Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

“The likelihood of that happening is about one in 100,” Follow

#1 Mar 14 2011 at 9:15 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
SOMA, Japan – Radiation is spewing from damaged reactors at a crippled nuclear power plant in tsunami-ravaged northeastern Japan in a dramatic escalation of the 4-day-old catastrophe. The prime minister has warned residents to stay inside or risk getting radiation sickness.
Link.
Quote:
I think the fact that the "second worst nuclear accident in history" will in all probability have a lower death toll and negative overall health effect on the surrounding area than the 100th worst coal accident


Quote:
Most liberals take positions based on emotion and not rational thought.


Quote:
pebbles



Quote:
/raise

Anyone got any more links to bloggers who can tell us all how swimmingly its all going?

Christ.



____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#2 Mar 14 2011 at 9:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,934 posts
How long before Godzilla is awakened from the depths of the ocean?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#3 Mar 14 2011 at 9:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Quote:
Detectors showed 11,900 microsieverts of radiation three hours after the blast, up from just 73 microsieverts beforehand, Kinjo said. He said there was no immediate health risk because the higher measurement was less radiation that a person receives from an X-ray. He said experts would worry about health risks if levels exceed 100,000 microsieverts.


Wow. An X-ray? You get that its "spewing radiation" that isn't super dangerous unless you're exposed to it for prolonged periods of time and in close proximity, right?

Quote:
Most liberals take positions based on emotion and not rational thought.


Truth. Let's not put this in the context of how many people died somewhat unavoidably from a natural disaster. Ban Mother Nature!!! Lol...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4 Mar 14 2011 at 9:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This report needed its own thread.

Also, the title of this thread does not at all reflect the contents of the linked story.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Mar 14 2011 at 9:50 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,579 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Also, the title of this thread does not at all reflect the contents of the linked story.

I was expecting paulsol to confess that he was autistic.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#6 Mar 14 2011 at 10:08 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
My perception is that nuclear power actually isn't all that polarized politically. Granted, it used to be, but most of the liberal people I know are pro-nuclear.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#7 Mar 14 2011 at 10:44 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
16,959 posts
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
How long before Godzilla is awakened from the depths of the ocean?
After this volcanic eruption that may have been caused in part by the earthquake, maybe a day or two.
____________________________
MyAnimeList FFXIV Krystal Spoonless
#8 Mar 15 2011 at 12:36 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,394 posts
Kirby the Eccentric wrote:
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
How long before Godzilla is awakened from the depths of the ocean?
After this volcanic eruption that may have been caused in part by the earthquake, maybe a day or two.
Fuck.
#9 Mar 15 2011 at 2:23 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Detectors showed 11,900 microsieverts of radiation three hours after the blast, up from just 73 microsieverts beforehand, Kinjo said. He said there was no immediate health risk because the higher measurement was less radiation that a person receives from an X-ray. He said experts would worry about health risks if levels exceed 100,000 microsieverts.


Wow. An X-ray? You get that its "spewing radiation" that isn't super dangerous unless you're exposed to it for prolonged periods of time and in close proximity, right?



Sweet! The next time some radiographer wants to take a snap of a patient I will insist on being outside the 30km exclusion area and ensure the no-fly zone above the hospital is being enforced.

Quote:
Most liberals take positions based on emotion and not rational thought.


gbaji wrote:
Truth. Let's not put this in the context of how many people died somewhat unavoidably from a natural disaster. Ban Mother Nature!!! Lol...


There is nothing rational about building nuclear power stations next to the ocean, on a gigantic super-active faultline in a country that invented the word 'tsunami'. Exactly how many nuclear power stations have you got in Calfornia for example? How many of those are right on the coast using seawater for cooling? Hmmm..?

No-one controls MotherNature you dolt. That's the fUcking point.

Kachi wrote:

My perception is that nuclear power actually isn't all that polarized politically. Granted, it used to be, but most of the liberal people I know are pro-nuclear.


WTF does it have to with political persuasion?

Really..you dont have to be a card carrying green party activist to see that there may come a time when that nuclear power station you've got fizzing away down the road is going to be seen as a bit of a mistake in planning no matter how many jobs it provided around town.


And as far as the thread title goes I was quoting Mr. Gittus, the 'nuclear risk expert' from Swansea University (lol) who was linked by Joph as evidence that nuclear power stations are as safe as can be and everyone should be pleased to have one in their backyard.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#10 Mar 15 2011 at 4:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
847 posts
Here's a blow by blow report about what happened in the ********* Nuclear Power Plant. This is brought to you by people at MIT, who should probably know a thing or three about nuclear power.

The simple fact is that everything that could go wrong did go wrong, and yet, there's no significant death or damage caused by what's happening at the power plant should be a testament of how safe nuclear power really is.
#11 Mar 15 2011 at 5:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
Quote:
The simple fact is that everything that could go wrong did go wrong, and yet, there's no significant death or damage caused by what's happening at the power plant should be a testament of how safe nuclear power really is.


Let's just wait until we can put this in the past tense before we get all smug and Shit, how 'bout it?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#12 Mar 15 2011 at 6:17 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Detectors showed 11,900 microsieverts of radiation three hours after the blast, up from just 73 microsieverts beforehand, Kinjo said. He said there was no immediate health risk because the higher measurement was less radiation that a person receives from an X-ray. He said experts would worry about health risks if levels exceed 100,000 microsieverts.


Wow. An X-ray? You get that its "spewing radiation" that isn't super dangerous unless you're exposed to it for prolonged periods of time and in close proximity, right?

Quote:
Most liberals take positions based on emotion and not rational thought.


Truth. Let's not put this in the context of how many people died somewhat unavoidably from a natural disaster. Ban Mother Nature!!! Lol...
The released radiation and the potential for exposure will not remain in the plant. While high levels are necessary to produce acute radiation sickness (they're seeing these levels in Plant 4 I believe that was actually off-line when the eq hit). However, radiation is a carcinogen the more frequently, the longer duration and the higher the level the greater your chance to develop cancer. There is risk, substantial risk here. Not only to the plant staff but those in the community. I mean, presumably people live in there little space of this world for some good percentage of their time. So, the potential is certainly there for long-term exposure.

Like rape, effects from radiation may not be visible immediately or even until the next generation. Remember radiation is also a known mutagen.

So while the disaster will be no chernobyl, it will also not simply be a close-miss like 3-mile island.

What I've kind of thought about though, is how would a bunch of huge oil tanks, oil refineries and oil/coal burning power plants have faired under the circumstances, if Japan relied more on oil than nuclear power. Multi-millions of gallons of oil spread over a chunk of land, fires, and again long term exposure to possible carcinogens.

Nuclear power plants have only gotten safer. Theoretically, it's a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels. However there is great potential for highly detrimental effects to people et al.





edit - i'm writing hurriedly...'sigh'.

Edited, Mar 15th 2011 2:28pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#13 Mar 15 2011 at 6:37 AM Rating: Default
****
7,819 posts
The USA pulled all flights and even ships back from the area a day ago do to the levels detected. Right now if your there its glow in the dark status and getting worse. It may not be Chernobyl in it's extent but it may be as devastating to Japan if it gets to a full blown meltdown.
____________________________
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/ImGatomon/Request.jpg

. “Power even if it is raw uncontrolled potential is just as dangerous as a trained assassin. It is unpredictable and deadly if your are not prepared." ~Gatomon From the story A Fox Among Wolves.
#14 Mar 15 2011 at 6:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
gbaji wrote:
Let's not put this in the context of how many people died somewhat unavoidably from a natural disaster. Ban Mother Nature!!! Lol...
While I'm on your side of the nuclear power debate, let's not get stupid here. Nuclear power can be banned, Mother Nature can't. We can only control that which is controllable, so using deaths to Mother Nature in any argument vs deaths to nuclear power is varus level retardation.

Edited, Mar 15th 2011 9:39am by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#15 Mar 15 2011 at 7:15 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Detectors showed 11,900 microsieverts of radiation three hours after the blast, up from just 73 microsieverts beforehand, Kinjo said. He said there was no immediate health risk because the higher measurement was less radiation that a person receives from an X-ray. He said experts would worry about health risks if levels exceed 100,000 microsieverts.


Wow. An X-ray? You get that its "spewing radiation" that isn't super dangerous unless you're exposed to it for prolonged periods of time and in close proximity, right?

Quote:
Most liberals take positions based on emotion and not rational thought.


Truth. Let's not put this in the context of how many people died somewhat unavoidably from a natural disaster. Ban Mother Nature!!! Lol...
The released radiation and the potential for exposure will not remain in the plant. While high levels are necessary to produce acute radiation sickness (they're seeing these levels in Plant 4 I believe that was actually off-line when the eq hit). However, radiation is a carcinogen the more frequently, the longer duration and the higher the level the greater your chance to develop cancer. There is risk, substantial risk here. Not only to the plant staff but those in the community. I mean, presumably people live in there little space of this world for some good percentage of their time. So, the potential is certainly there for long-term exposure.

Like rape, effects from radiation may not be visible immediately or even until the next generation. Remember radiation is also a known mutagen.

So while the disaster will be no chernobyl, it will also not simply be a close-miss like 3-mile island.

What I've kind of thought about though, is how would a bunch of huge oil tanks, oil refineries and oil/coal burning power plants have faired under the circumstances, if Japan relied more on oil than nuclear power. Multi-millions of gallons of oil spread over a chunk of land, fires, and again long term exposure to possible carcinogens.

Nuclear power plants have only gotten safer. Theoretically, it's a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels. However there is great potential for highly detrimental effects to people et al.





edit - i'm writing hurriedly...'sigh'.

Edited, Mar 15th 2011 2:28pm by Elinda


This, pretty much. There's certainly nothing happening yet that warrants paul getting up on his high horse, no matter how good they are at it in New Zealand.

Edited, Mar 15th 2011 9:15am by Eske
#16 Mar 15 2011 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
paulsol wrote:
Exactly how many nuclear power stations have you got in Calfornia for example? How many of those are right on the coast using seawater for cooling? Hmmm..?

The only one I know of that's on the coast is the massive pair of tits in Southern California that's visible from the interstate.

There are no earthquakes in SoCal.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#17 Mar 15 2011 at 7:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
The only one I know of that's on the coast is the massive pair of tits in Southern California that's visible from the interstate.

There are no earthquakes in SoCal.

According to the Googlenets, San Onofre is the other operational CA plant and sits half way between LA and San Diego. We could take out Hollywood and Gbaji with one well placed meteor strike!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Mar 15 2011 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
For whatever reason, radiation levels are dropping.
IAEA wrote:
At 00:00 UTC on 15 March a dose rate of 11.9 millisieverts (mSv) per hour was observed. Six hours later, at 06:00 UTC on 15 March a dose rate of 0.6 millisieverts (mSv) per hour was observed.

These observations indicate that the level of radioactivity has been decreasing at the site.

As reported earlier, a 400 millisieverts (mSv) per hour radiation dose observed at ********* Daiichi occurred between units 3 and 4. This is a high dose-level value, but it is a local value at a single location and at a certain point in time. The IAEA continues to confirm the evolution and value of this dose rate. It should be noted that because of this detected value, non-indispensible staff was evacuated from the plant, in line with the Emergency Response Plan, and that the population around the plant is already evacuated.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Mar 15 2011 at 3:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Another thing to remember is at Chernobyl, the workers were sent in with shovels and flu masks. I'm going under the assumption that the remaining workers in ********* are wearing lead-lined hazmat suits. And if they're not, then we truly have learned nothing since the days people thought radium laced face cream was good for you.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#20 Mar 15 2011 at 4:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
paulsol wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Truth. Let's not put this in the context of how many people died somewhat unavoidably from a natural disaster. Ban Mother Nature!!! Lol...


There is nothing rational about building nuclear power stations next to the ocean, on a gigantic super-active faultline in a country that invented the word 'tsunami'.


There's nothing rational about anyone living in that area at all, let alone building nuclear power plants. In the grand scheme of "things that get people killed", can we agree that simply living in the area will result in more deaths than having a nuclear power plant there will? Yet, oddly enough, people have to live somewhere and there are negatives to anywhere they might choose.

Quote:
Exactly how many nuclear power stations have you got in Calfornia for example? How many of those are right on the coast using seawater for cooling? Hmmm..?


All of them?

Edited, Mar 15th 2011 3:03pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Mar 15 2011 at 5:07 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
can we agree that simply living in the area will result in more deaths than having a nuclear power plant there will?



Stop comparing natural events to choices that are made by people. As someone else said, its fUcking retarded.


A little secret that I've managed to learn after working in the health industry for some considerable time now....you can live anywhere you like and eventually you will die.

Its not that you die. Its how you die. Its how the children you produce are born with no legs or their brains on the outside of their skulls. and then their children (if they even manage to reproduce at all) are born with no eyes or kidneys. Or how you spend the last weeks of your life. Wether that is surrounded by family and friends, or attached to a ventilator in an isolation unit waiting for you lungs to disolve as your children look at you thru a 2" lead impregnated window...


And that is not about emotions. That is what happens.

Those are the risks of having nuclear power stations go bang.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#22 Mar 15 2011 at 7:16 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
paulsol wrote:
Quote:
can we agree that simply living in the area will result in more deaths than having a nuclear power plant there will?



Stop comparing natural events to choices that are made by people. As someone else said, its fUcking retarded.


They are all choices though. You choose to live in one location instead of another. You choose to generate power by burning coal or via nuclear materials. You choose to bike to work or drive a car or take the train. All of those are choices. All of them have risks and potential consequences.

Quote:
A little secret that I've managed to learn after working in the health industry for some considerable time now....you can live anywhere you like and eventually you will die.


Yes. So perhaps we should assess the risk of dying one way versus dying another way and compare it to the pros connected to the choices in front of us. Instead of just pointing to the risk of nuclear power, let's look at the risks and costs of coal, or solar, or wind. And let's also compare those to not generating any power at all. How many populations can't be sustained at all if there isn't power? Remember where we're talking about.

Replace those nuclear plants with coal. Assess the total long term effects. You'll find that even with the very very rare event like this added in, nuclear is still safer by a long shot. It's not like it's a choice between putting a nuclear reactor on a fault line or not. It's a choice between putting a nuclear reactor on a fault line, or a coal fired plant, or natural gas, or some other form of power generation. All have risks. All have costs. And they're all susceptible to big natural disasters.

Quote:
Its not that you die. Its how you die. Its how the children you produce are born with no legs or their brains on the outside of their skulls. and then their children (if they even manage to reproduce at all) are born with no eyes or kidneys. Or how you spend the last weeks of your life. Wether that is surrounded by family and friends, or attached to a ventilator in an isolation unit waiting for you lungs to disolve as your children look at you thru a 2" lead impregnated window...


And that is not about emotions. That is what happens.


Um... That was 100% about emotions. Really? You write about dying alone while you lungs melt, but you're not making an appeal to emotion?

How about how many people die of illnesses related to coal every single year? I'm not sure if it's a great comfort to their loved ones that at least they didn't have a one in a million chance of dying from radiation poison instead.

Quote:
Those are the risks of having nuclear power stations go bang.


Which happens very very infrequently. The direct harm caused by other alternatives happen all the time. Tell the thousand (more?) people who die from illnesses from coal related work every single year that their lives were worth sacrificing in order to prevent the 10 people from dying of radiation poisoning every 10 years or so.

If you're being unemotional, that is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Mar 15 2011 at 7:40 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
You write about dying alone while you lungs melt, but you're not making an appeal to emotion?

No. Its a reality. Its REAL. Nothing to do with emotions. But perhaps you forget or don't know or more likely dont care what I've done for a living for the last 1/4 century so thats ok.

I really honestly hope that no more nuclear power stations ever go wrong again.

And I really, really mean that.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#24 Mar 15 2011 at 7:43 PM Rating: Decent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Kinda glad I chose to live in a seismically stable area with no nuclear plants within 50 miles right now.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#25 Mar 15 2011 at 7:57 PM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
On the side of rational argument, the comparison isn't one of dying surrounded by loved ones in the fullness of age or dying horribly of radiation sickness. I think that was the point gbaji was making, although as usual it's a bit difficult to tell.

If you're going to compare apples to apples, then compare radiation sickness with black lung, or mercury poisoning. No great choices there. Solar is better, but there are human costs involved in manufacturing the panels. Etc.

My problem with nuclear power is that when something does go wrong, it's wrong for good. There's no bringing the land around Chernobyl back, ever. Write it off.

On the up side, maybe we can get the Russians to store spent waste there, since it's already gone and all.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#26 Mar 15 2011 at 7:58 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
paulsol wrote:
Quote:
You write about dying alone while you lungs melt, but you're not making an appeal to emotion?

No. Its a reality. Its REAL. Nothing to do with emotions. But perhaps you forget or don't know or more likely dont care what I've done for a living for the last 1/4 century so thats ok.

I really honestly hope that no more nuclear power stations ever go wrong again.

And I really, really mean that.


I'd like to hear about it.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 54 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (54)