Greatest Treat to Humanity - Half of Japan May be Destroyed

[bripat9643]

Half of Japan's land will become a wasteland just like Chernobyl.

The only problem with your claim is that the area around Chernobyl isn't a "wasteland." It's overpopulated with wildlife.

 

[KissMy]

Half of Japan's land will become a wasteland just like Chernobyl.

The only problem with your claim is that the area around Chernobyl isn't a "wasteland." It's overpopulated with wildlife.

No - A 15 mile radious around Chernobyl (1020 square miles, 653,000 acres) of land is so bad that 2/3rds fewer trees, inscects or animals are living to this day. Much of that is genetically mutant.

Yes - The other contaminated 15,000 square miles of property is populated with some older people, plants & wildlife some of witch is genetically mutant.

Fukushima will be worse than Chernobyl.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Half of Japan's land will become a wasteland just like Chernobyl.

The only problem with your claim is that the area around Chernobyl isn't a "wasteland." It's overpopulated with wildlife.

No - A 15 mile radious around Chernobyl (1020 square miles, 653,000 acres) of land is so bad that no trees, inscects or animals are living.

Yes - The other contaminated 15,000 square miles of property is populated with wildlife & genetically mutant wildlife.

Fukushima will be worse than Chernobyl.

I don't think there is any comparison.
Chernobyl had thousands of tons of burning graphite to spread the contamination.
Nothing like that in Japan.

 

[Mr. H.]

According to rdean, the pros outweigh the cons.

 

[KissMy]

I don't think there is any comparison.
Chernobyl had thousands of tons of burning graphite to spread the contamination.
Nothing like that in Japan.

"Large city 60 km from meltdowns has 3-4 times radiation levels at which Soviets evacuated everyone — Hotspots up to 500-700 times normal" - July 3, 2011 "

"Damaged Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 just had 204 “new” fuel rods inserted before quake."

"The storage pool in the No. 4 reactor building has a total of 1,535 fuel rods, or 460 tons of nuclear fuel, in it. The 7-story building itself has suffered great damage, with the storage pool barely intact on the building’s third and fourth floors. The roof has been blown away. If the storage pool breaks and runs dry, the nuclear fuel inside will overheat and explode, causing a massive amount of radioactive substances to spread over a wide area. Both the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and French nuclear energy company Areva have warned about this risk.

A report released in February by the Independent Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident stated that the storage pool of the plant’s No. 4 reactor has clearly been shown to be “the weakest link” in the parallel, chain-reaction crises of the nuclear disaster. The worse-case scenario drawn up by the government includes not only the collapse of the No. 4 reactor pool, but the disintegration of spent fuel rods from all the plant’s other reactors. If this were to happen, residents in the Tokyo metropolitan area would be forced to evacuate."

Expert: "If Unit 4 pool gets a crack from quake and leaks, it would be end for Tokyo. Doesn’t have to be large tremor, already shaken many times."

Expert: "M7.0 quake can cause Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 to collapse — New study warns fault nearby Daiichi plant ripped open on 3/11; 70% chance of big quake this year" February 14, 2012

Nuclear engineer: "Enormous amount of plutonium at No. 4 spent fuel pool in danger of catching fire; Pool is cracked and leaking. Powerful explosion at reactor No. 3 may have been from “prompt criticality” in spent fuel pool."
.

 

[Douger]

Greatest threats facing humanity!
1. Africa
2. Islam
3. A mile wide Astroid

1. murka
2. IsNtReal
3. China

 

[Unkotare]

Half of Japan's land mass is about to become uninhabitable & unusable. Because Japan is not able to contain the Fukushima disaster.

That is, of course, absurd.

 

[inALIENable]

Shit has consequences. They'll have to learn to suck-it-up and live with it.

 

[Unkotare]

Half of Japan's land will become a wasteland just like Chernobyl.

The only problem with your claim is that the area around Chernobyl isn't a "wasteland." It's overpopulated with wildlife.

No - A 15 mile radious around Chernobyl (1020 square miles, 653,000 acres) of land is so bad that 2/3rds fewer trees, inscects or animals are living to this day. Much of that is genetically mutant.

Yes - The other contaminated 15,000 square miles of property is populated with some older people, plants & wildlife some of witch is genetically mutant.

Fukushima will be worse than Chernobyl.

Wildlife thriving after nuclear disaster? Radiation from Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents not as harmful to wildlife as feared


Do you think that just repeating yourself endlessly will make whatever speculation you currently favor true?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Evidently we have been exposed as well...

I have never been comfortable with Nuclear Power for this very reason...

We certainly have issues with fossil fuels that may be detrimental to our way of life, but to date it is the safest...

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.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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...

No one has a choice about living near Chernobyl, it is an exclusion zone. They do allow people to go into the area for short periods, without wearing radiation suits, and the flora is thriving. The Earth is more resilient than most people give it credit for.

Three Mile Island is perfectly safe, I would have no problem living there.

I am not denying there are dangers involved with nuclear power, I used to live next to one. The Navy has been operating them for years, and there has never been a single death related to the operation of nuclear reactors on a submarine, any of the carriers, or the four nuclear cruisers. Sailors routinely sleep closer to those power plants than people are allowed to work to nuclear power plants in the US.

reactor=fuel tank=food storage=galley=berthing

in the torpedo room, during long deployments, people slept next to nuclear missiles.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

In the '50s when they were promoting nuclear, we were told that the reactors would be completely failsafe, and that they would generate electricity so cheaply that it would not have to be metered.

Reality. Nuclear the most expensive electricity. Chernobyl. Three Mile Island. Fukashima.
Nuclear has a place in the mix, but it is hardly the answer.

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

In the '50s when they were promoting nuclear, we were told that the reactors would be completely failsafe, and that they would generate electricity so cheaply that it would not have to be metered.

Reality. Nuclear the most expensive electricity. Chernobyl. Three Mile Island. Fukashima.
Nuclear has a place in the mix, but it is hardly the answer.

But neither are renewables Ray...........

This Fukashima story is the single most serious "environmental" issue by far. As time goes on, we are going to be hearing alot more about this, and none of it is good. The magnitude of this disaster is simply unbelievable and there is lots on the web that most people dont know about. In fact, its taken me complletely off the nuclear bandwagon. LIke with renewables, the technology is just not ther yet and its not the road to go, but for different reasons than renewables. Like renewables, several decades are going to have to go by so that new technology can be developed to make nuclear safer. It is my belief that in several decasdes, people will one day look back and laugh at the idea that we were trying to provide energy with such things as nuclear power and solar power.

Nuclear particles has been found in kelp off the California coast.

Radioactive ?Hotspots? Found Far From Fukushima Disaster - International Business Times

 

[Old Rocks]

Steve, a few decades is all we have. Then the coal that is available at a reasonable cost is gone.

 

[Unkotare]

This Fukashima story is the single most serious "environmental" issue by far. ]

Serious enough to spell the transliteration correctly, genius?

 

[Unkotare]

Steve, a few decades is all we have. Then the coal that is available at a reasonable cost is gone.

Wrong again, moron.

 

[Old Rocks]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ]The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See - FULL LECTURE - AlBartlett.org - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

Steve, a few decades is all we have. Then the coal that is available at a reasonable cost is gone.

Wrong again, moron.

Back up your assertation.

 

[Unkotare]

How Much Coal Is Left - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy

"Based on U.S. coal production for 2010, the U.S. recoverable coal reserves represent enough coal to last 239 years."

 

[jillian]

Greatest Short-Term Threat to Humanity - Half of Japan's land mass is about to become uninhabitable & unusable. Because Japan is not able to contain the Fukushima disaster.

Fukushima disaster is still Growing Larger

Clean energy = wasted money.
Video silliness, "There's no such thing as a not harmful level".
OMG! So much idiocy, so little time.

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.