Henry Ford
Footballguy
downgraded to 6.9 at least. For perspective, the 2011 earthquake was 6.6.
Tsunami reported at 3 meters. That would be significant damage reduction compared to the nearly 40 meter tsunami in 2011.Live coverage: http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/live/
Do you want orcs? Because this is how you get orcs.
those are wargs.Do you want orcs? Because this is how you get orcs.
You haven't tried radioactive boar until you've tried Oklahoma radioactive boar
Huh? 2011 was a 9.0 or 9.1. Strongest quake ever to hit Japan.downgraded to 6.9 at least. For perspective, the 2011 earthquake was 6.6.
Sweet another epic mount coming my way.Do you want orcs? Because this is how you get orcs.
Super Ham!You haven't tried radioactive boar until you've tried Oklahoma radioactive boar
Sorry, looked it up right after and found this:Huh? 2011 was a 9.0 or 9.1. Strongest quake ever to hit Japan.
No. While there is a half life for radiation, that half life can range from from minutes to centuries depending on the isotope.Sooooo last year, it was at 530, which would make this year 265? Is that how radiation works?
####### heros those robots.Still enough radiation to kill robots
A Japanese company tasked with cleaning up Fukushima, the site of the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl, has admitted that its attempts to probe the site are failing repeatedly due to incredibly high levels of radiation.
The nuclear meltdown at Fukushima in 2011 was triggered by an earthquake and tsunami which left around 18,000 people dead and more than a million buildings destroyed.
The radiation levels on the site are far higher than any human could possibly survive, so engineers are using purpose-built “scorpion” robots with cameras attached to survey the scale of the damage.
The latest attempt to harvest data on Fukushima failed after a robot designed by Toshiba to withstand high radiation levels died five times faster than expected.
The robot was supposed to be able to cope with 73 sieverts of radiation, but the radiation level inside the reactor was recently recorded at 530 sieverts.
A single dose of one sievert is enough to cause radiation sickness and nausea; 5 sieverts would kill half those exposed to it within a month, and a single dose of 10 sieverts would prove fatal within weeks.
Well they could except for that pesky problem of killing everyone and their machinery that gets within a mile of the spot. Pity that...Can't they just like, dig a hole and put it in there?
I think Chernobyl devastated a much larger area due to the radiation release that exploded out of of the plant.Nuts. Barely gets any news now. Horrific disaster. Strange how Chernobyl is still famous to this day but the Fukushima meltdown is an afterthought.
I recently saw a documentary about the aftermath of Chernobyl. They sent a team of scientists into the "hot zone" to see how wildlife has responded since the disaster and it's very eerie. One of the scariest things is in regards to the forest that surrounds the plant. Most forests have a process where dead trees/leaves will dry out and then decay. However--in the area around Chernobyl--most of the bacteria/organisms that aid in the decaying process are gone. You basically have this giant forest with layers and layers of dried dead radioactive leaves that have been accumulating for decades. These leaves are like perfect tinder for a fire. If lightning struck out there-and started a fire--you would literally have a giant perfectly dry forest of radioactive leaves/trees spewing radioactive smoke high into the atmosphere. The results would be absolutely catastropic.I think Chernobyl devastated a much larger area due to the radiation release that exploded out of of the plant.
Is that really how it works? I wouldn't think the plant life grown thirty years later would be radioactive.jvdesigns2002 said:I recently saw a documentary about the aftermath of Chernobyl. They sent a team of scientists into the "hot zone" to see how wildlife has responded since the disaster and it's very eerie. One of the scariest things is in regards to the forest that surrounds the plant. Most forests have a process where dead trees/leaves will dry out and then decay. However--in the area around Chernobyl--most of the bacteria/organisms that aid in the decaying process are gone. You basically have this giant forest with layers and layers of dried dead radioactive leaves that have been accumulating for decades. These leaves are like perfect tinder for a fire. If lightning struck out there-and started a fire--you would literally have a giant perfectly dry forest of radioactive leaves/trees spewing radioactive smoke high into the atmosphere. The results would be absolutely catastropic.
Somebody should get a rake then.jvdesigns2002 said:I recently saw a documentary about the aftermath of Chernobyl. They sent a team of scientists into the "hot zone" to see how wildlife has responded since the disaster and it's very eerie. One of the scariest things is in regards to the forest that surrounds the plant. Most forests have a process where dead trees/leaves will dry out and then decay. However--in the area around Chernobyl--most of the bacteria/organisms that aid in the decaying process are gone. You basically have this giant forest with layers and layers of dried dead radioactive leaves that have been accumulating for decades. These leaves are like perfect tinder for a fire. If lightning struck out there-and started a fire--you would literally have a giant perfectly dry forest of radioactive leaves/trees spewing radioactive smoke high into the atmosphere. The results would be absolutely catastropic.
A leaf blower would be more efficientSomebody should get a rake then.
Yes sir--you have to remember that many of the leaves that are on the ground were from decades ago when the reactor first blew up. On the documentary that I saw--they took a sampling of a few of the leaves from the forest floor--and burned them. They then tested the smoke that came from their controlled experiment and sure enough the smoke was indeed radioactive/toxic.Is that really how it works? I wouldn't think the plant life grown thirty years later would be radioactive.
So what exact threat(s) does a radioactive smoke cloud into the atmosphere provide?Yes sir--you have to remember that many of the leaves that are on the ground were from decades ago when the reactor first blew up. On the documentary that I saw--they took a sampling of a few of the leaves from the forest floor--and burned them. They then tested the smoke that came from their controlled experiment and sure enough the smoke was indeed radioactive/toxic.
Have you ever seen Lost?So what exact threat(s) does a radioactive smoke cloud into the atmosphere provide?
Smoke gets blown around the same way the particles in a nuclear explosion would. The particles could travel great distances before they fall back down to earth. There were huge forest fires in Siberia early in 2018. Smoke from it reached all the way into Canada. Here is an article that touches the issue. I'm still trying to figure out name of documentary so I can link that.So what exact threat(s) does a radioactive smoke cloud into the atmosphere provide?
I recently saw a documentary about the aftermath of Chernobyl. They sent a team of scientists into the "hot zone" to see how wildlife has responded since the disaster and it's very eerie. One of the scariest things is in regards to the forest that surrounds the plant. Most forests have a process where dead trees/leaves will dry out and then decay. However--in the area around Chernobyl--most of the bacteria/organisms that aid in the decaying process are gone. You basically have this giant forest with layers and layers of dried dead radioactive leaves that have been accumulating for decades. These leaves are like perfect tinder for a fire. If lightning struck out there-and started a fire--you would literally have a giant perfectly dry forest of radioactive leaves/trees spewing radioactive smoke high into the atmosphere. The results would be absolutely catastropic.
I'm one of those free market/modern-business-green holdouts against nuclear energy. Clean, efficient, cheap nuclear energy.Pretty crazy that this seems to be happening right now.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/06/bad-news-radiation-spikes-16-times-above-normal-after-forest-fire-near-chernobyl