This is much worse than anyone thought

This appears to be a case of "No News is Bad News". I wonder what the status is now.

Ever wonder about the detrimental effects & extent of "withheld" information by all governments throughout the world that is done to "protect" the "ignorant" masses, whether from natural disasters or politics?

On the flip side, to be legitimately proactive to avoid widespread panic that would cause major disruption, thus preventing or delaying corrective action is sometimes a necessary evil.

Indeed, a very fine line between!
 
Yes, Fukushima was a bad event, but in all fairness, there are a number of people who dispute the severity of the damage and the predicted future consequences. Many of them are actual nuclear engineers and scientists, as opposed to web bloggers and YouTube journalists. Personally, I don't have enough unbiased data to make a decision of my own. (And I try not to let YouTube videos with dramatic music shape my opinions on this type of thing.) ;-)

Keep in mind that I may be biased. I have lived much of my life in Los Alamos and Albuquerque (or points in between), where there are more nuclear physicists per capita than most places. Nuclear science and energy (in various forms) paid a lot of my parents' bills when I was a kid, and continued to play a part in my income for quite a few years once I became an adult. From this experience I know for fact that there are a lot of uninformed people waving their hands and running in circles about "nuclear" anything, when they actually have no idea what they are talking about.
 
Yes, Fukushima was a bad event, but in all fairness, there are a number of people who dispute the severity of the damage and the predicted future consequences. Many of them are actual nuclear engineers and scientists, as opposed to web bloggers and YouTube journalists. Personally, I don't have enough unbiased data to make a decision of my own. (And I try not to let YouTube videos with dramatic music shape my opinions on this type of thing.) ;-)

Keep in mind that I may be biased. I have lived much of my life in Los Alamos and Albuquerque (or points in between), where there are more nuclear physicists per capita than most places. Nuclear science and energy (in various forms) paid a lot of my parents' bills when I was a kid, and continued to play a part in my income for quite a few years once I became an adult. From this experience I know for fact that there are a lot of uninformed people waving their hands and running in circles about "nuclear" anything, when they actually have no idea what they are talking about.

Well said Vaughn :thumb:

I tend to dismiss anything said by the extremists on either side of most issues.
 
It is something to be concerned about, no doubt, but I was raised around the nuclear industry (Hanford Project in Washington) and know you don't walk around in radiated area with just a dust mask on and even worse, with a beard. The problems in Japan has are scary, but in this video I think it is as much overstated as the other side is understating it.
 
considering what that plant withstood to begin with. designed to survive a level 7 earthquake, it survived a level 9, which moved parts of northern japan about 8 ft closer to north america, dropped parts of japan's coast upwards of about 2 ft in places, and shifted the planet's axis by about 4-10 inches (which will make for some interesting climate changes), and cracked the sea floor open. after that, it was running on diesel powered backups until a tsunami hit that went over the top of a 33 ft high seawall that was constructed to prevent such a thing from happening, knocking out the diesels, putting the plant on battery power until the saltwater shorted them out about 8 hours later. sounds to me like a pretty darned tough plant was hit by something so severe that the designers didn't think would happen, and survived for as long as it did.
 
Based on some quick internet search there were over 500 above ground tests of nuclear weapons (which released radioactive material into the air) worldwide.
The US has detonated at total of 1054 devices up to 1992 (above and below ground.) When you add in what everybody else in the world has done, those numbers double.

It would be interesting for someone with real knowledge to tell the difference between a leak from a damaged plant to an actual nuclear warhead detonated. It would seem that with over 500 above ground nuclear testing that have occurred, many in the Pacific, that accurate impact would be known. We still seem to be living and fishing in the Pacific even after all those testing.



Just saying.
 
...It would be interesting for someone with real knowledge to tell the difference between a leak from a damaged plant to an actual nuclear warhead detonated. It would seem that with over 500 above ground nuclear testing that have occurred, many in the Pacific, that accurate impact would be known. We still seem to be living and fishing in the Pacific even after all those testing...

There are different types of radiation (gamma, alpha, beta, etc.) and their behaviors and associated dangers vary, too. In general terms, gamma radiation is the one to be the most concerned about. It's my understanding that a nuclear weapon emits mostly gamma radiation, which is harmful indeed. The radiation from a leaking nuclear power plant is a combination of gamma, alpha, and beta.

Here's more info, although I can't vouch for the neutrality of the source:

http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-radiation-leaks.html
 
1st of all I can speak from some authority on the subject since I spent 6 year while in the Navy in the Nuclear field the first 2 1/2 were spent training and the last 3 1/2 working in the engineering department on a Nuclear submarine, The USS Nathan Hale. One of the biggest mistakes I made in my carrier was not staying in the nuclear field when I got out. I was trained as a licensed radiation handler and I participated in the refueling of the reactor on the submarine. Needless to say I have been in a reactor compartment. I can honestly say that I received more far damage to my body from the asbestos on the submarine then from exposure to radiation. That said I won't comment on the film clip until I have had a chance to watch it and since I can't get it to load I will hold off.
 
There are factions in this world - and they all have an agenda.

Pretty vague.

Both sides have an agenda - heck for that matter even I do.

Both sides have reasons for what they do.

I - do not have a side per se.

I know that I support the side I do not want or like - so I too am guilty of what I accuse the other side of doing.

I want cheaper electricity - the power companies supply it. They I accuse them of foul play. Cool - huh?

So - the BIG question IS --- WHY did the nuke plants get built? Is it something to do with "we" want it?

We are ALL in this together.

Trust me - I have some pretty strong opinions about "us" against "them" but there is a lot of "us" they we don't like to take credit for.

Sorry - I know I have a pretty vague and strange opinion sometimes, but we need to abide by the rules too.

All I am saying is that it is NOT only a one party thing going on there.
 
....It would be interesting for someone with real knowledge to tell the difference between a leak from a damaged plant to an actual nuclear warhead detonated. It would seem that with over 500 above ground nuclear testing that have occurred, many in the Pacific, that accurate impact would be known. We still seem to be living and fishing in the Pacific even after all those testing....
Strangely enough, one of my jobs while in the USAF was nuclear weaponeering, which involved matching nuclear weapons with targets to achieve a desired level of damage. Twenty years ago I could have given you a detailed explanation of the effects of air burst vs ground burst on various facilities to include rates of incapacitation of personnel at various distances from ground zero, as well as the theoretical effects of Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP). Fortunately, I can't remember any of that stuff. It's true. If you don't use it , you lose it. I hope the day never comes when we see the results of that kind of planning.
 
Somewhat different topic, but one that suggests the official safe level of radiation is absurdly low.

My wife had cancer, and after 28 external radiation treatments (fried her like a microwave - about 4000 rads summer 1999), she was put in a hospital with 11 hollow needles surgically implanted, then moved to her room so radioactive pellets could be inserted in the needles, for the next 40 hours (2000 more rads, October 1999). After they were inserted, they measured the radiation level in the room and decided
1. No pregnant or child-bearing-age nurses could take care of my wife
2. Total time any care giver could spend in my wife's room was 5 minutes, with sign in sheets for anyone entering the room.
3. I could spend 30 minutes per day standing in the doorway, but no closer.

Sounds like prudent care, until you realize that all this radiation is only about 18 inches from my wife's brain. And there were no plans to treat her for radiation sickness. I spend the two days at the foot of her bed, not shouting from the hallway. You can make jokes about that is what happened to me - why I am the way I am - but my wife survived both the cancer and the radiation treatment. And I have no regrets spending those two days 6 feet away instead of outside the door.
 
I do not believe the comments made in the film are extreme. I can not comment about the radiation levels in the ground. However, the last comment made by Prof. Kaku is very correct. TEPCO did not handle the emergency well. They tried to manage it by committee and delayed critical decisions because they were afraid it would make equipment ruined. Remember the heads of TEPCO and other power companies are run by former government bureaucrats. Guess who is paying for this continuing mess? Every person who gets an electric bill (from TEPCO) has a surcharge. Ordinary people get to pay for their incompetence.

For a brief period when I was in the US Embassy I had the energy portfolio. I remember being lectured by Mitsubishi about how much safer Japanese nuclear power was than the US. "Three island would never happen here." Look up Tsuruga power plant and previous safety incidents at Fukushima. There is no transparency. Japan Inc. practices mushroom management. "Keep them in the dark and feed them s#%_."
 
Somewhat different topic, but one that suggests the official safe level of radiation is absurdly low.

My wife had cancer, and after 28 external radiation treatments (fried her like a microwave - about 4000 rads summer 1999), she was put in a hospital with 11 hollow needles surgically implanted, then moved to her room so radioactive pellets could be inserted in the needles, for the next 40 hours (2000 more rads, October 1999). After they were inserted, they measured the radiation level in the room and decided
1. No pregnant or child-bearing-age nurses could take care of my wife
2. Total time any care giver could spend in my wife's room was 5 minutes, with sign in sheets for anyone entering the room.
3. I could spend 30 minutes per day standing in the doorway, but no closer.

Sounds like prudent care, until you realize that all this radiation is only about 18 inches from my wife's brain. And there were no plans to treat her for radiation sickness. I spend the two days at the foot of her bed, not shouting from the hallway. You can make jokes about that is what happened to me - why I am the way I am - but my wife survived both the cancer and the radiation treatment. And I have no regrets spending those two days 6 feet away instead of outside the door.


:thumb::thumb:
 
Top