1. Yes, 1000 sq mi, roughly 2/3 the area of Long Island. The instructions for people in this area were not "kiss your ass goodbye", but "we think you should probably stay indoors". Anyway, I'm not going to keep trying to downplay the situation as it continues to escalate, but I am on the lookout for overreaction, and you should be too.
    Add emcee21 to Rail
  2. As I have said earlier ITT, I think I would still describe myself as pro-nuclear, so I'm not over-reacting. I do think this incident exposes some pretty obvious flaws in a system where nuclear power is generated by privately owned corporations whose first priority is profit, rather than public safety.

    Pro-nuke advocates always bring up the Navy and their flawless safety record when it comes to nuclear subs, as evidence that nuclear power is safe. I agree! Just let the government run it, and I'm on board.
    Add Underdog to Rail
  3. The good doctors original posting has been greatly modified and taken over by a team of MIT scientists
    Thread StarterAdd dolphin13 to Rail
  4. Yes if the US Navy Operated it.
    Add RichardHurtz to Rail
  5.  
    Originally Posted by emcee21 View Post

    yes, http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/20...lear-reactors/

    I didn't read this, its gone now?

    What was so convinving about the article? Sway my opinion on nuclear power.
    Add Clerk to Rail
  6. But would you live where there are the stronger possibilities of 9 earthquakes? Youre accepting that risk already.

    Obv yes for UD. Symantics over what poison kills you then, no?
    Add skisteve to Rail
  7. Some douchebag I know at MIT tells me that we should be looking at this incident as an example of success, not as an example of failure, and he's probably like 99% as intelligent as I am, maybe more, maybe 99 and 44/100%, who knows. So take that for what it is worth.
    Add Underdog to Rail
  8. yes. I would love to have my own home-size nuclear reactor so I could tell Georgia Power to KMMFA and SMMFD.
    Add 2Slick4u to Rail
  9.  
    Originally Posted by stackinsideways View Post

    considering the fact that I live In Cleveland and you couldnt me pay to swim in Lake Erie I think Ill pass...

    pollution is the number 1 reason this city is dead. you can honestly smell when you hit Cleveland borders. makes me sick to my stomach in more than 1 way.

    Ohio's state slogan is "The Heart Of It All". anybody who doesnt think pollution changed that fact needs to come visit

    Do you realize you have just made a huge argument in favor of nuclear power? Fossil Fuel plants are extremely polluting, and all of the waste from one nuclear power plant can fit in a swimming pool. In addition, new technologies allow us to further process this "waste," with hopes to use over 90% of it as fuel.

    Fossil fuel plants LITERALLY produce hundreds of thousands times more waste (pollution) than nuclear plants. Waste from nuclear plants is fully contained, waste from fossil fuel plants is spewed directly into the environment.
    Add hrk to Rail
  10.  
    Originally Posted by Clerk View Post

    I didn't read this, its gone now?

    What was so convinving about the article? Sway my opinion on nuclear power.

    The new page is up here: http://mitnse.com/

    The original version of the blog from two days ago had me coming into this thread swinging my dick around and knocking shit over, even though I knew relatively little about nuclear power. I had a sense that before anything bad had really happened with the reactors, that anti-nuke advocates were starting to pounce on the situation and score political points, while the media hyped up the situation (not that it needed hyping up, what with the earthquake, the tsunami, explosions, etc.) Since then things have gotten worse in Japan - my bets were placed a couple days ago, so we'll see how wrong MIT & I end up being.
    Add emcee21 to Rail
  11. ooo I wasnt trying to say anything negative about the use of Nuclear energy in Cleveland was more just answering OPs question there. I see how you could read it that way tho.

    I live in the burbs and I like it that way.. our city got a mall and now there is soo much traffic and garbage and more crime. I would just perfer to live by homes and not factories
    Edited By: stackinsideways Mar 15th, 2011 at 06:23 PM
     
    Add stackinsideways to Rail
  12. what are your thoughts on the Doctor radically changing his blog?

    What he wrote has been significantly modified. I find it very disappointing that the original column/blog is not made available.

    Today's demolition of every asset class has me worried about deflation/overreaction by Fed resulting in inflation
    Edited By: dolphin13 Mar 15th, 2011 at 06:25 PM
    Thread StarterAdd dolphin13 to Rail
  13. I just saw a video about Japan's radiation problems, that seemed to be misleading at the least, and possibly downplaying the severity of the surrounding environment (outside of Japan).

    "When it rains...all the particles in the air will settle into the ground and concentrate...which will be, devastating for locals in Japan, but will have little impact through other parts of Asia."

    Is this really true? Wouldn't a nuclear radiation leak affect the world environment to some degree?

    It just caught my attention from a video on yahoo, and then I realized I know absolutely nothing when it comes to Nuclear Physics.

    can't embed.

    http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15...japan-24531260

    o and fuck video ads.
     
    8
    Add P0KERDUUDE to Rail
  14.  
    Originally Posted by P0KERDUUDE View Post

    I realized I know absolutely nothing when it comes to Nuclear Physics.

    I agree.
    Add bfactor to Rail
  15. well, we're gonna see if bfactor still likes only Jap girls when they all have three eyes
    Thread StarterAdd dolphin13 to Rail
  16. South Korean girls tho
    Add bfactor to Rail
  17. my brother who lives in Japan shared this link with me.

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/

    He says he is not worried (although he is far from the affected nuke reactors)
    Add FouTight to Rail
  18. No, I wouldn't want to live near high-voltage power lines, much less a nuclear power plant - I'm ok with being irrationally fearful of stuff like this
    Add pigalet42 to Rail
  19.  
    Originally Posted by FouTight View Post

    my brother who lives in Japan shared this link with me.

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/

    He says he is not worried (although he is far from the affected nuke reactors)

    Thanks, great link
     
    8
    Add P0KERDUUDE to Rail
  20.  
    Originally Posted by Clerk View Post

    I didn't read this, its gone now?

    What was so convinving about the article? Sway my opinion on nuclear power.

    The article basically just pointed out that most of what you see is fear mongering, that there is little to no danger of a nuclear catastrophe occurring. The Chernobyl disaster taught about the necessity for a containment vessel around the fuel rods, and these are standard now. In that case, radioactivity was freely escaping from the melted reactor for 10 days. FWIW, not a single person died among the population as a result of Chernobyl, as reported by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.
    (UNSCEAR 2011- http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/...byl_Report.pdf)

    The radiation doses from the Chernobyl fallout were below the natural radiation, too small to produce any effect. Emergency workers, however, did receive high doses at the scene, and many experienced acute radiation syndrome, and the effects were harsh. 237 emergency workers were initially examined for signs of ARS, 134 were verified to have ARS, and 28 died within 4 months. 20 or so have died since 1986, and the rest are alive today. There were ZERO cases of ARS among the general public.

    Nuclear power is clean, cheap, incredibly efficient, does not harm the environment, and is very safe, as evidenced by the fact that not a single person has ever been killed in a US commercial nuclear power plant accident. The worst accident in American nuclear history (three mile island) only harmed equipment, and there is no evidence that even a single case of cancer was caused by this event.

    Nuclear power is awesome for humanity. Not so awesome for those that profit from dirty, inefficient, disappearing, and polluting fossil fuels.


     
    Originally Posted by Underdog View Post

    Some douchebag I know at MIT tells me that we should be looking at this incident as an example of success, not as an example of failure, and he's probably like 99% as intelligent as I am, maybe more, maybe 99 and 44/100%, who knows. So take that for what it is worth.

    I'd say this def qualifies as a worst case scenario type of event. Lessons from this event (namely, protect diesel back up power from possible tsunami) will improve design and safety in the future. When this is all said and done, and catastrophe was avoided (tsunami devastation aside,) will you be strongly pro nuclear?




     
    Originally Posted by emcee21 View Post

    The new page is up here: http://mitnse.com/

    The original version of the blog from two days ago had me coming into this thread swinging my dick around and knocking shit over, even though I knew relatively little about nuclear power. I had a sense that before anything bad had really happened with the reactors, that anti-nuke advocates were starting to pounce on the situation and score political points, while the media hyped up the situation (not that it needed hyping up, what with the earthquake, the tsunami, explosions, etc.) Since then things have gotten worse in Japan - my bets were placed a couple days ago, so we'll see how wrong MIT & I end up being.

    Your original intuition was correct. Obv the situation in Japan right now sucks, but there is no danger of fission products being exposed. There will be no emission of radionuclides into the atmosphere, only possibly innocuous radioactive noble gases (which are always present in our environment, high undispersed concentrations being dangerous of course.)

    Emcee, why do you suppose some groups are so anti nuclear technology?
    Add hrk to Rail
  21. nope. id much rather have it 5 miles or less.
    Add kowboy8686 to Rail
  22. so emcee, when does your shift start at the Fukushima plant? I'm guessing you're going to take over now that they've evacuated all the workers. You and your good doctor running the show

    :)
    Edited By: dolphin13 Mar 16th, 2011 at 03:58 AM
    Thread StarterAdd dolphin13 to Rail
  23. Hey Vice, I did my best to get you 100 replies on this one. I even bumped it after like 12 hours. Dunno, man, it might not make it. Keep trying though.
    Add Underdog to Rail
  24. okay

    so....uh what's new with you?

    Did you hear that Bush was behind 9-11
    Thread StarterAdd dolphin13 to Rail
  25. http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w..._worried_viral

    Still cool with living near a plant.
    Add emcee21 to Rail
  26. I'd laugh at you but I rubber stamped your expert. sigh. I should have done some digging

    Oehmen, it turns out, does work at MIT but has no special expertise in nuclear power. And his key claim -- that "there was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity from the damaged Japanese reactors" -- appears to have already been proven false.

    I have to admit I saw MIT and started jerking off

    plus, how could a guy who looks like this not be spot on??

    Edited By: dolphin13 Mar 16th, 2011 at 04:48 AM
    Thread StarterAdd dolphin13 to Rail
  27.  
    Originally Posted by dolphin13 View Post

    I have to admit I saw MIT and started jerking off

    I admit this too, but the guy was pretty forthcoming in the intro, saying something about his father working in nukes. His intent was to ease the concerns of frirends/family living in Japan, not to act as a shill for the nuke industry or something. In retrospect his title was pretty obnoxious.
    Add emcee21 to Rail