Major Quake

Posted by MattAlt 
I've had one good bit of news - the friend I was worried about in Sendai has checked in and they and their family are okay.
Sanjeev Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Parisi Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Is the situation escalating or flatlined at
> "Bad"?
>
> Flatlined at bad. And of course, it all depends on
> how you define "bad". It SUCKS for those onsite
> workers who paid the ultimate price during the
> hydrogen explosions.

There haven't been any deaths at the plant yet...

> It's no good for the
> company...or the industry, apparently. For general
> population? It's fucking fine...as it's always
> been.

What's interesting is that all three reactors that have problems basically follow the same failure pattern: cooling breaks down, water level drops, rods get exposed, pressure builds up, hydrogen explosion, partial meltdown. So at least that is predictable...they had a bit of bad luck with reactor 2 and that stuck valve, which apparently led to a more violent explosion, but they know what to do to prevent similar things happening with the other 3 reactors, since they're considering making holes in the outer walls to let the hydrogen escape.

The rather unfortunate thing right now is that the pool with used rods at reactor 4 also had a cooling failure, and that pool seems to lack a containment system as intricate as for the reactors themselves, from what I understand.

--
SilhouetteFormula.Net
MSW
thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There haven't been any deaths at the plant yet...


Officially, one worker has died in what is described as a "crane operation accident" at the Fukushima No. 2 power plant on Japan's east coast.

Of course that hasn't stopped some folks from spreading all sorts of rumors and falsehoods.
What worries me is three reactors that could possibly meltdown. Chernobyl was only one reactor.

I hope they manage to get everything under control.
...we just spent two pages discussing that the reactors at Chernobyl and those at Fukushima are very different in design and that the risk of contamination due to reactor meltdown was much lower with the newer reactors.

--
SilhouetteFormula.Net
Hey at least he didn't bring up the specter of cancer rates post Hiroshima like a, what I thought was a rational friend, brought up over email.

Another acquaintance is hashing over whether or not to try and get there to see the in laws. Because of nuclear fallout. Then posited in a blinding flurry of intelligence that the nuclear radiation would be too heavy and just fall into the ocean and poison the fish.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2011 07:01AM by Kwesi K..
Kwesi K. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Another acquaintance is hashing over whether or
> not to try and get there to see the in laws.
> Because of nuclear fallout. Then posited in a
> blinding flurry of intelligence that the nuclear
> radiation would be too heavy and just fall into
> the ocean and poison the fish.

De-friend immediately.

Introducing Prometheus Rising Studio.
[prometheusrising.net]
I make 3D printed mecha action figures.
I guess everyone saw M1GO's post, but if you didn't:

[m1go.com]

Eiji Kaminaga from Marusan has also been posting about what it's like in Tokyo, from this point on he's going to attempt some bilingual blogging:

[ameblo.jp]
Prometheum5 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> De-friend immediately.

Both got up in arms when I posted this link:

[www.scientificamerican.com]

And hyper focused on this statement: "...ionizing radiation from nuclear energy is a carcinogen, but a relatively weak one. "

And took it to misrepresent the death toll and suffering from the bombings. Not that it was a solvable problem.

Even worse, heavy radiation guy took to even questioning my manhood for making light of him wanting to go to Brazil instead of Japan to visit his wife's parents. A trip they were planning to take two months from now.

I'm distancing myself from that whole circle.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2011 12:35PM by Kwesi K..
Okay, now I'm even getting annoyed with the panicer-bashing. So some people are irrationally frightened; we're all just human beings, friends. There's a panic in each of us - we just have different grades of rubber in the stoppers that hold it in.

(This doens't apply to the US media's permanently open spigot, of course.)

I'm glad they seem to be moving away from the helicopter water drop - I'm no expert, but that just felt like a bad idea for some reason.
What I did was linked him the blog from this thread and kindly bid them adieu.

And it's not so much the panic that I'm annoyed with. People have a right to be gravely concerned even frightened. But just spouting random numbers, getting mad because that US media spigot has them confused and they just didn't bother taking time to do some basic reading is really annoying.
Regardless of the reactors causing world wide armageddon or not, there are some options for helping. [www.japansociety.org] should have some links for donating and posted at gorilla mouth [www.gorillamouth.com] . Talented sculptors or painters on the board should take a look. I'm prepping something for contribution. I think Ben is as well. Fujikuro should do the same as his stuff is baller.
To what extent is human error taken into account when designing these plants? Do the ratings assume that all safety policies will be administered and enforced according to requirements for the entire expected life of the plant? Is it assumed that there will never be a pattern of laziness, complacency or even falsification of safety records?

--------------------------
I want YOU for Moé Sucks Army
Sanjeev (Admin)
Scopedog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To what extent is human error taken into account
> when designing these plants?

The full extent. And for good reason, too: both accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were caused by human failures...not technological ones. Chernobyl's RMBK reactors aren't particularly cool to begin with, but under normal operating procedures, are safe. In fact, their design is pretty clever...using graphite to moderate neutron reactions...very slick. The jackasses running that low-power test that night, though...well...fuck those guys...

Anyway, modern light water reactors are designed such that even if you had reactor operators--with intimate knowledge of the plant's design--deliberately attempted to cause damage resulting in release of radioactive material into the environment, they simply couldn't. The concept is called "passive safety": basically the most gross negligence possible on the part of the operators (even malevolence) could not harm the operation of the plant.
That's the most comforting information I've seen regarding this crisis. Thanks, Sanjeev!

--------------------------
I want YOU for Moé Sucks Army
Sanjeev (Admin)
No sweat. The extent of plant security is actually pretty fucking staggering. They have periodic "invasions" (special forces-trained soldiers...just without live ammo) bust in on the guards to try to take control of the reactor control rooms. My buddy's got some hilarious stories about being caught in "cross fires" and whatnot! Anyway, it's good to know that, fortunately, no matter what they try, they never take control of the plant.

Just got done reading that Scientific American editorial, Kwesi. Good shit.
To what extent is an 8.9 earthquake followed by tsunami taken into account?

Being concerned for the Japanese people and radiation is not irrational.

The reactions on this board by all the self appointed experts to the concern people have about these failing reactors is truly irrational.

There is only one engineer on this board that comes close to being an expert on this issue and he qualifies his statements with I am not there so I can't be sure of the actual conditions at the nuclear reactors. He's right he is not there(amazing that he is the only one that admits he could be wrong) and neither are all the self appointed experts. So until the experts at the nuclear reactors who are aware of the actual conditions give the all clear sign, I will continue to be concerned.
Sanjeev (Admin)
You must be a riot to hang out with.
My problem is how the mainstream press, pretty much all of it, has handled the situation. We've been in total "run for the f'n hills nuclear meltdown panic" for how many days now? And it's still, despite the very dangerous setbacks, very clearly a local issue. That's an acute media FAIL in my opinion. Should a post-meltdown primary containment unit explode into the sky, then the frenzy and reality would match. And although nobody can say with a 100% certainty that won't happen, odds are stacked towards "unlikely". But nobody wants to hear that part of the story. I can't apologize for being irritated when the most scientifically grounded info out there is being broadcast to me via frik'n toy geeks. People are crawling over each other to get some potassium iodide in Cali right now, even here on the coast...paying ridiculous prices for the stuff even though the beaches are full of free kelp.

Will trade fresh kelp for toys BTW.
Sanjeev, do you know what generation the affected japanese plants are?

Just so everyone knows, a nuclear power plant can be classified as 1-4. 1 is an outdated junk heap like Chernobyl. Gen 4 is still under development, and should be impossible to have accidents at. 3 and 3 plus are cutting edge, nearly perfect plants. 2 is what we have in the states, I think.

Skeptoid did a very concise, informative podcast about the state of modern nuclear power: [skeptoid.com]

He makes it seem like madness that we don't rely more on nuclear power. The Skeptoid guy makes an astonishing point about nuclear versus fossil fuel power:

"Even taking the maximum predicted death toll from Chernobyl, we would need a Chernobyl-sized accident every three weeks to make nuclear power as deadly as coal and oil already is. Shall I repeat that? If the world was filled with Generation I reactors run by feuding coal miners, we would need a worst-case scenario every three weeks just to match the US death toll we've imposed upon ourselves by clinging to our current fossil fuel system."
> "Even taking the maximum predicted death toll from
> Chernobyl, we would need a Chernobyl-sized
> accident every three weeks to make nuclear power
> as deadly as coal and oil already is. Shall I
> repeat that? If the world was filled with
> Generation I reactors run by feuding coal miners,
> we would need a worst-case scenario every three
> weeks just to match the US death toll we've
> imposed upon ourselves by clinging to our current
> fossil fuel system."

Exactly. The fossil fuel wars claim untold victims every freakin' day. Not to mention the "soft" casualties of structural violence (starvation due to resource manipulation, generally focused around oil). Last count, something like 20k kids are dying EVERY DAY due to that. So there's your fucking apocalypse, if you want a real one.
I am certainly biased as someone with a strong pro-nuclear power viewpoint due to its advantages and incredibly high relative safety, as noted above. If I seem harsh on people who are afraid of power, it is not because I do not have sympathy for people with fears. Being afraid of something is a very real and often difficult to overcome thing. What I cannot tolerate is fear borne out of complete ignorance or downright incorrect knowledge, as is often the case in a nuclear context.

I did a project for one of my classes in college looking at the state of public nuclear awareness and knowledge and working to develop a potential 'education packet' or plan that could be used to help increase overall understanding of the technology, advantages, and not made-up or overblown risks. Even at an engineering school that, until just a couple of years ago, had a nuclear engineering program and small reactor on campus (with which Sanjeev has personal experience ;) ), during our project presentation we had ENGINEERING STUDENTS coming up to us and asking us the dumbest questions or actually harassing us for supporting such a horrible and dangerous cause. When we discussed our project with those students, we quickly realized that they had little to no idea what they were talking about, or were even genuinely mis-informed. These are the adults of tomorrow, theoretically still in a moldable and teachable stage in their lives, and they are full of stupid, stupid thoughts. I have no sympathy for those people being afraid of nuclear power. More than one of them simply could not be convinced that nuclear power reactors do not and cannot explode like a nuclear weapon. That is pathetic.

Introducing Prometheus Rising Studio.
[prometheusrising.net]
I make 3D printed mecha action figures.
MattAlt (Admin)
I think the thing that annoys me most about people panicking and sensationalizing the nuclear situation from abroad is, YOU AREN'T HERE. YOU AREN'T EVEN IN THE ZONE. Why are YOU freaking out? It's "disaster porn" at this point.

Concern is one thing, and very much appreciated. But those of us here and potentially in the line of fire need to keep our heads, and the constant stream of B.S. from American news outlets containing phrases like "increasingly desperate... out of control... impending catastrophe..." does not help the situation (not least of which because it isn't accurate). The Japanese gov't and Tepco may not be telling the full story, but they can't hide much -- so many eyes on that plant now -- and are taking what seems to be a very pragmatic approach to a tough situation. There are hundreds of people risking their lives there now. It is far from being ignored or even downplayed.

What a lot of the coverage feels like is dropping by the bedside of some random patient in the hospital and making increasingly dire prognostications about their health. "You could die, you know! How do you feel about that?" What are you trying to achieve with that other than stirring up emotion? Isn't the whole point of the press to give people the information they need to make better, more informed decisions?

(Not directed at anyone in particular here. I'm just saying....)
MattAlt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the thing that annoys me most about people
> panicking and sensationalizing the nuclear
> situation from abroad is, YOU AREN'T HERE. YOU
> AREN'T EVEN IN THE ZONE. Why are YOU freaking out?
> It's "disaster porn" at this point.
>
> Concern is one thing, and very much appreciated.
> But those of us here and potentially in the line
> of fire need to keep our heads, and the constant
> stream of B.S. from American news outlets
> containing phrases like "increasingly desperate...
> out of control... impending catastrophe..." does
> not help the situation (not least of which because
> it isn't accurate). The Japanese gov't and Tepco
> may not be telling the full story, but they can't
> hide much -- so many eyes on that plant now -- and
> are taking what seems to be a very pragmatic
> approach to a tough situation. There are hundreds
> of people risking their lives there now. It is far
> from being ignored or even downplayed.
>
> What a lot of the coverage feels like is dropping
> by the bedside of some random patient in the
> hospital and making increasingly dire
> prognostications about their health. "You could
> die, you know! How do you feel about that?" What
> are you trying to achieve with that other than
> stirring up emotion? Isn't the whole point of the
> press to give people the information they need to
> make better, more informed decisions?
>
> (Not directed at anyone in particular here. I'm
> just saying....)

I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to actually live there and have people making grossly inaccurate statements about the situation. I also keep hearing and feeling totally shitty about the fact that the whole nuclear panic has really overshadowed concern for and the very real needs of the people in the most heavily afflicted areas. Like you said, it's disaster porn, and to the media makers must have more fear-potential to give than the already 'over' tsunami, to be completely cynical.

Introducing Prometheus Rising Studio.
[prometheusrising.net]
I make 3D printed mecha action figures.
MattAlt (Admin)
I don't care about me, because I can tune it out. What bothers me is the effect this is having on my family and friends in the USA. I spend a lot of time every day reassuring people abroad that I am fine. Repeatedly. I wouldn't have to do that if the media would take a deep breath and report what is actually going on, which is that the situation is extremely dangerous but all measures are being taken to deal with it. (They just dumped water on the reactors by helicopter this morning; fingers crossed that it had some effect.)
I decided to avoid all mainstream media coverage last Friday. We are deciding what we can give to red cross. I know something about charities and microloans in the developing world, but nothing about mechanisms to best assist the Japanese people. I am greatful for both Matt & Saneev's insights here. Looks like they went ahead with the water drops.
I can understand Matt getting peeved and personally affected by the coverage, but the rest of us should know better by now, assuming we don't (i.e., it's nothing new: [en.wikipedia.org]).

I tuned out as much of the media coverage as I could after the first day or so, and a lot of the people absorbed by the coverage now are probably just relishing the thank-god-it's-not-us brand of schadenfreude. Porn is an apt term.

That's a good point about locating one of the nationally recognized charities and donating if one is otherwise inclined to just watch and "be concerned." Worrying and gawking doesn't really help anyone.

>I know something about microloans in the developing world...

From what I've read and heard, there are some serious problems with these based on how they operate, though I don't know enough yet to decide whether they're worth the trouble or not. Anyway, that's another topic...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2011 10:46PM by gingaio.
Before you settle on the Red Cross, run them through this site to see how much of your donation actually goes to the victims...

[www.charitynavigator.org]

as a matter of fact, they have a Japan page here...

[www.charitynavigator.org]

They kinda sorta finagled Katrina so I got a bit of a chip on my shoulder.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2011 10:55PM by Kwesi K..
MSW
I could only stand to watch a hour or so of the constant "melt-gasim" coverage before I had to turn it of. Really think we need some sort of citizens media oversight group, but it would prolly quickly turn into something political :P

Admittingly, I only know the basics of nuclear power reactors. But I work with some gullible and even dumb people whom have rapped themselves into a tissy over this, and I've become the goto guy for dispensing lay-mans explanations of all things scientific.

Today, upon the umpteenth time I've been asked about the "reactor exploding on TV", I snapped. "Look, the reactor itself is contained within basically the same stuff they make those 'indestructible' black boxes on airplanes out of!". Yeah, not accurate, but whatever.

Without missing a beat she says, "But they showed those reactors on TV, and they aren't black!".

"Neither are those Black Boxes!", the reaction on her face was priceless.
The US embassy has made a statement ADVISING not ordering citizens in a 50mile radius around Fukushima nuclear power plants to either evacuate or stay indoors. The US embassy is calling it a voluntary authorized evacuation. Facilities in Yokohama, Tokyo and Nagoya are still in operation but the dependents can leave if they want to and the government will pay for transport. The last news announcement also stated that the US government has some chartered planes as well.

From what I have seen, most foreigners are freaking out more than the locals. About half of the foreigners I know have left. THe other half are staying. The locals are probably a bit too trusting in the news and the foreigners are probably a bit too skeptical. It is a serious situation and the situation can change in a matter of minutes or hours so it is really anybody's guess. The fact is that the radiation levels are increasing in Tokyo, but the amount is still negligible.

Now I am going to step off and do something about this third eye that is growing out of my elbow since yesterday...
Sanjeev, I've been accused of implying that ionic radiation is not that dangerous by way of the NY Times article.

Please school me on where the hell I clearly went wrong. Seriously, I need to know what the differences are just for my own knowledge.
Giantbluerobot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To what extent is an 8.9 earthquake followed by
> tsunami taken into account?
>
It is impossible to plan for all occurences of unexpected events. 100% safety doesn't exist, despite what a lot of sensationalist populist politicians say.

That said, they probably made the design taking into account what earthquakes would be most likely. 9.0 earthquakes are pretty rare, so it could be called a freak accident. Furthermore, the plant was built 40 years ago, which means it likely didn't adhere to today's standards anymore - which would explain why it was planned to be decomissioned at the end of the month (26th of March).

If all freak accidents had to be taken into account when building a power station, none would ever be built, because there always is the risk of some unexpected event much greater than what it was planned to withstand (e.g. asteroid impact).

> Being concerned for the Japanese people and
> radiation is not irrational.

Indeed, but we just had a 2-page discussion on the nuclear reactors, with links to reputable sources and debunking of disreputable ones, and you simply ignored it to spout the same nonsense as the disreputable sources. That's why people call you on it.

> The reactions on this board by all the self
> appointed experts to the concern people have about
> these failing reactors is truly irrational.
>
...so what you are saying is that people are not allowed to have a more informed opinion based on facts if they were not educated to be an expert in the field?
Furthermore, you are being a "self-appointed expert" yourself by dismissing our discussion as "irrational".

> There is only one engineer on this board that
> comes close to being an expert on this issue and
> he qualifies his statements with I am not there so
> I can't be sure of the actual conditions at the
> nuclear reactors. He's right he is not
> there(amazing that he is the only one that admits
> he could be wrong) and neither are all the self
> appointed experts. So until the experts at the
> nuclear reactors who are aware of the actual
> conditions give the all clear sign, I will
> continue to be concerned.

Being concerned is not the problem, fear-mongering and panicking is. The Pacific coast of the US is likely not going to be devastated by huge billowing clouds of corrosive radioactive dust, the BBC did not release a statement that such a thing was underway (it was a hoax), and the disaster at Fukushima is not on the scale of Chernobyl mixed with Hiroshima's explosive force.

--
SilhouetteFormula.Net



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2011 04:14AM by thomas.
MattAlt (Admin)
[bit.ly]

The most important thing is, NHK has built a scale diorama of the reactor facility. There is something incredibly Japanese -- and comforting -- about this, despite the severity of the situation. They even have little trucks and helicopters.
MattAlt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's "disaster porn" at this point.

Agreed.

We were having lunch with a couple over the weekend and the quake came up in conversation. The husband said, "My heart goes out to all those people that have lost loved ones and property. It's an awful experience. I know. I've been there. But beyond that, there's nothing I can do to help them. The media frenzy was making us sick. All it did was remind me how helpless we are to actually do anything." The wife added, "We canceled our TV cable service and donated the rest of the year's bill to relief agencies." It was the most sensible commentary I've encountered yet.

Even the on-line news is playing into the disaster porn. It's unbearable to partake. Reminds me of this guy I knew in college that would seek out the saddest, most vulnerable women he could find because he literally got grief boners when they would share their stories with him. He didn't give a shit about those women aside from savoring the revelations of their personal tragedies as a kind of foreplay. He didn't relate to them, he just consumed them. It turned my guts to hear him talk so matter-of-factly about his "dates". The relative comfort of his own life had left him so bereft of suffering that he needed to sniff out the anguish in others, a ravenous dog searching for buried scraps.

Yet, at the moment I'm starting to appreciate his unwitting honesty. At least he never made any pretenses about his pleasures.
Sanjeev (Admin)
Jack, I'm actually not aware of any classification of nuclear powerplants on a "primitivity" scale of 1-4. At least within the industry. But then again, there's no "meltdown" either--just fuel-damaging events. The term "meltdown" is a product of a moron physicist...and Hollywood.

But to answer your question, while most plants in Japan are 3 on your scale, it's my understanding that the Fukushima units are 2...right on the level of the US's pieces of crap. Not to shit on BWRs, but they're based on really old, simple, efficient principles. Not particularly sophisticated. Boil the water, spin the turbine, condense the steam, start it all over again. The whole cycle is hot (contaminated), but it gets the job done. Sure, there are next gen BWRs, but it's all the same concept...just smaller/modular, more efficient, and safer/simpler/cheaper.


Kwesi K. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sanjeev, I've been accused of implying that ionic
> radiation is not that dangerous by way of the NY
> Times article.
>
> Please school me on where the hell I clearly went
> wrong. Seriously, I need to know what the
> differences are just for my own knowledge.


You didn't go wrong. The article you posted was 100% correct. It was likely misinterpreted by folks with preconceived notions, to whom logic wouldn't appeal anyway.

Here's the deal. In order to chill giant blue robots the fuck out, all the nuclear industries of the world agreed not to increase ambient radiation levels in the environment AT ALL. That way, no one can bitch, right? [Meanwhile, no such agreement exists for, say, coal-burning plants. And as a result, the tons and tons of dirty soot they release into the atmosphere contains faint radioactive particles from shit mined up from the Earth's crust. It's not dangerous radiation, but it FAR outweighs what *any* nuclear reactors put out. And that shit goes unchecked. Irony.] Anyway, the nuclear industries have been good at doing what they agreed to do. Of course, everyone's eyes are always on these plants...so they can't get away with a motherfucking thing...

But the reality is that they could increase ambient radiation levels in surrounding populated areas. And it wouldn't affect life at all. It's all health physics (the study of radiation transport and its biological effects), and it's all statistical analysis. Smoking butts increases your chance of getting lung cancer. A lot. But there are lifetime smokers who live to be 100, cancer free. Epidemiology is all about the numbers. I work with computers, so I'm subjected to more ionizing radiation just from my fucking monitor all day than the vast majority of the human race. But a lot of other people are, too. Statistics have shown that chumps like me don't have any increased risk of getting cancer from it...so it's cool. Same thing with people living near above-ground power lines, paint shops, and a bunch of other shit.

Inner cities, on the other hand, are subjected to vast amounts of particulate pollution (as has been stated before) from fossil fuel burning...and their populations have statistically shown higher incidences of a variety of health problems from asthma to cancer. Their...often browner...populations. Funny how that works.

So suffice it to say, it's all about numbers. We've learned terrible worst-case-scenario lessons from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the fallout of Chernobyl: life can withstand a hell of a lot of ionizing radiation without becoming more prone to getting sick. It's just that in these cases, too many people got way more than "a hell of a lot"...and paid the ultimate price for it. But what if an entire population of, say, one million people were exposed to twice the amount of absorbed ionizing radiation as the rest of us get, throughout their whole lives? I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I don't think there would be any increased number of incidences of cancer in that population over a control group the same size. Now, what if an entire population of 1M were exposed to one hundred times the absorbed dose as the average moe...but for only ten minutes? Again, I have no numbers, but this is the sort of shit we studied. I'm guessing they'd be fine.

But the point is that there IS a refined science to this shit. There are analytical solutions to describe radiation transport. There are computational methods to simulate radiation transport computationally. There are equations for calculating dose based on photon/particle energies. There are hard epidemiological data backing all of this up with statistics on cancer contraction, etc. It's all there. We're tougher than we fear. And our fear has led to over-conservative double-standards (again, no restrictions on coal-burning plants' radioactive material emissions) on one hand, and of course, fossil fuel hoarding in the West on the other (thus robbing third world countries of ANY energy options...not to mention severely choking off fusion research).

...

Anyway, I'm surprised no one has posted this yet:
[www.youtube.com]

So much for Japan's anime industry slumping, Alt! :P
For anyone who might be interested in the current situation regarding the Fukushima nuclear power plants and issues of radiation, I came across some unbiased press info from UK's embassy in Japan earlier.

[ukinjapan.fco.gov.uk]

Was a bit surprised to find that batteries, instant noodles and bottled water sold out at the local supermarket (in Kansai) tonight....
Anonymous User
The thought struck me yesterday that whatever happens to the damaged reactors, a considerable amount of knowledge will come from it, which I expect will be sensibly applied to making future and current reactors safer.

I expect the Japanese will embrace and apply what is learned for a productive, useful future for nuclear power, rather than run in terror from the issues like other cultures may be inclined to.

Science: Failure = useful.
Politics: Failure = doom.
mcfitch (Admin)
Quote
Sanjeev
Now, what if an entire population of 1M were exposed to one hundred times the absorbed dose as the average moe...but for only ten minutes? Again, I have no numbers, but this is the sort of shit we studied. I'm guessing they'd be fine.


Uh...Sanjeev?



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthewalt "I actually kinda LIKE that approach! You know: let's make a TOY. Remember those? Products designed to be played with without breaking? DO YOU REMEMBER, LOVE?!"
"1M were exposed to one hundred times the absorbed dose as the average moe..."

I'm guessing one hundred times the average moe would make VZ's head explode.
Sanjeev (Admin)
Giant...green...slice of life cartoon?

The horror...the horror...
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

footer