Japans Nuclear Crisis and ours

Supra

Supra

Registered User
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,200
Has anyone been keeping up with this? Not only is Japan in deep shit as well as what this meltdown has done, but we have Fort Calhoun nuclear plant that is in deep shit as well due to the major flooding in the area. Here are some interesting sites about this crisis. The meltdown in japan has created a worldwide epidemic, Infant mortality rates have spiked in Seattle, radio active cars being shipped worldwide, and it goes on and on.

http://enenews.com/fox-affiliate-seattle-northwest-sees-35-infant-mortality-spike-post-fukushima

Blog about Japan Meltdown
http://enenews.com/
 
not sure why they decided to go nuclear in the first place. One of the worst regions in the world to have nuclear generated plants
 
x=FAST=x said:
not sure why they decided to go nuclear in the first place. One of the worst regions in the world to have nuclear generated plants
Click to expand...

Exactluy!!! Thank you! They were told not to build those reactors due to tsunamis and now look what happened. There is no end in sight, we are all being poisoned with radiation as well as much of the ocean and marine life. They fucking screwed us, there is no way they are gonna be able to contain the radiation. No end in sight.

Here at home the the flooding In omaha could give us a meltdown. Even if that disaster is averted, what are we going to do about the one in Japan, its probably the end of there country as we know it cause they are not going to be economically viable and its poisoning the rest of us as well as well as all our food. At this point boycott japan imo. I swear if its not one thing is another with this crap.
 
Hard to say if those are accurate reports supra. Keep In mind that the media has always and will always overplay and hype up every current event that takes place, especially disasters. Keep in mind, when you own the information and installation you can bend it how you want. -Commercial Media 101.


I would say that a 35% percent of infant mortality rates in seattle sounds right... that place is so dam miserable that suicide is a common occurance. Hell man if you only got 2 months of sunshine out of the year you'd prolly kill yourself too lol.

In all seriousness. If this shit troubles you and has you overly concerned, do some serious research formulate how it will affect you and then develop a course of action. The air quality in california is grounds to peace the fuck out anyway.. the only thing you would be missing is gay people, pollution and hippie douche bags who think the world doesn't have enough bicycle paths and grease powered Volkswaggens.

Don't let the hype scare you.. I think the most hilarious thing I have ever seen about the Nuclear disaster in Japan was watching some retard field-anchor hold up a Geiger-Counter to a head of lettuce at a fruit stand in seattle, while quoting " That's the highest level I'VE EVER SEEN". Meanwhile he is statnding under his news van which has a 10MW remote broadcasting Microwave Radar dish duct taped to the top.


where was I going with that??
Don't buy the hype.... If you think you are "irradiated", go take an Iodine pill, problem solved
 
Dirty-Lex said:
Hard to say if those are accurate reports supra. Keep In mind that the media has always and will always overplay and hype up every current event that takes place, especially disasters. Keep in mind, when you own the information and installation you can bend it how you want. -Commercial Media 101.


I would say that a 35% percent of infant mortality rates in seattle sounds right... that place is so dam miserable that suicide is a common occurance. Hell man if you only got 2 months of sunshine out of the year you'd prolly kill yourself too lol.

In all seriousness. If this shit troubles you and has you overly concerned, do some serious research formulate how it will affect you and then develop a course of action. The air quality in california is grounds to peace the fuck out anyway.. the only thing you would be missing is gay people, pollution and hippie douche bags who think the world doesn't have enough bicycle paths and grease powered Volkswaggens.

Don't let the hype scare you.. I think the most hilarious thing I have ever seen about the Nuclear disaster in Japan was watching some retard field-anchor hold up a Geiger-Counter to a head of lettuce at a fruit stand in seattle, while quoting " That's the highest level I'VE EVER SEEN". Meanwhile he is statnding under his news van which has a 10MW remote broadcasting Microwave Radar dish duct taped to the top.


where was I going with that??
Don't buy the hype.... If you think you are "irradiated", go take an Iodine pill, problem solved
Click to expand...


Haha well said, thanks man
 
or you can do it the old fashion way and stab ure heart with a needle
 
From a nuclear engineer point of view, many reasons why Japan need nuclear power plants. For one, they lack natural resource that bigger countries such as US or China have within their country, because of the landmass, the numbers of dams are also limited in Japan, only alternative option is solar or wind, which both require huge land size. Nuclear is a better of the limited choices they already have, in fact, that is one of the primary reason why Japan entered WWII, because them as a country lack abundant natural resources.

As for the percentage of infant mortality rate spiked in Seattle, I would not contribute it solely due to radiation spread in Japan, it could be one factor, but I wouldn't not take stuff media says in it's face value, unless they attach it with some scientific backing.

And please don't say radiation is bad and evil because only ignorant people does that, you've all eaten process food that's been irradiated to kill off unwanted micro organisms. I strongly dislike the way media portray radiation, in fact half of the time they do not present you with any units, which distorts perspective on how much radiation a human can receive per year so that he is at an increased risk for cancer.

In the end of the day, Japan have no choice but to build nuclear power plant to support their country's demand for energy, and don't take everything media put on TV.

These are only my opinions.
 
the location of the plants are literally above where one of the plates is sinking under the pacific plate. They at least got better chance on the south west part of the country not in the north east.


Having a mixture at least is feasible, wind, few damns and possibly 1 nuclear away from the extreme parts of the subduction zones
 
People in japan are not stupid, their building are subjected to the most strict building construction codes in the world, knowing that they are building them along the fault line.

The point in Japan now is bigger than nuclear power plant, it only seem big because that's all the media talks about. It's been months after the tsunami, and the part of the country that's been hit still have most of their infrastructures wiped out. Unidentified bodies are still on sea shore, but you don't hear that in the news.

Dams are limited, you can only build so many. And the consequences of building a dam on the ecological habitat surrounding the area is huge. I've already mentioned wind and solar, however I have to stress that you'll need LARGE land mass to produce any meaningful power from them, not to mention the energy you obtain is much much less.

If you overlay the tectonic plate below japan Niigata-Kobe Tectonic Zone with the nuclear power plants they current have and where it's build, Nuclear Power Plants - Japan I'd say they are already place in strategic locations. Don't think one moment the Japanese people do not know the risks when they build these, however sometimes it's near impossible to build something to protect against EVERY single possible EVENTS, there's something called risk and reward.
 
x=FAST=x said:
the location of the plants are literally above where one of the plates is sinking under the pacific plate. They got better chances on the south west part of the country not in the north east.


Having a mixture at least is feasible, wind, few damns and possibly 1 nuclear away from the extreme parts of the subduction zones
Click to expand...

A healthy perspective yes,. It's all about costs vs benefit. Did Japan do the best thing by placing it right on a fault line?, in hind sight of recent events no lol, but I doubt they were ignorant of the tectonic activity within the region they selected, they are smart people I am sure they took the risk knowing what they were getting into, but viewed the infrastructure as stable, at the same time operational costs and the logistical budget numbers spoke "Hey this is a pretty good spot. It's close enough for what we need it for and very functional". Mother nature once again serves as a prime example of how fragile we really are.. quite humbling really.

Just for conversation sake :
:)


Im a huge opponent of wind power, I feel it is a foolish and expensive step backwards in the pursuit of meeting our energy needs and getting us away from our dependence on Arab/Foreign oil. It's silly the technology just is not on par for our demands. It would be more effective if the people that advocate them, spend less time lobbying and more time next to one manually cranking the blades.

here are some numbers for you:
in all of the the US: wind power alone constituted: 41,400 MWh in the 1st Q of FY11'
say they keep up that exact rate for the close of the FY. They will have only produced: 1.65GWh of power to the united states,
Refrence: Industry Statistics


where as Nuclear power, say that of NY's Idian point energy center which has 3 nuclear reactors annually produces:
Reactor # 2: 8,842 GWh
Reactor # 3: 7,797 GWh
total of: 16,639 GWh
Refrence IPEC's wiki: Indian Point Energy Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IPEC produces only 4% of NYC's annual power consumption,.

NYC energy info:
New York Energy Data

NYC's required energy generation (Annual): 146,887,419MWh

Standard wind turbine annual output: 5MWh

Number of wind Turbines required to generate annual eneregy requirements for NYC at 100% output 29,377,484

The most common commerical grade wind turbine is about 2MW, which cost about $3.5 Million
How much do wind turbines cost? | Windustry

that said, it would take 73,443,710 2mw wind turbines to power NYC at the above net generation figure. at a cost of 3.5million dollars each would cost about:

$257,052,985,000,000
(257 Trillion Dollars) whats our national debt again?? and anybody still think wind is a viable option?


Wind power belongs to glider pilots and sailboats.
 
KombatNife said:
People in japan are not stupid, their building are subjected to the most strict building construction codes in the world, knowing that they are building them along the fault line.

The point in Japan now is bigger than nuclear power plant, it only seem big because that's all the media talks about. It's been months after the tsunami, and the part of the country that's been hit still have most of their infrastructures wiped out. Unidentified bodies are still on sea shore, but you don't hear that in the news.

Dams are limited, you can only build so many. And the consequences of building a dam on the ecological habitat surrounding the area is huge. I've already mentioned wind and solar, however I have to stress that you'll need LARGE land mass to produce any meaningful power from them, not to mention the energy you obtain is much much less.

If you overlay the tectonic plate below japan Niigata-Kobe Tectonic Zone with the nuclear power plants they current have and where it's build, Nuclear Power Plants - Japan I'd say they are already place in strategic locations. Don't think one moment the Japanese people do not know the risks when they build these, however sometimes it's near impossible to build something to protect against EVERY single possible EVENTS, there's something called risk and reward.
Click to expand...

Based on the history almost all of the earthquake takes place in the north east, not south west. Also from what I am understanding nuke plants near shorelines? Yeah.. no.

They could of done better. Here's why.

japanearthquakes.gif


As I said south west (facing China, KOBE area). You are minimizing any tsunami and violent rumbling.

Actually you can make the argument that dams are pretty beneficial to farmers (if you are the bottom of the dam) more nutrients in the water but that's beside the point. Yes they are bad for the ecosystem. But so are nuke plants and their impact would be far worse if something terrible happened, which did.

Having plants basically facing the pacfic ocean and so close to the shorelines is bad. If the pacific plate (which is a dying ocean) goes under the eurasian plate, they get the whole brunt of the tsunami (which is what happened and will continue to happen with big earthquakes. Look at the arrows). I mean really you put your plants near a subduction zone. The worst type there is. Put it on the other side of the country (where i mentioned, the least amount of activity), earthquakes are not powerful which means the water basically has no force which means tsunamis waves would never reach there. By the way the southern part of japan is actually subducting under the Philippines plate.
I am sure they thought long and hard, and probably the most difficult to plan stuff like this but logic is logic no? (If you actually did some environmental studies).
 
Between the earthquake, tsunami and now the radiation could japan be done as a major power in the world? I just dont see how they will remain economically viable. They have started banning green tea exports as well as many others. With no end in sight to seal the meltdown. What do you guys think?
 
We should march in and restore order.


Not.



It will have long lasting global effects I think. But with China continually gobbling up more and more energy, who knows.
 
Nuclear Power Plants - Japan I'd say they put more on the west coast? it just happened that the ones built on the east are one of the first nuclear power plants placed in Japan.

The reason why many nuclear power plant are placed next to a large body of water is for heat exchange.
 
KombatNife said:
Nuclear Power Plants - Japan I'd say they put more on the west coast? it just happened that the ones built on the east are one of the first nuclear power plants placed in Japan.

The reason why many nuclear power plant are placed next to a large body of water is for heat exchange.
Click to expand...

Yes you can set up more near co-shimane (where i mentioned). We got couple not too far from here placed near lake ontario. The area that i pointed out is just has big as that in diameter. Notice how most of them are away from the east? They should of done that with all of them. If they don't reconsider they will be in trouble because expect 7+ (on the richter scale) earthquakes to come, unfortunately. The last thing you want is cesium making its way down to Tokyo and urban areas.

My advice would be to take out those that went out and put in dams and wind/solar and keep the rest of the plants intact. They can make it work. They got enough rural areas.
We got a couple wind ones in the city of Toronto. They can make it work even in urban areas. One of ours is on a small island on the lake. Japan got many small islands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top