Maybe you would be more informed on what is going on if you didn't spend your time listening to ####ty news sources and running in here to tell us what they are saying.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Meltdown in Japan's Reactors (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter David Dodds
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
Do you feel better now that you posted that? Is your snarkiness cathartic?
Raiderfan32904
Footballguy
Dated 16 March, coincidence? dunno....maybe this is a rallying cry for the Nuclear industry. Certainly we all need to be reminded the damage of coal and oil fired power plants.
Posting doesn't really affect how I feel, thanks for you concern.
bueno
In a class by himself
Ever watch some of those "mega-disaster" mockumentaries on science or history or even the National Geographic channel? You can always find some expert to say something outrageous. I would have to hear specifically what he claims these workers have to do to sacrifice their lives to offer an opinion. Really haven't flipped on the boob tube or gone into the internet to catch up this morning, but there is a lot of fear-mongering going on. I'll turn on the TV shortly (late breakfast).Where would you relocate these rods to and how could you relocate them until they are cooled down? The problem is going to have to be solved where the rods are located.
timschochet
Footballguy
No problem. Thanks for yours.
bueno
In a class by himself
It depends on the amount of heat the rods are generating and how long they are exposed to the atmosphere (or seawater). The ones in the reactor and the ones that were just recently removed are likely already to that point.
Incogneto
Footballguy
Stop watching those fear mongerers
bueno
In a class by himself
You're not helping!
pantagrapher
Footballguy
I'll show you an overheated rod.
That's not going to happen. The guy likes to watch dudes like Maddow and Beck.
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't like to watch Beck. I do like to watch Maddow, but she is not a dude.
Flyin Pigs
Footballguy
wait for it...
bueno
In a class by himself
You owuld think if he knew something about this, he wouldn't be buying duct tape and plastic at least.No....it won't. And Iodine tablets are useless unless you're in the immediate area when the coolant was released.
Nah, that will just be used by idealistic green energy people to try to shut down fossil fuel and nuclear plants. I think it would be far more important to remind people of all of the benefits from having the cheap access to power coal/oil/nuke plants have provided us.
bueno
In a class by himself
Baby oil will solve that problem.
Not only is she a dude, she's a really angry dude.
goldenchild
Footballguy
That might increase the chances for an explosion, no?
Battersbox
Footballguy
I'm going to turn on the news tonight when the wife and I get in to bed...I hope you don't mind if I borrow this segue.
bueno
In a class by himself
Here's hoping you get glowing reviews.
Raiderfan32904
Footballguy
Joining the “green energy” people isn’t some hair-brain notion of signing up for solar panels all over you roof, and bicycle power. It is a pragmatic approach of matching our current and future needs, with resources and technologies we have. This is the essence of “energy independence”. And nuclear power is still a main part of that plan. The renewable piece will still be the smallest piece of that energy pie. I am not suggesting it alone is the solution. Oil/Coal/Nuke will continue to dominate. The real cost of these utilities is the cost to produce the energy and you must add the environmental costs, which can be staggering.
Cheap power from coal/oil/nuke plants comes with an environmental and health price tag. As a card carrying member of the “idealistic green energy” movement, I don’t see anybody having the wherewithal to force the issue of shutting down any power plants or restricting any technology. All I would like to see is the energy pie divvied up differently, with expanded use of renewable and underutilized energy resources. The planet’s population has increased 2 ½ times in my lifetime alone. We cannot continue to drink from that cheap energy cup and expect to escape the consequences.
3C's
Footballguy
you must have been in the "how hot?" thread sheriff started.
You don't really have much choice since the areas most responsible for that population growth don't necessarily buy into your green technology. They're more worried about their economies emerging.
Joining the “green energy” people isn’t some hair-brain notion of signing up for solar panels all over you roof, and bicycle power. It is a pragmatic approach of matching our current and future needs, with resources and technologies we have. This is the essence of “energy independence”. And nuclear power is still a main part of that plan. The renewable piece will still be the smallest piece of that energy pie. I am not suggesting it alone is the solution. Oil/Coal/Nuke will continue to dominate. The real cost of these utilities is the cost to produce the energy and you must add the environmental costs, which can be staggering.
Cheap power from coal/oil/nuke plants comes with an environmental and health price tag. As a card carrying member of the “idealistic green energy” movement, I don’t see anybody having the wherewithal to force the issue of shutting down any power plants or restricting any technology. All I would like to see is the energy pie divvied up differently, with expanded use of renewable and underutilized energy resources. The planet’s population has increased 2 ½ times in my lifetime alone. We cannot continue to drink from that cheap energy cup and expect to escape the consequences.
You seem pretty reasonable there, not very idealistic at all. You didn't try to sell me that additional taxes of fossil fuels and subsidizing renewables will miraculously create more jobs and have no negative consequences. Renewable energy will need to be an ever growing piece of the energy puzzle. Many want to go about it too quickly though. Many of those same people have an irrational fear of nuclear power (even in light of recent events) and will try to use this as another bullet to get more supporters and attempt to shut down further development of the cheapest clean energy source we currently have. I hope your right that no one has the wherewithal to shut things down. Maybe we can focus on more realistic lessons from this like resolving our nuclear waste storage issues.
Joining the “green energy” people isn’t some hair-brain notion of signing up for solar panels all over you roof, and bicycle power. It is a pragmatic approach of matching our current and future needs, with resources and technologies we have. This is the essence of “energy independence”. And nuclear power is still a main part of that plan. The renewable piece will still be the smallest piece of that energy pie. I am not suggesting it alone is the solution. Oil/Coal/Nuke will continue to dominate. The real cost of these utilities is the cost to produce the energy and you must add the environmental costs, which can be staggering.
Cheap power from coal/oil/nuke plants comes with an environmental and health price tag. As a card carrying member of the “idealistic green energy” movement, I don’t see anybody having the wherewithal to force the issue of shutting down any power plants or restricting any technology. All I would like to see is the energy pie divvied up differently, with expanded use of renewable and underutilized energy resources. The planet’s population has increased 2 ½ times in my lifetime alone. We cannot continue to drink from that cheap energy cup and expect to escape the consequences.
It isn't. What's funny is the expected reaction to such a statement.I can remember several conversations I had in seminars about "emergency limits". The general consensus among workers was that such numbers are worthless. IN a true emergency where the public safety is concerned, such limits would be ignored. If the public safety weren't involved, then it wouldn't qualify for these guidelines anyway. In the end, the # holds very little real meaning. The guys will do what needs to be done.I'm at a loss why you think workers being exposed to 600 millisieverts is remotely funny.
SOme of you see this as more proof of the extreme danger. It is in fact proof positive of the OPPOSITE.
A statement right now saying they've changed the number tells me that most of these guys working on the problem are up against that figure, but most have probably not yet exceeded it by an appreciable amount (or at least, have not yet approached/exceeded the new #). After several days fighting this issue, that level of exposure is, while bad, not catastrophic. The fact they are even talking about "exposure limits" is fairly strong indication that the danger (to the public) is nowhere remotely close to what the media portrays. If it were...NOBODY would be talking about emergency exposure limits because they would be ignored anyway.
That make sense?
Otis
Footballguy
Yes.It isn't. What's funny is the expected reaction to such a statement.I can remember several conversations I had in seminars about "emergency limits". The general consensus among workers was that such numbers are worthless. IN a true emergency where the public safety is concerned, such limits would be ignored. If the public safety weren't involved, then it wouldn't qualify for these guidelines anyway. In the end, the # holds very little real meaning. The guys will do what needs to be done.I'm at a loss why you think workers being exposed to 600 millisieverts is remotely funny.
SOme of you see this as more proof of the extreme danger. It is in fact proof positive of the OPPOSITE.
A statement right now saying they've changed the number tells me that most of these guys working on the problem are up against that figure, but most have probably not yet exceeded it by an appreciable amount (or at least, have not yet approached/exceeded the new #). After several days fighting this issue, that level of exposure is, while bad, not catastrophic. The fact they are even talking about "exposure limits" is fairly strong indication that the danger (to the public) is nowhere remotely close to what the media portrays. If it were...NOBODY would be talking about emergency exposure limits because they would be ignored anyway.
That make sense?
bueno
In a class by himself
I think you may be in the minority in the green energy movement though. Certainly how that battle is being fought in the political arena would argue that is so.Certainly for every green energy except hydro and geothermal, none would survive without substantially more government subsidies than what people think the oil industry gets. And that includes nuclear.
Joining the "green energy" people isn't some hair-brain notion of signing up for solar panels all over you roof, and bicycle power. It is a pragmatic approach of matching our current and future needs, with resources and technologies we have. This is the essence of "energy independence". And nuclear power is still a main part of that plan. The renewable piece will still be the smallest piece of that energy pie. I am not suggesting it alone is the solution. Oil/Coal/Nuke will continue to dominate. The real cost of these utilities is the cost to produce the energy and you must add the environmental costs, which can be staggering.
Cheap power from coal/oil/nuke plants comes with an environmental and health price tag. As a card carrying member of the "idealistic green energy" movement, I don't see anybody having the wherewithal to force the issue of shutting down any power plants or restricting any technology. All I would like to see is the energy pie divvied up differently, with expanded use of renewable and underutilized energy resources. The planet's population has increased 2 ½ times in my lifetime alone. We cannot continue to drink from that cheap energy cup and expect to escape the consequences.
ETA: and even hydropower needed subsidies in the beginning. Bonneville Power was the largest bond default in history for a long time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Raiderfan32904
Footballguy
Oh, I know full well that I am in the minority. I don’t disagree with your assertion that they are currently heavily subsidized. BPA is still the only hybrid (Gov/Private) power company in the US. They are propped up by the Gov’t in many ways. But they offer services to the Gov’t that preclude regional utilities hidden costs, especially attributed to the wheeling of electricity. Some good people at BPA, very smart folks. I guess it comes down to how much do you believe the environmental costs of Coal/Oil/Nuke. According the EPA, the cost of minimizing emissions from these sources provides an economic benefit of $5 to $13 for every dollar spent. I will assume that they are using environmental and health costs to project that return on investment. Now if you allow or agree upon some reasonable cost in the economic index of power costs, you will see the equation begin to balance even with those large Gov’t subsidies. That make sense? I know, it requires a belief that these difficult to quantify and difficult to prove environmental impacts even exist. But deep down, we all must agree that they do.
timschochet
Footballguy
Hate to write this, but it may be time to start worrying.
Now the conservative station I'm listening to says that there is a real problem- first time they've admitted it. Dennis Prager, who is as pro-nuclear as anyone I've heard, had a guest on who is a nuclear physicist and who has defended nuclear energy in the past several days. That guy says the storage unit in #4 is dry, and water cannot be added. He also stated that the Japanese company and government has been lying to the public, and he sees the issue as "terrible news, very bad".
When guys like this, who I have listened to and believed (mainly because I wanted to) in the last few days and who previously have asserted there was little to worry about; when these guys say there is now real cause for concern, I think it's reasonable to be nervous at this point.
Now the conservative station I'm listening to says that there is a real problem- first time they've admitted it. Dennis Prager, who is as pro-nuclear as anyone I've heard, had a guest on who is a nuclear physicist and who has defended nuclear energy in the past several days. That guy says the storage unit in #4 is dry, and water cannot be added. He also stated that the Japanese company and government has been lying to the public, and he sees the issue as "terrible news, very bad".
When guys like this, who I have listened to and believed (mainly because I wanted to) in the last few days and who previously have asserted there was little to worry about; when these guys say there is now real cause for concern, I think it's reasonable to be nervous at this point.
Last edited by a moderator:
JbizzleMan
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
According to the expert. he said that physicists outside the company and government had asserted yesterday that the storage unit was dry, and that the situation was dire. The Japanese government issued a statement last night denying it. Then, apparently early this morning, the Japanese government issued a new statement confirming it but asserting that they were "handling the problem". To the expert, this was an admission of lying and an argument that perhaps they have been lying all along...
Phase of the Game
Footballguy
You should just stop eating so you don't have to worry about consuming anything that could potentially be harmful to you.
JbizzleMan
Footballguy
40-46 is within the normal range of background radiation at this particular location. They say if that number is doubled there is reason for concern.
Last edited by a moderator:
David Dodds
Administrator
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Video---Japan-Global-Energy-Authorities-Voice-Concerns-Over-Situation-At-Fukushima-Nuclear-Plant/Article/201103315953955?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15953955_Video_-_Japan%3A_Global_Energy_Authorities_Voice_Concerns_Over_Situation_At_Fukushima_Nuclear_Plant
Japan Admits Nuclear Problem Is 'Severe'
Japan Admits Nuclear Problem Is 'Severe'
JbizzleMan
Footballguy
Just saw the detector his 63 for a second....not sure what this means... 
Last edited by a moderator:
Used his microwave.Just saw the detector his 59 for a second....not sure what this means...
Otis
Footballguy
JbizzleMan
Footballguy
65!!!!!!!
Otis
Footballguy
Used his microwave.Just saw the detector his 59 for a second....not sure what this means...
Otis
Footballguy
So is this the full extent of radiation-related injuries thus far?
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.htmlAnd from an article linked in this thread above:
JbizzleMan
Footballguy
#%#%# I had chest and teeth xrays last month. I am so screwed.
David Dodds
Administrator
Don't shoot the messenger here. A lot of these bloggers have been right about this thing. This is very doom and gloom though (even by my standards):
http://fiatsfire.blogspot.com/2011/03/radioactive-japan-geiger-counter-45.html
http://fiatsfire.blogspot.com/2011/03/radioactive-japan-geiger-counter-45.html
I just grew a second head and I'm all the way in Florida!
