Greatest Treat to Humanity - Half of Japan May be Destroyed

The OP promised me a treat. I am of course, profoundly disappointed.

Halloween came early - Trick or Treat.

Sorry about that. Weak batteries in my wireless keyboard causes occasional skipped characters. Spell check does not catch misspelled titles. I went back right away & edited the title but it does not change the one in the thread list.
 
clean energy is wasted money?

only til it gets up and running... then it becomes more cost efficient.

i'm wondering why you have a vested interest in doing things that actively destroy our environment. i'd think you'd want to maximize our safety. as a parent, i know i do.

Very interesting point here. In Oregon, we have built enough wind turbines that now we have to idle some of them at times because of the excess amount of electricity produced. Even as other areas of the nation are short of electricity. We desperately need to start building a real national grid. And connect it to the areas that have high energy density potential.

Interesting point, you are full of shit.

Renewable energy in the north-west: Tilting at windmills | The Economist
Renewable energy in the north-west: Tilting at windmills | The Economist


Teething troubles in the clean-energy sector

Jun 16th 2011 | SEATTLE | from the print edition





..

An embarrassment of riches.

THE melting snows of spring and early summer are justly celebrated by Aaron Copland and Walt Whitman. But they are causing a lot of trouble in the Pacific north-west, as a federal power agency pushes private wind turbines off the grid in what critics call a case of favouritism towards electricity generated by federal dams.

The region’s windpower companies are enraged and are petitioning the regulators. Encouraged by politicians and their subsidies, they have invested hundreds of millions of dollars over the past six years on a 14-fold increase in generating capacity. But this year, as an unusually large snowmelt surges into the rivers of Oregon and Washington, the wind lobby is howling about government perfidy. “You can’t trust the guy who is running the grid,” says Robert Kahn, executive director of the Northwest & Intermountain Power Producers Coalition.
 
How great the threat from these reactors really has yet to be determined. We still don't know the full extent of the damage. The sad part of this whole mess is that the answer to how safe the location for these reactors was, was in plain site on the hills in back of the reactors. Stones with warnings not to build lower than that point. For that is where the destruction stoped hundreds of years ago.
 
Physicist Michio Kaku "They Lied to Us" on Fukushima

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQa2Ivz8i8I&feature=fvwrel"]"They Lied to Us" on Fukushima[/ame]
 
More people were killed last year in refinery and mining accidents than have been killed by nuclear accidents in the entire history of nuclear power. Claiming that fossil fuel is safer than nuclear power is like arguing that the Earth is flat.

I would usually agree with you on this QW, yet 25 years later no one seems to want to live in Chernobyl and I would not want to live close to TMI even though other reactors are operating, something about human error and a material we have very limited control over...

I like the "Flat Earth" retort, very good...but you want to ignore the fact that these areas are destroyed beyond many, many life times...

That would be like putting your head in the sand...

let me specify.

accidents last year in the US are higher than the worlds nuclear accidents since conception.

Nuclear power is the safest, permanent alternative fuel but is regulated into oblivion by the poorly informed.

Fair enough, if you are correct, then Chernobyl and Fukushima are going to be safe places to live someday, just not anytime in the foreseeable future, like never...

So if Fukushima has 1/4 the damage predicted by this source your OK with that?
 
Kissmy?

I certainly hope the typo in the thread title was a typo and not intentional. I have to believe it is because I have never felt you were a racist.

Please tell me you missed the 'h' in threat and you were not insinuating that the destruction of half of the nation of Japan is a treat for the rest of humanity!

treat in place of threat?

Immie

Yeah, for a brief moment I sighed with relief, thinking "Damn, and people think I have issues."
 
Last edited:
"""Half of Japan MAY BE DESTROYED??? "" hysterical poppy-cock... Who ya gonna believe?

Radiation from Fukushima Nuclear Accident Was Mostly Below Cancer-Causing Level: Scientific American
Spikes in radiation caused by the Fukushima nuclear disaster were below cancer-causing levels in almost all of Japan, but infants in one town appear to be at a higher risk of developing thyroid cancer, the World Health Organization said on Wednesday.

Nearly 16,000 people were killed in the earthquake and the tsunami and 3,300 remain unaccounted for.

The areas estimated to have received the highest doses of radiation were Namie town in Futaba county and Iitate village in Soma county, northwest of the stricken plant, the report said.

Infants in Namie were thought to have received thyroid radiation doses of 100-200 mSv, it added. The thyroid is the most exposed organ as radioactive iodine concentrates there and children are deemed especially vulnerable.

"That would be one area because of the estimated high dose that we would have to keep an eye on," WHO spokesman Gregory Hartl told Reuters. "Below 100 mSv, the studies have not been conclusive."

Populations exposed to radiation typically stand a greater chance of contracting cancers of all kinds after receiving doses above 100 mSv, according to the United Nations agency. The threshold for acute radiation syndrome is about 1 Sv (1000 mSv).

It demeans the loss of the 16,000++ who actually DIED in the earthquake/tsunami. Please forgive me for putting some numbers and science to this turd..



Fukushima

The World Health Organization yesterday released a report estimating residents of Fukushima prefecture outside of the no- go zones were exposed to relatively low doses of radiation between 1 millisievert to 10 millisieverts. In prefectures neighboring Fukushima, the dose is estimated between 0.1 millisieverts to 10 millisieverts and the rest of Japan may have got as much as 1 millisieverts, it said.

Cumulative exposure to 100 millisieverts raises the risk of death from cancer by 0.5 percent, according to Japan’s National Institute of Radiological Sciences.

Speaking of Japan -- Have you looked at the teaming daily life in Hiroshima and Nagasaki lately? As for exposure in the US -- your granite kitchen counter is a bigger radiation threat than the "fall-out" from Fukushima..

Certainly a power source that can light and heat your home with just 0.7 ounce of material per year (and without generating greenhouse gas) is worth considering.

Don't have a cow -- man..
 

Forum List

Back
Top