Earthquake/Tsunami Thread - FG Members Check In.

hansvonaxion said:
Wrong.

Daini reactors achieved cold shutdown without the use of their diesel generators.

The earthquake/tsunami cannot be taken out of this equation.
Click to expand...

I didn't do that. The tsunami triggered it all, as I have written. But the power plant failed due to a lack of cooling, caused by a loss of power. And the diesels, that should have provided emergency power, failed after an hour or so. Are you denying that or how must I understand you?

Jesus H. Christ.

You fail at science, too.
Click to expand...

To begin with, scientific results must be based on correct numbers. Problem is, though, that there are no reliable or serious numbers whatsoever concerning the aftermaths of a nuclear disaster. None. Whatsoever.

Until today there aren't even any reliable numbers of how many people actually died directly after Tchernobyl -- mostly because the authorities prevented large-scale investigations and studies. So almost nothing could be learned from that disaster and we're still left with guessing.

All those "scientific" models have the problem of being theoretical. Limits have been set by what people think is ok. Maintenance workers in nuclear power plants in France for example are officially allowed to get a dose of 200 mSv per year during their dirty work.

But they are given an early break after 160 or so already, just in case. Because nobody really knows. And above-average of them get sick with cancer nevertheless. Saw an interesting documentary about that the other day.

It's like with limits for cholesterine or blood sugar: They are set in an almost arbitrary way (often with the interests of the pharmaceutical industry in mind) without taking into consideration, that every human's body reacts differently. The same thing is happening with limits of air pollution and radioactivity: Some get sick and some don't.

Example? Not all coal miners die of cancer. Not all construction workers, who come in contact with asbestos, also die of it. But some do and it's very hard to prove, that their disease is a result of pollution or poisoning.

People react differently to toxics or diseases. Why? Because people are different. There isn't THE human. But limits assume that there is the average human. Which simply doesn't exist. Some get sick at a lower dosis, some can do with a much higher dosis without a problem.

If you want to seriously protect people, you have to find the low-end dosis. But that isn't happening. An average is taken instead, which the experts agree on (without warranty of course).

I work in an office with about 100 people. Some catch a cold twice a year. I'm getting one in two or three years or so and almost only with a running nose. No soar throat, sometimes a bit of cough, too. I almost never get an infection but I have migraines and diabetes. Put that in your model calculations, mister. My last time in hospital was when I was three and got my tonsils removed. That was 42 years ago. I still have my appendix, though.

Am I a mutant? No, I'm simply not the average guy.

So all I say is, that there are too many estimations, too many variables and assumptions involved to really rely on what "they" tell you is safe or unsafe. And it's also not a too bad guess, that the atomic lobby probably also had their word in setting radiation limits in their favour. Not creating any conspiracy theory here but simply saying how it is.

You should know about lobbyists very well: Japan is the motherland of putting industry interests above almost everything else.

Yes, people are exposed to radiation, everyday, naturally, some up to 100-260mSv/yr. Every time you get an X-ray, CT-scan, radiation therapy, nuclear industry workers, airline pilots, people who live near coal-fired power stations, people who survived the atomic bombs, people who were close to the bombs tests, people who cleaned up after Chernobyl, who lived near Chernobyl etc. Not to mention that blood can be exposed and studied outside of the body.

No the scientists who proved the link between high-level radiation exposure and cancer that you love to trumpet are the same scientists that give estimates for increased risk of cancer for certain exposures that you love to ignore or dismiss. You can't have it both ways, make your mind up.
Click to expand...

So what do you want to say? That any additional contamination doesn't make any difference?

I don't get your point there.

And again: There are no reliable numbers on the Tchernobyl disaster. None whatsoever. There has been no study, which sums up all the effects in the aftermath. That's why the number of dead people varies from a few thousands to hundreds of thousands, depending on who you ask.

8,000,000 deaths per year attributed to small particle air pollution. Did you forget that?

Should I mention free radicals? Can you see, smell, taste them?
Click to expand...

I don't know, if those numbers are right. I have a general mistrust against studies, that throw around such huge numbers.

But yes, air pollution is bad. Very bad. That's why we are fighting it.

But again: Do you wanna say, that with all the air pollution and stuff, it is already so bad, that a few thousand more dead people due to a nuclear disaster don't matter anymore?

Meaning the amount of land that may (in a worst case scenario accident) be left "uninhabitable" is still less than the amount of land that is destroyed and uninhabitable due to the normal operation of a hydro power station.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute.

Are you seriously saying, that the construction of a reservoir is the same, as a nuclear disaster, caused by a reactor meltdown?

And you wonder, why I contradict you all the time?

OK I'm done.

You must be trolling.
Click to expand...

Yes, whenever a discussion gets controversial and the other one isn't so easily to convince, there must be trolling involved :rolleyes:

By that standard, every serious debate in a democratic parliament is dominated by trolling :lol:

Sorry but I'm not a fluffy person, when a discussion touches my inner convictions.
 
Last edited:
I still don't get what your solution is, then. Ban all forms of energy?
 
This seems odly appropriate somehow....

voy.jpg
 
skidd said:
I still don't get what your solution is, then. Ban all forms of energy?
Click to expand...

No. I'm very well aware, that we can't simply dump nuclear energy. We got it and we're stuck with it for some more time now. And we also have to cope with the waste. No use in bemoaning that.

But nuclear power was always meant to be a bridge technology, until something better was found. Nuclear energy was never meant to be a lasting solution. So all I say is: Well, folks, enough meltdowns. Time to move your arses and think of something better.

We have the technology now and we have the brains. All we lack, is the will.

I give you an example: You have a heating in your house. It produces a lot of warm water, doesn't it? Why isn't it used to produce electricity at the same time? Does the term "cogeneration" ring a bell?

Just think about how much energy is wasted today. Estimations for my country say, that about a third of the electricity we use, could be saved. That's where we should start working on first.

Sure, it's not all done tomorrow. But even the longest journey has to begin with the first step, as an old Chinese proverb says.

Cowboy said:
This seems odly appropriate somehow....

voy.jpg
Click to expand...

You are of course aware of the nasty double-meaning of that cartoon, right? :p
 
Last edited:
I hope I don't revive any flame wars by bumping this thread, but I felt this didn't necessarily warrant its own:

How one Japanese village defied the tsunami

FUDAI, Japan ? In the rubble of Japan's northeast coast, one small village stands as tall as ever after the tsunami. No homes were swept away. In fact, they barely got wet.

Fudai is the village that survived ? thanks to a huge wall once deemed a mayor's expensive folly and now vindicated as the community's salvation.

The 3,000 residents living between mountains behind a cove owe their lives to a late leader who saw the devastation of an earlier tsunami and made it the priority of his four-decade tenure to defend his people from the next one.

His 51-foot floodgate between mountainsides took a dozen years to build and meant spending more than $30 million in today's dollars.
Click to expand...
location of floodgate
location of port and seawall
more photos
 
That guy should of advised the people around the power plants.
 
Step 1: Don't build a power plant in a tsunami-prone area.

"I think we're done here." - Cave Johnson.
 
Last edited:
Evel said:
Easier said than done, especially in a country such as Japan. But they certainly should've put more thought into it, perhaps adding extra protection and what not.
Click to expand...

I'm aware, it was intended to be a tongue-in-cheek comment and not to be taken entirely seriously.
 
No worries. Tone of voice doesn't translate well into text.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top