MJW155 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Another person making posts without prerequisite knowledge. Food has radiation in it. It does. I know it does. For some reason, no one is reading what I'm saying. There should not be any radiation in the US from a nuclear plant in Japan. If there is, that means all the precautions were not taken by the Japanese. Why is this so hard to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJW155 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 This is also not true... There is background radiation all over. No matter where you are you're always getting tiny amounts of radiation - obviously not harmful to health but still measurable. There's not really "zero radiation" And why should there be zero? Stuff gets transported by winds...it's very tiny though. Is the radiation in CA higher, the same or lower than before the earthquake? If it's higher, something is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJW155 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Nothing is ever perfect. To require perfection before progressing is to forever remain where you are. FWTW it is estimated that 25,000 people died building the Panama Canal. Would we even think about undertaking something that would likely cost 1/10 that many lives? I doubt it. "According to hospital records, 5,609 lives were lost from disease and accidents during the American construction era. Adding the deaths during the French era would likely bring the total deaths to some 25,000 based on an estimate by Gorgas. However, the true number will never be known, since the French only recorded the deaths that occurred in hospital. " Except in this case, innocent people in Japan that have no choice could get sick or die because of an accident at a nuclear plant. Did anyone in Florida die because the Panama Canal was built? Did anyone in Japan die when the US built the Hoover Dam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick G Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 This entire thread is distilled down to "whom to believe"? I'll chose EPA first and Japan a distant second; they are still among our closest allies. I will go with phineas and mallow as well, if they say the US will experience no concerning radiation increase, they have the science to back it up. I agree that radiation in the US will not be a problem. The main stream media just loves making something out of almost nothing. Dr. Michu Kaku stated that we have radiation from chernobyl in our systems and it doesn't affect us. Hell I had a ton or radiation in my battle with cancer. Bottom line this is really just trivia... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmlwx Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Is the radiation in CA higher, the same or lower than before the earthquake? If it's higher, something is wrong. Of course something is wrong - like 4-6 reactors were releasing fairly high amounts (compared to normal) radiation into the atmosphere. The question I'm asking you is define what you mean when you say "something is wrong" - I think what is going on in Japan could explain what's "wrong" After Chernobyl radiation also spread - stuff spreads when it's released...obviously it dissipates but it can still be measured. If radiation in the US is .0000001% higher or whatever than background I don't see a big problem. It was predicted and the health results are likely negligible. If you're really worried about radiation you shouldn't own a cell phone, get an x-ray or anything like that because you're going to be getting more of a dose than what you're getting from Japan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Wind at Fukushima airport has now switched to the SE...it's averaging about 5 mph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJW155 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Of course something is wrong - like 4-6 reactors were releasing fairly high amounts (compared to normal) radiation into the atmosphere. The question I'm asking you is define what you mean when you say "something is wrong" - I think what is going on in Japan could explain what's "wrong" After Chernobyl radiation also spread - stuff spreads when it's released...obviously it dissipates but it can still be measured. If radiation in the US is .0000001% higher or whatever than background I don't see a big problem. It was predicted and the health results are likely negligible. If you're really worried about radiation you shouldn't own a cell phone, get an x-ray or anything like that because you're going to be getting more of a dose than what you're getting from Japan. I'm not worried about radation at all. But because they were not properly prepared for this, like you said, 4-6 reactors released radiation into the atmosphere. There have been 9.0 earthquakes before and Japan is right in the middle of an earthquake zone. This isn't like a Catagory 5 hurricane hitting 3 Mile and creating problems. People will just disagree with me. I'm fine with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amped Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I'm not worried about radation at all. But because they were not properly prepared for this, like you said, 4-6 reactors released radiation into the atmosphere. There have been 9.0 earthquakes before and Japan is right in the middle of an earthquake zone. This isn't like a Catagory 5 hurricane hitting 3 Mile and creating problems. People will just disagree with me. I'm fine with that. Okay than go get your sleeping bag, we're camping out on top of reactor #3 tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice1972 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Except in this case, innocent people in Japan that have no choice could get sick or die because of an accident at a nuclear plant. Did anyone in Florida die because the Panama Canal was built? Did anyone in Japan die when the US built the Hoover Dam? Except this wasn't an accident........nothing went wrong with the reactors until they were hit by the fifth largest quake ever to be recorded and a 3 story tsunami......this is force majeure on a grand scale and you're trying to convince the rest of us that it wasn't designed right or something........your better off worrying about your next trip to the store or the skin cancer you could get from your next sunburn than you are about radiation from Japan..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterymix Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I know it does. For some reason, no one is reading what I'm saying. There should not be any radiation in the US from a nuclear plant in Japan. If there is, that means all the precautions were not taken by the Japanese. Why is this so hard to understand? All qualified experts are asserting that the US will not receive radiation from Japan that will impact reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJW155 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Except this wasn't an accident........nothing went wrong with the reactors until they were hit by the fifth largest quake ever to be recorded and a 3 story tsunami......this is force majeure on a grand scale and you're trying to convince the rest of us that it wasn't designed right or something........your better off worrying about your next trip to the store or the skin cancer you could get from your next sunburn than you are about radiation from Japan..... So they didn't prepare for a worst case scenario? And that's OK with you? Sorry, my bad. I shouldn't have used the word accident. I should have said incident. Nitpick all you want, but you know what I meant. And again, for about 6th or 7th time in the thread, I am not worried about radiation AND I know that there is a greater than 99% chance that nothing will happen to the health of Americans. I have said this NUMEROUS times. LOL. YOU keep changing this and saying I'm overreacting about people getting sick. All I'm saying is that it is not a 0% chance which it should be. And by 0%, I don't mean 0% radiation. I mean 0% as in it shouldn't be higher than it was before the earthquake. They couldn't prepare for a 3 story tsunami? Really? You mean they couldn't build a 50' high sea wall? And if you say it's too expensive to build, then you are admitting that it was all about $$$ in the first place. They couldn't have designed the backup generators on top of the roof? How come it's only this site that's having problems? Go ask Josh how he feels about this. I am not alone in my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterymix Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said we do not expect to see radiation at harmful levels reaching the U.S. from damaged Japanese nuclear power plants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxmx Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 So they didn't prepare for a worst case scenario? And that's OK with you? Sorry, my bad. I shouldn't have used the word accident. I should have said incident. Nitpick all you want, but you know what I meant. And again, for about 6th or 7th time in the thread, I am not worried about radiation AND I know that there is a greater than 99% chance that nothing will happen to the health of Americans. I have said this NUMEROUS times. LOL. YOU keep changing this and saying I'm overreacting about people getting sick. All I'm saying is that it is not a 0% chance which it should be. And by 0%, I don't mean 0% radiation. I mean 0% as in it shouldn't be higher than it was before the earthquake. They couldn't prepare for a 3 story tsunami? Really? You mean they couldn't build a 50' high sea wall? And if you say it's too expensive to build, then you are admitting that it was all about $$ in the first place. They couldn't have designed the backup generators on top of the roof? How come it's only this site that's having problems? Go ask Josh how he feels about this. I am not alone in my thoughts. I don't think it's feasible to construct a 50' sea wall long enough to protect of a tsunami this size, it would be an engineering wonder to avoid it falling over the plant in a 9+ quake/tsunami, or fully encircling the plant (thus defeating many purposes, like having sea breeze to cool down the plant, having less expensive energy, etc). Generators on the roof? At the mercy of a strong storm, lightning, wind, roof explosions? It's the strongest quake in Japan ever recorded, it's worse than the previous worse case scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice1972 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 So they didn't prepare for a worst case scenario? And that's OK with you? Sorry, my bad. I shouldn't have used the word accident. I should have said incident. Nitpick all you want, but you know what I meant. And again, for about 6th or 7th time in the thread, I am not worried about radiation AND I know that there is a greater than 99% chance that nothing will happen to the health of Americans. I have said this NUMEROUS times. LOL. YOU keep changing this and saying I'm overreacting about people getting sick. All I'm saying is that it is not a 0% chance which it should be. And by 0%, I don't mean 0% radiation. I mean 0% as in it shouldn't be higher than it was before the earthquake. They couldn't prepare for a 3 story tsunami? Really? You mean they couldn't build a 50' high sea wall? And if you say it's too expensive to build, then you are admitting that it was all about $$ in the first place. They couldn't have designed the backup generators on top of the roof? How come it's only this site that's having problems? Go ask Josh how he feels about this. I am not alone in my thoughts. I know your not alone....your attitude is actually pretty typical of risk averse people who think that every planning and development project we undertake as a society should be designed for the worst case.......you just don't get it......of course its about money......its the reason why you can't just build stuff to withstand a scenario that basically never happens......that would be an overdesign and would just be too expensive.....its done all the time in a lot of engineering applications.....trust me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 So they didn't prepare for a worst case scenario? And that's OK with you? Sorry, my bad. I shouldn't have used the word accident. I should have said incident. Nitpick all you want, but you know what I meant. And again, for about 6th or 7th time in the thread, I am not worried about radiation AND I know that there is a greater than 99% chance that nothing will happen to the health of Americans. I have said this NUMEROUS times. LOL. YOU keep changing this and saying I'm overreacting about people getting sick. All I'm saying is that it is not a 0% chance which it should be. And by 0%, I don't mean 0% radiation. I mean 0% as in it shouldn't be higher than it was before the earthquake. They couldn't prepare for a 3 story tsunami? Really? You mean they couldn't build a 50' high sea wall? And if you say it's too expensive to build, then you are admitting that it was all about $ in the first place. They couldn't have designed the backup generators on top of the roof? How come it's only this site that's having problems? Go ask Josh how he feels about this. I am not alone in my thoughts. no company nor government can ever prepare for the "worst case scenario." It's all about the reduction of risk. There will always be a small risk of something going wrong in all kinds of energy endeavors. We are "friendly" with some bad folks in the Middle East because they have oil. There have been hundreds of miners killed mining coal, which also pollutes the atmosphere. 1000s and 1000s killed in non-nuclear industrial accidents. You can't expect people to build a 50 ft sea wall. It's completely unreasonable. Do we have sea wall protecting hurricane prone areas of the US Gulf Coast? Not at all... I think most here agree that the diesel generators were in a place they shouldn't have been. It was a mistake that lead to this crisis getting more out of control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dino Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I don't think it's feasible to construct a 50' sea wall long enough to protect of a tsunami this size, it would be an engineering wonder to avoid it falling over the plant in a 9+ quake/tsunami, or fully encircling the plant (thus defeating many purposes, like having sea breeze to cool down the plant, having less expensive energy, etc). Generators on the roof? At the mercy of a strong storm, lightning, wind, roof explosions? It's the strongest quake in Japan ever recorded, it's worse than the previous worse case scenario. hehe, that actually puts into perspective-- the quake was 100 times stronger than their worst case scenario. The quake also lasted 2 to 3 minutes...much longer than the 30 seconds a typical quake lasts for. It was followed by 40+ aftershocks that were M5-M6+. Oh, and the tsunami...the sea level went up 30 feet. How can one viably build a Nuclear Plant that will be operational for 30 years and practically engineer it so it can avoid a one-in-a-thousand case scenario? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rib Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Time for a new thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.