your motivations on this may be. But in only reading a small portion of this thread it becomes clear that you have an agenda that does not include serious consideration of the problem. Your telling people this is no big deal and to put their heads in the sand. What motivates you to do this? :confused: In any case it is not good science whatever it is your selling. How about we take the problem as serious as possible and resolve it before playing politics?
Click to expand...
First time reading any of his posts?
Click to expand...
Some people don't get it. He's a fraud. Dude screams about "core catchers" that don't exist and talks about graphite and boron without understanding their usefulness and purpose in a reactor. People lap it up. It's been the same MO for 5 years now. Guy used to actually copy/paste stuff from other websites and post it here, claiming it as his own work. And he's a scientist, a field where that is sacrelige.
 
'Christo said:
'KCC said:
Why are people so quick to be rude to David? I get that everyone may have a different take on the situation (as is the case with most threads), but can't we voice those disagreements without the digs? :confused:
Click to expand...
People pointed out early on that they thought he was overreacting. He responded by dialing it up rather than toning it down. He has also mischaracterized the arguments of those debating with him. Rudeness at that point is apropos.
Click to expand...
I agree with pretty much everything Christo is saying here in terms of characterizing the thread and discussion thus far, but I also don't necessarily see a need to be rude to the big double-D (or anyone else for that matter; OK, maybe HamWhip).
 
'JaxBill said:
U.S. stocks sank deeper into the red on Wednesday after the European Union's energy chief warned of "possible catastrophic events" in the next few hours.
Click to expand...
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110316-709939.html
Click to expand...
But doubts are growing about the situation. Stocks plunged and Treasurys rallied after the Europe's energy chief warned that there could be further catastrophe at the nuclear site. However, his spokeswoman said he had no specific or priviledged information on the situation.
 
'Sinn Fein said:
'JaxBill said:
U.S. stocks sank deeper into the red on Wednesday after the European Union's energy chief warned of "possible catastrophic events" in the next few hours.
Click to expand...
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110316-709939.html
Click to expand...
But doubts are growing about the situation. Stocks plunged and Treasurys rallied after the Europe's energy chief warned that there could be further catastrophe at the nuclear site. However, his spokeswoman said he had no specific or priviledged information on the situation.
Click to expand...
So the Japanese aren't even telling the European energy chief what's going on??!!??
 


U.S. to fly spy plane over Fukushima nuclear plant for closer look

http://english.kyodo...1/03/78680.html

TOKYO, March 17, Kyodo

The U.S. military will operate a Global Hawk unmanned high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft over a stricken nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture, possibly on Thursday, to take a closer look at its troubled reactors, a Japanese government source said Wednesday.

Photographs taken by the plane equipped with infrared sensors could provide a useful clue to what is occurring inside the reactor buildings, around which high-level radiation has been detected.

The planned mission comes as the Japanese government appears unable to contain the crisis days after the coastal nuclear plant was struck by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami.

It would represent a deepening of Japanese-U.S. cooperation in coping with the escalating crisis, with the U.S. military having already provided logistical transportation, and search and rescue efforts in the wake of the disaster that hit northeastern Japan.



 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Sandeman said:
'Payne said:
'Biabreakable said:
'bueno said:
'Raiderfan32904 said:
'bueno said:
I said that the price of uranium and uranium stocks are likely to fall, while oil is likely to rise. It means I sell uranium stock (assuming I own any at the moment) and buy oil stock. Hardly a vested interest - it could affect my stock trades but nothing more. If I was going to short uranium stocks do you think I would be exagerating the potential dangers? Do you really think that? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You know I really don't care what you do with your money. I appreciate your knowledge on the subject and that's all good and well. I don't have the capatilistic savvy that you have, and am just an average Gov't worker and won't ever be rich and I am fine with that. I certainly didn't think about my portfolio and if I had one I still wouldn't mention it after this kind of calamity.
Click to expand...
I didn't mention portfolios until you implied that I had a vested interest in minimizing the danger. The original post I made was in response to someone wondering how energy policy would be affected. The response was that uranium would drop while oil prices would rise. You took that as me having a vested interest where one didn't exist. Bottom line is I don't have a vested interest in minimizing the danger, because if I chose to, I could make money either way. Not that what I say on a message board would affect that markets anyway - Dodds portfolio ain't that big! I am however, mildly insulted that you implied I was using my specific knowledge of nuclear science (dated as it may be) for personal gain here.
Click to expand...
I do not know what your motivations on this may be. But in only reading a small portion of this thread it becomes clear that you have an agenda that does not include serious consideration of the problem. Your telling people this is no big deal and to put their heads in the sand. What motivates you to do this? :confused: In any case it is not good science whatever it is your selling. How about we take the problem as serious as possible and resolve it before playing politics?
Click to expand...
First time reading any of his posts?
Click to expand...
Some people don't get it. He's a fraud. Dude screams about "core catchers" that don't exist and talks about graphite and boron without understanding their usefulness and purpose in a reactor. People lap it up. It's been the same MO for 5 years now. Guy used to actually copy/paste stuff from other websites and post it here, claiming it as his own work. And he's a scientist, a field where that is sacrelige.
Click to expand...
Glad to see that changing your avatar hasn't made you any less an ### or a liar for that matter. Borrowing a line from a political pundit once is hardly as bad as you try to make it sound.
 
My conspiracy sites are now reporting this:

- IAEA SAYS CORE DAMAGE AT UNITS 1-3 CONFIRMED, SITUATION "VERY SERIOUS"

- IAEA SAYS FUEL RODS EXPOSED IN UNITS 4, 5 AND 6

- IAEA SAYS HIGHER RADIATION LEVELS FROM DAMAGED JAPAN REACTORS

- IAEA SAYS TOTAL OF 4 JAPAN UNITS HAVE CORE DAMAGE

 
Any ideas on when we'll know that the worst (whatever it is) will be behind us? Is this a days/weeks thing or will it drag on for months like the BP spill?

 
'Biabreakable said:
'bueno said:
'Raiderfan32904 said:
'bueno said:
I said that the price of uranium and uranium stocks are likely to fall, while oil is likely to rise. It means I sell uranium stock (assuming I own any at the moment) and buy oil stock. Hardly a vested interest - it could affect my stock trades but nothing more. If I was going to short uranium stocks do you think I would be exagerating the potential dangers? Do you really think that? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You know I really don't care what you do with your money. I appreciate your knowledge on the subject and that's all good and well. I don't have the capatilistic savvy that you have, and am just an average Gov't worker and won't ever be rich and I am fine with that. I certainly didn't think about my portfolio and if I had one I still wouldn't mention it after this kind of calamity.
Click to expand...
I didn't mention portfolios until you implied that I had a vested interest in minimizing the danger. The original post I made was in response to someone wondering how energy policy would be affected. The response was that uranium would drop while oil prices would rise. You took that as me having a vested interest where one didn't exist. Bottom line is I don't have a vested interest in minimizing the danger, because if I chose to, I could make money either way. Not that what I say on a message board would affect that markets anyway - Dodds portfolio ain't that big! I am however, mildly insulted that you implied I was using my specific knowledge of nuclear science (dated as it may be) for personal gain here.
Click to expand...
I do not know what your motivations on this may be. But in only reading a small portion of this thread it becomes clear that you have an agenda that does not include serious consideration of the problem. Your telling people this is no big deal and to put their heads in the sand. What motivates you to do this? :confused: In any case it is not good science whatever it is your selling. How about we take the problem as serious as possible and resolve it before playing politics?
Click to expand...
My concern is that some people are over-reacting based on poor information and mis-information. My knowledge on the subject is somewhat dated. I did an internship at a nuclear facility in college, worked for a while early in my career for United Nuclear and then later in my career worked in uranium mining until 3MI killed the industry. I have said all along that my knowledge was dated, and have deferred to wilked or rennauz, but of who have more current experience. Sandeman is proving his lack of knowledge with every post and the the other people more knowledgeable than I have demonstrated it repeatedly here.I am not meaning to convey the sense that this is no big deal, just not the end of the world kind of scenario that many, including the MSM are portraying it. I have a respect for nuclear power and the danger it poses whereas others, including the Big DD, seem to be reacting out of fear. I also know that I have been exposed to at least as much radiation in my short career in that field as the people living around the plant, with no ill effects. Because I worked in the industry, I know how low exposure levels are set relative to the actual danger.In short, the danger is being blown out of proportion, just as it was at 3MI. This is what I am trying to convey. If you want to really look for a political agenda out of me, it is a concern that this situation will adversely affect the future of power generation in the entire world, much as the over-reaction to 3MI did 30 years ago. This is not to say this is not a serious problem that needs correcting, but it is to say that large swaths of Japan will not be made unlivable by this incident (though that land may be put off limits by a political decision), that thousands will not die (just like they did not at 3MI) and there is no real need to rush out and buy potassium iodine.Do I have a vested interest? Other than I think we need nuclear power for our energy needs, no. The reason I try to be the voice of reason here is likely motivated by that opinion. So be it. Do I own uranium stocks? Yeah, I own three. One of them, MAW.TO was up yesterday, the other 2 FSY.TO and SUR.V were down. But I also own GSM which is involved in manufacturing silica for use in solar panels (I believe solar energy will never be economic) and REE, AVL.TO, and UCU.V which are in the rare earth element business (needed for wind turbines and electric vehicles), plus NEM.TO which manufactures magnetic powders necessary for wind turbines (among other uses) - this even though I believe electric cars and wind energy won't solve our energy problem. I also own shares in Talison, which manufactures lithium required for batteries that will power electric cars - again even though I think electric cars are a red herring. So my financial decisions are not driven by politics. As I said earlier, if I wanted to make money off this I would be shorting uranium stocks, not trying to participate in a discussion on a message board.And people will give me ####, because they always do when I post fragments of my resume. Doesn't bother me.So if you can find a political motive behind my postings, you probably think you can find unicorns and tooth fairies too. It ain't there. If you don't like it, put me on ignore.
 
'mcintyre1 said:
'Otis said:
What have been the health consequences so far to this radiation? Anyone hurt yet?
Click to expand...
"Five workers have died since the quake and 22 more have been injured for various reasons, while two are missing. One worker was hospitalized after suddenly grasping his chest and finding himself unable to stand, and another needed treatment after receiving a blast of radiation near a damaged reactor."http://www.thestar.c...p-meltdown?bn=1
Click to expand...
This is an example of where people like David can make an assumption that will affect their opinion of the dangers of the situation. Needing treatment after receiving a blast of radiation is not defined, nor can we evaluate what that means. How much radiation and what type is relevant to the health risk imposed. It also does not state how the workers died or were injured, leaving those how ware reacting emotionally to perhaps conclude that their deaths and injuries were related to exposure to radiation. For all we know they died or were injured by the tsunami. This is what I mean by not giving us enough information. I hate the way news is reported. And I do have to ask whether there is a political agenda behind the way it is reported as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wrigley
Chernobyl: You didn’t see this thread, because it’s not here (Potential Spoilers)
7 8 9
Replies
436
Views
18K
Faust
Faust

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top