Dubstepforum.com

Yes, I am. Is Tepco aware of that fact? Is GE?

you also realise the massive amount of cooling required by a nuclear reactor, as in any regular lake will not have enough water to dissapate the heat picked up from the reactor to be effective? you should probably accept the knowledge of some of the best minds in the world is going to be better than yours.

I honestly think you should stop and check yourself for a moment because you are drifting into incoherence. Did anyone suggest that a nuclear power plant should be cooled by a lake?

antistar_133 wrote:you should probably accept the knowledge of some of the best minds in the world is going to be better than yours.

I more than accept that, I am grateful for that. But I'm not sure the people that put a nuclear power plant on the ocean in a geologically unstable region that is covered by a tsunami warning system are the great minds that you speak of.

there's no radiation crossing the oceans so everyone calm down. you get more exposure on a 3 hour airline flight than any you'll get from water radiation, unless you're dumb enough to surf off of fukishima. read this from hawaii's big newspaper. they've been testing the water around hawaii everyday for weeks.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/hawa ... oblem.html

pkay wrote:

nowaysj wrote:Well... maybe you can not put a nuclear reactor directly in its foreseeable path? Just an idea...

you are aware Japan is an island correct?

nowaysj wrote:I honestly think you should stop and check yourself for a moment because you are drifting into incoherence. Did anyone suggest that a nuclear power plant should be cooled by a lake?

antistar_133 wrote:you should probably accept the knowledge of some of the best minds in the world is going to be better than yours.

I more than accept that, I am grateful for that. But I'm not sure the people that put a nuclear power plant on the ocean in a geologically unstable region that is covered by a tsunami warning system are the great minds that you speak of.

theres an explanation of the lake thing, japan doesnt have any mega lakes like the states, its one of the most power hungry nations in the world (because it produces so much stuff) and its a hell of a lot safer going with nuclear than coal, oil or gas, coal also releases masses of radiation too.

nowaysj wrote:Well... maybe you can not put a nuclear reactor directly in its foreseeable path? Just an idea...

are you also aware how many nuclear reactors USA has on its coastlines??

Yes, I am. And what does that question mean? What is the implication of that question?

that particularly on the West Coast should you have an unforseen, cataclysmic disaster involving a Tsunami which damaged a nuclear power plant, with hindsight its easy to go... ''oh okay if we had seen this coming 40years ago we could have potentially moved this structure out of the way''

its not the smartest thing in the world but it had defenses for this situation, the defenses simply weren't good enough to deal with the monster Tsunami that struck

these things are unpredictable, mistakes are made sometimes

2manynoobs wrote: What kind of crazy conspiracy theories do you have in mind for this one?

H.A.A.R.P

seckle wrote:there's no radiation crossing the oceans so everyone calm down. you get more exposure on a 3 hour airline flight than any you'll get from water radiation, unless you're dumb enough to surf off of fukishima. read this from hawaii's big newspaper. they've been testing the water around hawaii everyday for weeks.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/hawa ... oblem.html

hey thats just what "they" want you to believe. The rain water in Vancouver had iodine 131, 100 times over the drinking water limit....we get alll our drinking water from the rain
they found iodine 131 in the seaweed aswell which shows it is accumulating in the environment and the government of canada suspended all mobile radiation testing units on the westcoast.... Also the radiation you get from flying is completely different than this kind of radiation there no point in comparing the 2.

noam wrote:that particularly on the West Coast should you have an unforseen, cataclysmic disaster involving a Tsunami which damaged a nuclear power plant, with hindsight its easy to go... ''oh okay if we had seen this coming 40years ago we could have potentially moved this structure out of the way''

its not the smartest thing in the world but it had defenses for this situation, the defenses simply weren't good enough to deal with the monster Tsunami that struck

these things are unpredictable, mistakes are made sometimes

I argue that they are predictable. Not to a specific time and place, but that there is a probability, and a even a likelihood of their occurrence over the life of the facility. These nuke facilities are serious business, with seriously negative, LONG TERM consequences.

I accept that theoretically these plants can be built to be safe, but we see that we don't live in a theoretical world, and that cost cutting/profit maximizing seems to be more important than long term safety. Maybe these plants need to cost 2, 3, 10 times as much to build, to be truly safe... but then, alas the energy isn't so cheap.

ht2 wrote:

seckle wrote:there's no radiation crossing the oceans so everyone calm down. you get more exposure on a 3 hour airline flight than any you'll get from water radiation, unless you're dumb enough to surf off of fukishima. read this from hawaii's big newspaper. they've been testing the water around hawaii everyday for weeks.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/hawa ... oblem.html

hey thats just what "they" want you to believe. The rain water in Vancouver had iodine 131, 100 times over the drinking water limit....we get alll our drinking water from the rain
they found iodine 131 in the seaweed aswell which shows it is accumulating in the environment and the government of canada suspended all mobile radiation testing units on the westcoast.... Also the radiation you get from flying is completely different than this kind of radiation there no point in comparing the 2.

you are just using internet reports without knowing what they are saying. You are hearing "100 times" but you don't know what that means. It's a scare tactic and you're falling for it.

Seckle is correct. You'd need to drink almost 300 liters of water at 12BQ/L to equal the amount of harmful radiation of a cross country flight in the US. The increase of '100 times' is not recommended for sustained consistant use but is in no way a danger to human life. While they are not the same type of radiation, you're quoting the '100 times' as an indication to harm against humans. In that case it is entirely relevant as there are multiple types of radiation that humans come in contact with daily with varying levels of harm. Seckle was informing you (correctly) that the average person encounters far more harmful types of radiation on a rgular basis.

As far as harm to humans, the '100 times' is still nowhere as cancerous as living within 75 miles of a coal power plant.

You fell for sensationalism.

FUCK THE MEDIA!

basically, tepco hadn't made a risk assessment since 2001. thats why we saw all their senior staff resign in days. this came out today.....
http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressrele ... 0211a.html