Australian Politics Forum - Fukushima

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #15 - Mar 23^rd, 2011 at 5:33pm

... wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2011 at 5:26pm:

see what I mean?

Gee you have a very comprehensive and impressive arsenal of argumentitive skill sets.

I am surprised as to how ANYONE in here could even remotely consider a direct battle with your supreme intellect and vast casm of knowledge.

This forum needs well educated and sublimely gifted geniuses like yourself

There is NO doubt about that.

I am not worthy of even responding to your posts in public

Keep up the good work in here

I know that you have certainly changed my views on things STRAIGHT away. Thank You

Best Wishes

Foolosophy

(Founding President of the International Society for Public Sarcasm - ISPS)

Back to top

IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: Fukushima - Consequences? Reply #16 - Mar 23^rd, 2011 at 5:45pm what's a 'casm of knowledge'?
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged

perceptions_now Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 11694 Perth WA Gender:	Re: Fukushima - Consequences? Reply #17 - Mar 23^rd, 2011 at 6:18pm ... wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2011 at 5:45pm: what's a 'casm of knowledge'? The thing that have prior to adding a little h OR The thing you have before you include some Sar OR Perhaps a bit of both, at the same time?
Back to top	IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #18 - Mar 23^rd, 2011 at 8:54pm

Concern in Tokyo over spike in tap water radiation

TOKYO (AP) — A spike in radiation levels in Tokyo tap water spurred new fears about food safety Wednesday as rising black smoke forced another evacuation of workers trying to stabilize Japan's radiation-leaking nuclear plant.

Concerns about food safety spread Wednesday to Tokyo after officials said tap water showed elevated levels: 210 becquerels per liter of iodine-131 — more than twice the recommended limit of 100 becquerels per liter for infants.

"It is really scary. It is like a vicious negative spiral from the nuclear disaster," said Etsuko Nomura, a mother of two young children ages 2 and 5. "We have contaminated milk and vegetables, and now tap water in Tokyo, and I'm wondering what's next."

Infants are particularly vulnerable to radioactive iodine, which can cause thyroid cancer, experts say. The limits refer to sustained consumption rates, and officials urged calm, saying parents should stop giving the tap water to babies, but that it was no worry if the infants already had consumed small amounts.

They said the levels posed no immediate health risk for children or adults.

"Even if you drink this water for one year, it will not affect people's health," Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said.

Parents might want to be more cautious if they have a choice about what water to drink — "nobody wants to drink radioactive water," he said.

In a new setback, black smoke billowed from Unit 3, prompting another evacuation of workers from the plant Wednesday afternoon, Tokyo Electric Power Co. officials said, but they said there had been no corresponding spike in radiation at the plant.

"We don't know the reason" for the smoke, Hidehiko Nishiyama of the Nuclear Safety Agency said.

And for the first time, Edano suggested that those downwind of the plant, even those just outside the zone, should stay indoors with the windows shut tight.

Link -
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-23-japan_N.htm
========================
Those happy to trust the words of Politicians, should consider the outcome for many of those directly & indirectly involved other events, where words were offered by Politicians, such as -
1) Three Mile Island.
2) Chernobyl
3) Maralinga

There are very apparent reasons, why the phrase "Trust me, I'm a Politician", is one of the worlds most applicable Oxymorons!

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #19 - Mar 24^th, 2011 at 8:59am

Just a word on the Uranium Isotopes. U-238 is a very slow alpha emitter with negligible activity. If you coated a lump of U-238 metal with varnish, you could safely hold it in your hand - or load a bullet made from it into a gun. U-238 is the least of our worries, notwithstanding the long half lives.

The main issues with U-238 are the oxide dust (depleted U armaments in Iraq) and the toxicity if you inhale it.

I've worked with Uranyl salts. They don't require any special handling or storage requirements.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #20 - Mar 24^th, 2011 at 9:46am

muso wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 8:59am:

Just a word on the Uranium Isotopes. U-238 is a very slow alpha emitter with negligible activity. If you coated a lump of U-238 metal with varnish, you could safely hold it in your hand - or load a bullet made from it into a gun. U-238 is the least of our worries, notwithstanding the long half lives.

The main issues with U-238 are the oxide dust (depleted U armaments in Iraq) and the toxicity if you inhale it.

I've worked with Uranyl salts. They don't require any special handling or storage requirements.

Yes this reluctance to acknowledge a toxic health risk enables the USA to make the tips of their armour piercing missles with depleted Uranium.

No harm done - I wonder why the cancer rates in children were reported as up to 7 times higher than normal in parts of Iraq? (During a three week period of conflict in 2003 in Iraq, 1,000 to 2,000 tonnes of Depleted Uranium munitions were used)

Uranium is classed as a toxic metal. (there is a extreme toxicity and lingering in the natural environment of certain radioactive isotopes of Uranium and its myriad of transuranics that form in nuclear reactors, nuclear tests and GOD forbid a nuclear bomb attack)

Gee I wonder why Lead was removed as an Octane modifier for transport fuels?

I can handle Lead with my hands too - and most bullets have lead in them and are handled without gloves - must be OK then to distribute lead throughout the environment and incorporate it within the food chain

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #21 - Mar 24^th, 2011 at 10:11am

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 9:46am:

muso wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 8:59am:

Just a word on the Uranium Isotopes. U-238 is a very slow alpha emitter with negligible activity. If you coated a lump of U-238 metal with varnish, you could safely hold it in your hand - or load a bullet made from it into a gun. U-238 is the least of our worries, notwithstanding the long half lives.

The main issues with U-238 are the oxide dust (depleted U armaments in Iraq) and the toxicity if you inhale it.

I've worked with Uranyl salts. They don't require any special handling or storage requirements.

Yes this reluctance to acknowledge a toxic health risk enables the USA to make the tips of their armour piercing missles with depleted Uranium.

No harm done - I wonder why the cancer rates in children were reported as up to 7 times higher than normal in parts of Iraq? (During a three week period of conflict in 2003 in Iraq, 1,000 to 2,000 tonnes of Depleted Uranium munitions were used)

Uranium is classed as a toxic metal. (there is a extreme toxicity and lingering in the natural environment of certain radioactive isotopes of Uranium and its myriad of transuranics that form in nuclear reactors, nuclear tests and GOD forbid a nuclear bomb attack)

Gee I wonder why Lead was removed as an Octane modifier for transport fuels?

I can handle Lead with my hands too - and most bullets have lead in them and are handled without gloves - must be OK then to distribute lead throughout the environment and incorporate it within the food chain

I'm not saying it's harmless, I'm just putting it in perspective. Continuing to use fossil fuel in a business as usual scenario is much more hazardous by several magnitudes than any conceivable nuclear accident.

One issue for the US in Iraq was tank piercing munitions made of depleted U. it invariably would catch fire leaving deposits of dusty Uranium oxide (U3O8). If inhaled, it is a potent carcinogen.

The other issue was the fact that they added nuclear waste to the depleted Uranium. Not a smart move.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 24^th, 2011 at 11:06am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #22 - Mar 24^th, 2011 at 12:15pm

muso wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 10:11am:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 9:46am:

muso wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 8:59am:

Just a word on the Uranium Isotopes. U-238 is a very slow alpha emitter with negligible activity. If you coated a lump of U-238 metal with varnish, you could safely hold it in your hand - or load a bullet made from it into a gun. U-238 is the least of our worries, notwithstanding the long half lives.

The main issues with U-238 are the oxide dust (depleted U armaments in Iraq) and the toxicity if you inhale it.

I've worked with Uranyl salts. They don't require any special handling or storage requirements.

Yes this reluctance to acknowledge a toxic health risk enables the USA to make the tips of their armour piercing missles with depleted Uranium.

No harm done - I wonder why the cancer rates in children were reported as up to 7 times higher than normal in parts of Iraq? (During a three week period of conflict in 2003 in Iraq, 1,000 to 2,000 tonnes of Depleted Uranium munitions were used)

Uranium is classed as a toxic metal. (there is a extreme toxicity and lingering in the natural environment of certain radioactive isotopes of Uranium and its myriad of transuranics that form in nuclear reactors, nuclear tests and GOD forbid a nuclear bomb attack)

Gee I wonder why Lead was removed as an Octane modifier for transport fuels?

I can handle Lead with my hands too - and most bullets have lead in them and are handled without gloves - must be OK then to distribute lead throughout the environment and incorporate it within the food chain

The other issue was the fact that they added nuclear waste to the depleted Uranium. Not a smart move.

A criminal act under any legal regime - including their own.

But Imperialist powers that impose tyrannical foreign policy objectives on behalf of their corporate masters can do what they wish for a long time but inevitably fall over in the end for the same reasons.

So Iraq ended up POSSESING WMD;s after all - in the form a finley distributed Uranium based dust - courtesy of the US free Market enterprise system (that only applies free market discipline to the small people, the small busineses - THE CORRUPT CORPORATIONS and BANKS ARE JUST TOO BIG TO FAIL - THEY REQUIRE SOCIALIST CORPORATE WELFARE TO SUSTAIN THEIR INEFFICIENT AND CRIMINAL ACTIVITES)

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 11694 Perth WA Gender:	Re: Fukushima - Consequences? Reply #23 - Mar 24^th, 2011 at 2:36pm The new Japanese Sushi
Back to top	IP Logged

Foolosophy Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1171 Australia Gender:	Re: Fukushima - Consequences? Reply #24 - Mar 24^th, 2011 at 3:40pm perceptions_now wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 2:36pm: The new Japanese Sushi http://static.tvfanatic.com/images/gallery/the-three-eyed-fish.png ....a meal that is coming to your port very soon
Back to top	IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #25 - Mar 24^th, 2011 at 4:07pm

Quote:

But I am sure you will eventually get a terrorist in an aeroplane or a disgruntled plant operator that just got divorced, or some UNFORSEEN eventuality, or a tsunami in the pacific hitting the eastern Asutralian coastline (where we will obviously locate out nuclear plants). An asteroid hitting the pacific - that is on the cards anyway - a matter of time.

Nuclear: EXPENSIVE, FILTHY, TOXIC, UNSAFE - INSANE OPTION

And the actual possibility of a commercial plane managing to penetrate the reactor building AND both the containment vessel and the pressure vessel is zero....
And, despite what you've learned from the Simpsons, a single 'disgruntled plant operator' has no chance what so ever of overriding enough of the safety controls and systems to cause any thing more than an automatic shutdown...

As for the tsunami risk...... Cheesy

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #26 - Mar 24^th, 2011 at 4:17pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 4:07pm:

Quote:

But I am sure you will eventually get a terrorist in an aeroplane or a disgruntled plant operator that just got divorced, or some UNFORSEEN eventuality, or a tsunami in the pacific hitting the eastern Asutralian coastline (where we will obviously locate out nuclear plants). An asteroid hitting the pacific - that is on the cards anyway - a matter of time.

Nuclear: EXPENSIVE, FILTHY, TOXIC, UNSAFE - INSANE OPTION

And the actual possibility of a commercial plane managing to penetrate the reactor building AND both the containment vessel and the pressure vessel is zero....
And, despite what you've learned from the Simpsons, a single 'disgruntled plant operator' has no chance what so ever of overriding enough of the safety controls and systems to cause any thing more than an automatic shutdown...

As for the tsunami risk...... Cheesy

LOL - I didn't notice his insane hypothetical of 'An asteroid hitting the pacific' before.

Hahaha - if an asteroid of any note hits the earth, what becomes of a nuclear reactor is the least of your worries. Hey maybe it wasn't the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, it was all their nuclear reactors going into meltdown after the fact!

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #27 - Mar 24^th, 2011 at 5:57pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 4:07pm:

Quote:

But I am sure you will eventually get a terrorist in an aeroplane or a disgruntled plant operator that just got divorced, or some UNFORSEEN eventuality, or a tsunami in the pacific hitting the eastern Asutralian coastline (where we will obviously locate out nuclear plants). An asteroid hitting the pacific - that is on the cards anyway - a matter of time.

Nuclear: EXPENSIVE, FILTHY, TOXIC, UNSAFE - INSANE OPTION

And the actual possibility of a commercial plane managing to penetrate the reactor building AND both the containment vessel and the pressure vessel is zero....
And, despite what you've learned from the Simpsons, a single 'disgruntled plant operator' has no chance what so ever of overriding enough of the safety controls and systems to cause any thing more than an automatic shutdown...

As for the tsunami risk...... Cheesy

So, how is your research going on your 18metre sea walls at Fukushima?

It may be of interest to you that a 6.4 m wave had hit the shore close by 10 years before the plant went on-line, a 30 metre tsunami hit Japan after a 1993 quake and a 30 metre tsunami was generated by the 2004 boxing day tsunami.

However, it seems the Fukushima plant was designed to withstand only 5.7 metre tsunami waves!

http://liberalironist.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/fukushima-i-a.jpgw=600&h=340

As I said, these sea walls, could be at any Australian Marina!

Btw, did you notice that the "sea walls" didn't even extend to cover the buildings or reactors, at the left hand side of the plant, as we face it.

Finally, was your research on Plane damage obtained from the same place you got the info on the Fukushima sea walls?

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #28 - Mar 24^th, 2011 at 6:00pm

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 5:57pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 4:07pm:

Quote:

But I am sure you will eventually get a terrorist in an aeroplane or a disgruntled plant operator that just got divorced, or some UNFORSEEN eventuality, or a tsunami in the pacific hitting the eastern Asutralian coastline (where we will obviously locate out nuclear plants). An asteroid hitting the pacific - that is on the cards anyway - a matter of time.

Nuclear: EXPENSIVE, FILTHY, TOXIC, UNSAFE - INSANE OPTION

And the actual possibility of a commercial plane managing to penetrate the reactor building AND both the containment vessel and the pressure vessel is zero....
And, despite what you've learned from the Simpsons, a single 'disgruntled plant operator' has no chance what so ever of overriding enough of the safety controls and systems to cause any thing more than an automatic shutdown...

As for the tsunami risk...... Cheesy

So, how is your research going on your 18metre sea walls at Fukushima?

It may be of interest to you that a 6.4 m wave had hit the shore close by 10 years before the plant went on-line, a 30 metre tsunami hit Japan after a 1993 quake and a 30 metre tsunami was generated by the 2004 boxing day tsunami.

However, it seems the Fukushima plant was designed to withstand only 5.7 metre tsunami waves!

http://liberalironist.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/fukushima-i-a.jpg?w=600&h=340

As I said, these sea walls, could be at any Australian Marina!

Btw, did you notice that the "sea walls" didn't even extend to cover the buildings or reactors, at the left hand side of the plant, as we face it.

Finally, was your research on Plane damage obtained from the same place you got the info on the Fukushima sea walls?

Yes, I should have said 18 FOOT seawalls...I admit the error...

However, even 40 year old reators are 'hardened' against earthquakes and plane impacts....

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #29 - Mar 24^th, 2011 at 6:23pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 6:00pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 5:57pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 4:07pm:

Quote:

But I am sure you will eventually get a terrorist in an aeroplane or a disgruntled plant operator that just got divorced, or some UNFORSEEN eventuality, or a tsunami in the pacific hitting the eastern Asutralian coastline (where we will obviously locate out nuclear plants). An asteroid hitting the pacific - that is on the cards anyway - a matter of time.

Nuclear: EXPENSIVE, FILTHY, TOXIC, UNSAFE - INSANE OPTION

And the actual possibility of a commercial plane managing to penetrate the reactor building AND both the containment vessel and the pressure vessel is zero....
And, despite what you've learned from the Simpsons, a single 'disgruntled plant operator' has no chance what so ever of overriding enough of the safety controls and systems to cause any thing more than an automatic shutdown...

As for the tsunami risk...... Cheesy

So, how is your research going on your 18metre sea walls at Fukushima?

It may be of interest to you that a 6.4 m wave had hit the shore close by 10 years before the plant went on-line, a 30 metre tsunami hit Japan after a 1993 quake and a 30 metre tsunami was generated by the 2004 boxing day tsunami.

However, it seems the Fukushima plant was designed to withstand only 5.7 metre tsunami waves!

http://liberalironist.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/fukushima-i-a.jpg?w=600&h=340

As I said, these sea walls, could be at any Australian Marina!

Btw, did you notice that the "sea walls" didn't even extend to cover the buildings or reactors, at the left hand side of the plant, as we face it.

Finally, was your research on Plane damage obtained from the same place you got the info on the Fukushima sea walls?

Yes, I should have said 18 FOOT seawalls...I admit the error...

However, even 40 year old reators are 'hardened' against earthquakes and plane impacts....

Can I suggest, the old adage "never say never", would be one to keep in mind, when making guarantees or as muso did on another thread, betting he would "eat his akubra", if Nuclear reactors got the nod in Australia, within the next 10 years!

Remember the twin towers?

Back to top

IP Logged