patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
751,118 comments in 77,213 posts by 11,012 registered users, 7 online now: FortWayne, Herb, jazz_music, just_passing_through, rocketjoe79, Straw Man, ThreeBays

new post

The Pacific is beautiful when it glows brightly at night.

By HEY YOU   Feb 4, 11:18am   3 links   510 views   12 comments   watch (0)   quote      

"Radiation levels of up to 530 Sieverts per hour were detected inside an inactive Reactor 2 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex damaged during the 2011 earthquake and tsunami catastrophe, Japanese media reported on Thursday citing the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO)."

"A dose of about 8 Sieverts is considered incurable and fatal."
These stupid people that worship an emperor can't get close enough to even see what the problem is.
This would never happen here because emperor trump wouldn't allow it.
Just waiting for a nuclear plant,here, to go "FUCKED UP" & hurt & kill Republicans.

http://yournewswire.com/japan-fukushima-reactor-crisis/

Comments 1-12 of 12     Last »

1   freespeechforever   56/61 = 91% civil   Feb 4, 12:20pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

We'll have glowing coasts, too, now that Tumpligua is our presidents!

Seig Heil!

2   jazz_music   876/877 = 99% civil   Feb 4, 12:55pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Trump would have never allowed them to declare a state of emergency.

Scientists at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan have declared a state of emergency as one of the reactors is on the verge of falling into the ocean.*

*Lethal levels of radiation have been detected around the site which scientists say stems from a hole caused by melted nuclear fuel.

3   BayAreaObserver   1082/1083 = 99% civil   Jul 14, 6:55pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Japan utility plans to dump radioactive Fukushima water into Pacific

July 14 (UPI) -- The operator of Japan's paralyzed nuclear plant in Fukushima has decided to release radioactive tritium into the Pacific Ocean.

The decision has angered local fishermen, who say they were not consulted on the decision.

Takashi Kawamura, chairman of Tokyo Electro Power Co., said the plan has been settled, but that the utility is still waiting for the final word from Japan's nuclear regulation authority, Japanese newspaper Tokyo Shimbun reported Friday.

About 770,000 tons of radioactive water is stored in 580 tanks in Fukushima.

Technology has so far been unable to remove tritium from the water, and TEPCO's solution is to pour the radioactive liquid into the ocean, where, according to the utility's officials, it would be quickly diluted, The Telegraph reported Friday.

Aileen Mioko-Smith, an anti-nuclear activist, told The Telegraph the "authorities should have been able to devise a way to remove the tritium instead of simply announcing that they are going to dump it into the ocean."

"They say that it will be safe because the ocean is large so it will be diluted, but that sets a precedent that can be copied, essentially permitting anyone to dump nuclear waste into our seas," she added.

TEPCO insists tritium poses few health hazards, but Japanese fishermen are outraged because of the announcement.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/07/14/Japan-utility-plans-to-dump-radioactive-Fukushima-water-into-Pacific/7651500055813/?utm_source=fp&utm_campaign=ts&utm_medium=6

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/14/fishermen-express-fury-fukushima-plant-set-release-radioactive/

4   Strategist   2026/2031 = 99% civil   Jul 14, 7:25pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

jazz_music says

Trump would have never allowed them to declare a state of emergency.

Scientists at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan have declared a state of emergency as one of the reactors is on the verge of falling into the ocean.*


*Lethal levels of radiation have been detected around the site which scientists say stems from a hole caused by melted nuclear fuel.

Huh? You actually posted something you knew does not make any sense.
WTF

5   WookieMan   33/33 = 100% civil   Jul 14, 7:44pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

BayAreaObserver says

About 770,000 tons of radioactive water is stored in 580 tanks in Fukushima.

While I don't like radioactive water, the amount of water really is minuscule. It's about equivalent to 3,000 homes, with a family of four water usage for a month (in the 580 tanks). Or broken down to cubic feet, it's ~29,411,764. The Pacific Ocean alone has 171 MILLION cubic MILES of water. ~29M Cubic feet is about 0.00019981095933 Cubic MILES. So we're talking 171,000,000 cubic miles of water and 0.00019981095933 of that is going to have radioactive water. I agree the fisherman should take issue locally. In the grand scheme of things, this is literally a proton or whatever atomic particle you like in a haystack. Fuck the needle. Don't forget the other ~50% of the worlds oceans either in this. So I don't think anything is going to glow from this.

6   bob2356   686/691 = 99% civil   Jul 14, 9:22pm  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

BayAreaObserver says

About 770,000 tons of radioactive water is stored in 580 tanks in Fukushima.

I'm assuming you are aware the amount of tritium in those 770,000 tons of water is 875 terabecquerel (TBq) which translates out to 2.45 grams. It is increasing at a rate of 230 TBq of 0.64 grams a year. I'm reasonably sure 2.45 grams dispersed in 171 million cubic miles of water isn't going to be making any glow. Especially since cosmic rays produce 148,000 terabecquerels of tritium per year maintaining the approximately 2,590,000 terabecquerels of naturally occurring tritium in the world.

Just a thought.

7   WookieMan   33/33 = 100% civil   Jul 14, 10:36pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Smart ass...

8   PCGyver   390/390 = 100% civil   Jul 15, 12:42am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dilution is the solution!

9   BayAreaObserver   1082/1083 = 99% civil   Jul 15, 2:02am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

WookieMan and Bob2356. Thanks for the comments, yes I am aware the amount is ridiculously small and really not much of a threat except for the immediate area and then not for long.

I opted to post on the existing thread rather than start a new one. My main reasoning was the potential for setting a new precedent to continue using the ocean as a dumping ground for even more damaging things. How much has been dumped no one even knows about is what concerns me and I suspect there has been a lot more than we will ever know or care to know.

The Great Lakes and many of our rivers, lakes, and streams have already suffered untold and often as yet unknown damage from using them as convenient dumping grounds. Micro beads is one example and the 1900s thru the late 1980s was an utter tragedy for our fresh water supplies.

Reading the reports and seeing the pictures of marine animals ingesting plastics etc., trash washing ashore on places where there is little to no human activity, floating islands of plastic etc. in the ocean etc.

That is all - just commenting on man's disregard for nature and then pondering later on why people get sick, deformed at birth and things aren't the way they used to be.

Related: Report: High seas in high danger as ecological tipping point nears Scientists at Oxford University in the United Kingdom reviewed 271 research papers published between 2012 and 2017 and synthesized the latest data on the impact of climate change, fishing and pollution on the high seas. Their findings are not encouraging: Even the most distant reaches of the ocean are suffering from chemical and plastic contamination, a loss of biodiversity and the consequences of rising temperatures.

https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2017/07/14/Report-High-seas-in-high-danger-as-ecological-tipping-point-nears/9591500048988/?utm_source=fp&utm_campaign=ts&utm_medium=18

Report Cited in Article Above, 36 pages. http://highseasalliance.org/sites/highseasalliance.org/files/HS%20Synthesis%20Oxford%20%28110717%29.pdf

10   bob2356   686/691 = 99% civil   Jul 15, 6:24am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

BayAreaObserver says

I opted to post on the existing thread rather than start a new one. My main reasoning was the potential for setting a new precedent to continue using the ocean as a dumping ground for even more damaging things. How much has been dumped no one even knows about is what concerns me and I suspect there has been a lot more than we will ever know or care to know.

That is a valid but probably misplaced concern considering the amount of ocean dumping that has already occurred in the history of man.. I don't see a precedent in a one time dumping (we aren't going to have reactor meltdowns very often) of a minuscule quantity of tritium which is a naturally occurring isotope that exists in the oceans already. The dumping unimaginably huge quantities of plastics, chemicals, nitrates, hydrocarbons, etc., etc. is a very different issue more than worthy of it's own thread.

For the politically inclined the restrictions on ocean dumping are some of the business killing regulations promulgated by unelected bureaucrats that the libertarians currently running our government want gone. Be careful what you wish for you might get it.

11   BayAreaObserver   1082/1083 = 99% civil   Jul 16, 1:20pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

WookieMan and Bob2356. We may not have glowing oceans from Fukushima however we have enough other hot spots around the world that could do some serious damage. The map below only shows what has been admitted to but does not include the areas where Russia is either believed to or admitted to dumping/disposing nuclear waste.

Several Articles for you to consider....

Killing The Oceans, The Dumping Of Nuclear Waste: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/killing-the-oceans-the-dumping-of-nuclear-waste/

The disposal of nuclear waste into the world’s oceans: http://www.cbrneportal.com/the-disposal-of-nuclear-waste-into-the-worlds-oceans/

Total radiation waste dumped into our Oceans: http://www.nukepro.net/2015/08/total-radiation-waste-dumped-into-our.html

The next two articles are directly related to each other both covering the same event(s)

Russia Dumped 19 Radioactive Ships Plus 14 Nuclear Reactors Into the Ocean: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/russia-dumped-19-radioactive-ships-plus-14-nuclear-reactors-into-the-ocean.html

Russia announces enormous finds of radioactive waste and nuclear reactors in Arctic seas: http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/radioactive-waste-and-spent-nuclear-fuel/2012-08-russia-announces-enormous-finds-of-radioactive-waste-and-nuclear-reactors-in-arctic-seas

12   bob2356   686/691 = 99% civil   Jul 16, 9:53pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

BayAreaObserver says

WookieMan and Bob2356. We may not have glowing oceans from Fukushima however we have enough other hot spots around the world that could do some serious damage. The map below only shows what has been admitted to but does not include the areas where Russia is either believed to or admitted to dumping/disposing nuclear waste.

No doubt. We weren't talking about solid nuclear waste that will sit for thousands of years. We were talking about tritium which is both naturally occurring already and will disperse. If you want be really horrified on the subject of soviet navy nuclear dumping then read K19 Widowmaker by Peter Huchthausen . Your map is only low level radioactive, not entire nuclear submarines with the reactors still in them.

Comments 1-12 of 12     Last »

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
patrick's 40 proposals  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home