lol, mutant amerifats jesusland is in trouble

File: 214 KB, 800x446, fallout.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:01:23 2011 No.2685277 [Reply] [Original]

lol, mutant amerifats

jesusland is in trouble

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:04:23 2011 No.2685290 File: 26 KB, 504x452, 1258175999820.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw in 10 days I get a healing factor and adamantium claws

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:04:23 2011 No.2685291

To gauge biological effects the dose in rads is multiplied by a 'quality factor' which is dependent on the type of ionizing radiation. The modified dose is now measured in rems (roentgen equivalent mammal, or man)[4]. 100 rem = 1 sievert (Sv). A dose of under 100 rems is subclinical and will produce nothing other than blood changes. 100 to 200 rems will cause illness but will rarely be fatal. Doses of 200 to 1000 rems will likely cause serious illness with poor outlook at the upper end of the range. Doses of more than 1000 rems are almost invariably fatal[5].

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:05:23 2011 No.2685297 one could say this is really ironic after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki US kind of deserves it

>>	Ặɲѻɳᴇxus !!qMPplrvyJzF Sat Mar 12 03:06:23 2011 No.2685299 I give this troll 1/10. Nice photoshop of the Australian Radiation Services there. Although radiation is a very heavy gas and falls more likely to get into the ocean and not affect any Americans at all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:08:23 2011 No.2685305 >Implying that's not fucktardedly wrong

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:09:23 2011 No.2685313 no reason to be scary, just move to the east

>>	Ặɲѻɳᴇxus !!qMPplrvyJzF Sat Mar 12 03:10:23 2011 No.2685315 >>2685305 This too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:10:23 2011 No.2685316 >>2685297 All's fair

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:11:23 2011 No.2685318 File: 70 KB, 400x300, notsure_iftroll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Oh boy here we go, we'll be seeing this stuff for weeks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:12:23 2011 No.2685322 File: 39 KB, 400x400, reactionbtvs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >implying cali/oregon/washington are "jesusland"

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:12:23 2011 No.2685327 >>2685322 >implying rednecks aren't everywhere

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:15:23 2011 No.2685332 >>2685322 >>2685327 >implying all of american isn't jesus/redneck land

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:17:23 2011 No.2685336 File: 34 KB, 330x309, justinill.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2685277 Where is North Korea?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:19:23 2011 No.2685340 I lol'd, but shitty troll. 2/10 for the laugh

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:22:23 2011 No.2685348 >>2685299 radiation is a gas what the fuck am i reading

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:22:23 2011 No.2685351 >>2685336 Australia doesn't recognize NK officially, as such it doesn't appear on their maps.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:25:23 2011 No.2685357 >RADS >no indication of time scale other than ambiguous * days

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:29:23 2011 No.2685367 http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article1531579.ece?homepage=true The station isn't going critical any more.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:29:23 2011 No.2685368

Picture makes no sense.

The reaction won't be able to cause a meltdown like Chernobyl. They are just trying to keep it cool in order to save themselves from millions of dollars in damages. If the coolant fails, which it looks like it is doing, the reaction will heat up and eventually cease, like a dead-man switch.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:29:23 2011 No.2685369 >>2685299 >radiation >heavy gas Holy shitfucking christ, either you're a troll or a complete fuckwit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:32:23 2011 No.2685376 seems they measured 1015microcurie radioactivity in the last hour near the plant. shit's leaking.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:34:23 2011 No.2685381 >>2685277 What the flying fuck? Rads? What the hell is that? Radiation, fallout and the like is measured in mSv (Millisievert).

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:37:23 2011 No.2685395 The roof to the reactor has just collapsed. NHK is issuing a warning to stay indoors, wear clothing that does not reveal skin... It's going to pop.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:38:23 2011 No.2685402 >>2685277 how the fuck do you suppose that would happen? it can't explode or cause a nuclear explosion. learn a fucking thing or two about how a nuclear reactor is built. believe it or not we don't make them like chernobyl any longer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:39:23 2011 No.2685408 >implying a light water reactor can create nuclear fallout

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:40:23 2011 No.2685412
File: 70 KB, 580x435, wrong.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2685291

Why do you americans insist on inventing new or clinging to old units of measure that no one else uses?

What is next? Is hours and minutes to mainstream for you, of course you need to invent a new unit of time that does not correspond to the rest of the world.

RAAAAAAGE!

m1ckey !dkJI/P7Y32 Sat Mar 12 03:41:23 2011 No.2685414
File: 41 KB, 500x356, fuck you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This fellow from one of the other threads puts it best:

>I'm a nuclear engineer and 90% of the stuff in this thread is bullshit. Are you guys confusing control rods with fuel rods? As long as the reactor isn't breached the decay products should be contained, and even then there would be a containment structure AROUND the reactor to mitigate the leak. Also some people are really overblowing the idea of these heavy radioactive elements becoming airborne. They're heavy, they're going to fall and soak into the ground.
If this plant doesn't use a graphite moderator (I'd bet it doesn't) it's going to be physically impossible for it to Chernobyl.

Seriously , how hard is it to make a distinction between the conditions which prompted Chernobyl and what occurred to the Daiichi plant?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:42:23 2011 No.2685419 >>2685336 Holy shit we were all to preoccupied with Japan to realize that Korean War II broke out and resolved already

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:42:23 2011 No.2685420 File: 119 KB, 830x553, 830px-FNV_NCR_Flag.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:47:23 2011 No.2685443 Video of the explosion. http://www.twitvid.com/LICNU

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:56:23 2011 No.2685485

>>2685381
Wrong.

0.1 rad = 1 mGy. Rads and Grays are the amount of energy imparted by ionizing radiation to a unit mass of material. This is known as absorbed dose.
0.1 rem = 1 mSv. Rems and Sieverts are the units of dose equivalent, or the absorbed dose by biological materials, weighted by the type of ionizing radiation - for example, gamma rays have a weighting factor of 1 and alpha particles have a weighting factor of 20. This makes sense, since alpha particles deposit significantly more energy per unit length traveled (higher LET), resulting in more double-stranded DNA breaks. Cells have a more difficult time repairing these breaks, since the damage is so massive, relatively speaking. Often times, these cells just end up dying. For gamma rays, however, less energy is transferred to a material per unit length, which results in less DNA strand breaks due to less energy imparted. Cells will generally be able to repair themselves after this type of damage.

The final effective dose, as measured in Sv, is calculated from the equivalent dose by multiplying by a weighting factor for exposed organs (see ICRP-60). A whole body dose would yield a weighting factor of 1.

There's also exposure, which is measured in Roentgen, but I don't care to explain further.

Shitty explanation, but I'm tired and fuck you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:58:23 2011 No.2685491 This is God's revenge on Amerifags getting their revenge on Japan for Pearl Harbor.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 03:59:34 2011 No.2685500

Not only do I currently work as a PhD on the research team within the Radiation and Hazardous Materials Lab at the University of California, but it is now confirmed by multiple inside sources that the radiation has begun leaking due to a failure of the containment mechanism. Nuclear power plants like these have the capability of safely powering down but not when the independent generators are lost due to a natural disaster.

The only method of containment now is a sarcophagus like Chernobyl but before they are able to deploy that, supposedly 1-5 Kilorads of heavily ionized quantum radiation gas is likely to hit the East coast of America.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 04:01:23 2011 No.2685506 Crossing my fingers that things go all Fallout 3 over here. And we'd still be better than Europe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 04:01:23 2011 No.2685507 >>2685381 >Rads? What the hell is that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rad_%28unit%29

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 04:01:23 2011 No.2685510 DIY RADIATION DETECTOR PLANS http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/pdf/kfm_inst.pdf can be made from household materials by a kid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 04:01:23 2011 No.2685511 >>2685500 >Radiation and Hazardous Materials Lab at the University of California At least come up with a place that actually exists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 04:06:23 2011 No.2685546 >>2685500 >east coast

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 04:07:23 2011 No.2685550 >>2685500 >the University of California >implying there's only one Shit dude, are the trolls even trying anymore?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 04:07:23 2011 No.2685552 File: 72 KB, 384x400, fallout-dude.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] IT BEGINS, DON'T DRINK OUT OF THE TOILET RAD EVERYWHERE

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 04:10:23 2011 No.2685564 > supposedly 1-5 Kilorads of heavily ionized quantum radiation gas is likely to hit the East coast of America. >quantum radiation gas

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 04:16:23 2011 No.2685594 >california >oregon >washington >arizona >etc etc etc >jesusland lolno http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_belt

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 04:18:23 2011 No.2685604 >MEASUREMENT IN RADS

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 05:01:34 2011 No.2685856 WHOLE LOTTA BUTTMAD ITT

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 05:05:23 2011 No.2685879 whoever played fallout, stalker and so on will be suited for this, everyone else, have fun getting eaten by mutants

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 05:08:23 2011 No.2685901 Hiroshima comes full circle .. how delicious

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 05:10:23 2011 No.2685921 well played japan, took a while, but you managed it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 07:56:34 2011 No.2686627 how long do we have left op

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 08:02:23 2011 No.2686644 File: 5 KB, 200x160, nonso.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2685290 >yfw you are diagnosed with leukemia

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 08:02:31 2011 No.2686647 karma's a bitch isn't it? I blame these people for that fallout projection >pic very related

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 08:04:23 2011 No.2686652 Fukushima. I lol'd.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 08:09:23 2011 No.2686664 >>2686652 lol, fukushima is fuk'd

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 08:09:23 2011 No.2686665 uhh... east coast of america mr. phd? Elaborate plz?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 08:13:23 2011 No.2686677 OP is bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 08:17:23 2011 No.2686695 File: 155 KB, 556x477, Earth_Global_Circulation[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2685277 > MFW equatorial air currents go WEST, not east. Suck radiation, China and Russia.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 08:21:23 2011 No.2686709

>1316: Noriyuki Shikata, deputy cabinet secretary for public relations for the Japanese prime minister tweets: "Blast was caused by accumulated hydrogen combined with oxygen in the space between container and outer structure. No damage to container."

It's fine, calm down. The cloud of smoke was just that, smoke and rubble. It wasn't radioactive at all (or at least significantly). The year is 2011, reactors don't just explode in these circumstance, even if the reactor in question was built some 40 years ago.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 08:21:23 2011 No.2686712 >>2685277 >Jesusland >The West Coast >going nowhere near the deep South Dass str8 ignant

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 08:22:23 2011 No.2686715 >jesusland is in trouble no you fool its hitting the west coast to trouble jesus land it would have to be in south and midlands

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 08:23:23 2011 No.2686717 >meltdown lets try not to be hysterical huh?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 08:25:23 2011 No.2686727 >>2686695 except this plant is in the north, where the trade winds go towards america.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 08:32:23 2011 No.2686751 File: 129 KB, 640x450, Fukushima.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2686709 Thank you, I was just analyzing video of the explosion, comparing it to pictures of the site, trying to figure out where the explosion originated.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 08:36:23 2011 No.2686762 >It's 2011 >Still using Rads as a unit of radiation dose I guess they chose it because 750 sounds more frightening.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 13:34:23 2011 No.2687917 And you guys keep saying Nuclear Power is perfectly safe. Stop being idiots.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 13:36:23 2011 No.2687923 but...how could that happen! we're god-fearing Christians here, unlike the Japanese heathens!

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 13:40:23 2011 No.2687939 >>2687917 it is safe. no one died from this incident. Stop being idiot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 13:41:23 2011 No.2687945 >>2685277 >jesusland >implying the west coast is religious the only religion you'll find here is jewfags, and they killed jesus

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 13:43:23 2011 No.2687948 >>2687923 Protip: it hasn't happened and it won't happen. God will most likely protect us. Then again I wouldn't be surprised if some of northern california did get exposed to some kind of disaster, just to set an example.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 14:40:23 2011 No.2688283

>>2687939

>no one died

>300.000 evacuated in 20 km radius of the plant
>radiation levels outside the plant are heightened due to controlled pressure release
>explosion damaged outer hull of the reactor

>Lolo dude everything is ok nuclear fission will never be a problem

You know what's really the worst about this whole disaster? All of your Bullshit!
Having to read your "OMG GREEN ENERGY SUPPORTERS THINK THEY ARE SO EDGY I WANNA SEEM MORE EDGY AND INTELLIGENT SO I SUPPORT NUCLEAR FISSION POWER" nonsense is really just excruciating.

I'm not even against nuclear power. I'm against YOU.
You fucking morons! You blindly defend nuclear power because it's obviously in the center of criticism right now and you don't do it because you have an objective, educated opinion about it ... NO you just do it because you digg the attention you get.

If you'd stop for a moment you'd know damn well that nuclear fission is not a long term answer for our energy problems.

1. It's fucking dangerous.
Even if the concept is good, the possibility of human error should not be linked to a thing of such disastrous potential. You know how fucking retarded some of the accidents were, that occured in these facilities?
2. There is currently no final storage for the radioactive waste that is created by the plants.
3. Nuclear fuel supplies are not endless.

Yes, right now it is necessary and yes it is not as unsafe as some green idiots want to make us believe, but it is not as fucking PERFECT as you idiots want to make us believe and it is not the answer for our future energy problems. There are better options.

My hope is that this crisis will fuel support for scientific research projects (e.g. nuclear fusion).

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 14:46:23 2011 No.2688326 >>2685357 Silly you, play some Fallout 3. When you gather enough knowledge about radiation, come back and post real science.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 14:46:23 2011 No.2688329 File: 184 KB, 847x1009, vb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] LET THE BUTTHURT BEGIN ohwaititalreadyhas

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 14:52:23 2011 No.2688367

>>2688283
>1. It's fucking dangerous.
>Even if the concept is good, the possibility of human error should not be linked to a thing of such disastrous potential. You know how fucking retarded some of the accidents were, that occured in these facilities?
Coal kills far more people, and not just because it's more common. It is more damaging to the environment AND to human health, even on the basis of radiation alone.
>2. There is currently no final storage for the radioactive waste that is created by the plants.
"Waste" is just another word for "unprocessed fuel".
>3. Nuclear fuel supplies are not endless.
No, but they will last longer than oil, and even coal.

Nuclear power is safer than coal, releases less radiation than coal, releases no CO2, and will outlast coal.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 14:59:23 2011 No.2688409

>>2688283
>>2688367

Fission isn't perfect, but will probably be the only sustainable option when oil and coal reserves deplete.

Fission would be cool, but currently we're several decades away from anything approaching a workable solution. What we currently have is some really expensive experimental facilities (ELI, HiPer, NiF & JET) and a vague idea of where to go from here

снайпер Sat Mar 12 15:01:23 2011 No.2688423

>>2688283
Shit son, you know how many people die EVERY YEAR from coal?

Over 40,000 people. A FUCKING YEAR.
How many people die from Nuclear disasters per year? Sits somewhere around fucking zero.

How many people have died from nuclear accidents in TOTAL? Even if you grab the wildest bullshit numbers imaginable for Chernobyl, it's a couple thousand.

60 fucking years of nuclear power and we've got hundreds of thousands, if not millions of deaths over that timeframe, FROM COAL. [Which, coincidentally, also releases more radioactive isotopes into the air every year than nuclear power ever has.]

The problem are scaremongering anti-intellectualists like yourself. Go live in a fucking cave already and let technological society continue without you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:04:23 2011 No.2688446 >>2688423 this idiocy is such bullshit. nobody really buys it. after this reactor goes full meltdown and spin bullshit bubble is popped, nukes will never again be an issue in the US.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:04:23 2011 No.2688447

>>2688367
>Coal kills far more people, and not just because it's more common. It is more damaging to the environment AND to human health, even on the basis of radiation alone.

HURR WHAT'S NONLINEARITY? DURR

Nuclear power is to energy what the martingale system is to gambling. Morons see that there are no immediate disasters and extrapolate from that, ignoring that if something does go wrong, it could potentially turn an entire country into a hazmat zone.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:07:23 2011 No.2688470

>>2688367

Yes, maybe I didn't make that clear enough but I never intended to argue that coal is a better option than nuclear fission.
What I'm saying is, it isn't the energy technology for the future, just because it's better than coal. We need to find alternatives and a few of those are renewable/green energy and nuclear fusion.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:10:23 2011 No.2688500

>>2688423

First, see >>2688470

then
>Even if you grab the wildest bullshit numbers imaginable for Chernobyl, it's a couple thousand.

WHAT? Shit you MUST be trolling. Do you seriously want me to go get some statistics on Chernobyl for you or can you google it yourself?

снайпер Sat Mar 12 15:11:23 2011 No.2688503

>>2688447
Here's the really stupid thing. The old type I nuclear reactors that are actually capable of melting down and are 50 years old? We still operate a few of those. You know why?

Because fuckheads such as yourself won't let us build better, safer, and more efficient nuclear reactors that physically cannot melt down.

Because you're scared of them melting down.
When they can't.

The mental leaps in logic it takes for you to achieve your line of thinking are incredible.

We have a system of power generation that is far safer than oil and coal, and one of the single cleanest forms of energy generation on the planet, but you're too busy going ZOMG NUCLEAR BAD when nobody dies in a "major" nuclear disaster, to see the benefits.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:12:23 2011 No.2688517 >>2688470 Fusion isn't happening for another 50 years, and green isn't enough. Deal with it faggot. You need more power than that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:12:23 2011 No.2688521 >>2688503 >produces enough waste every year to make the planet completely uninhabitable but you expect people to believe its "clean" and "safe"? really?

снайпер Sat Mar 12 15:13:23 2011 No.2688525

>>2688500
Go ahead and google some bullshit statistics if you want. Frankly I'd be surprised if you can even reach 40,000 deaths from Chernobyl.

~55 direct deaths, and a 3% increase in cancer rates in the surrounding area. Then people like you go and find the stupidest estimations of cancer deaths you possibly can, and extrapolate that to mean several million died from Chernobyl.

When in fact, you're just making shit up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:13:23 2011 No.2688527 >>2688500 Chernobyl only directly killed about 55 people. And long-term environmental exposure hazards? Again, coal kills orders of magnitude more people per kWh.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:14:23 2011 No.2688530 >>2688503 Lol we already gave you a chance. I can't think of exactly where but a company was contracted to build a reactor and they fucked up when they were building it twice. They butchered it the first time and then they did it a second time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:14:23 2011 No.2688531 >>2688521 >produces enough waste every year to make the planet completely uninhabitable That's a bald-faced lie.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:15:23 2011 No.2688536 >>2688530 >Lol we already gave you a chance. Who the fuck are "we" and "you"?

снайпер Sat Mar 12 15:15:23 2011 No.2688537

>>2688521
>nuclear power produces enough waste every year to make the planet uninhabitable

Fuck off with your idiocy please. "Hurr durr I'm such a masterful troll when I make a bunch of false hyperbolic statements!"

No, it just makes you look like a fool.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:16:23 2011 No.2688543 >>2688470 few of those are renewable/green energy and nuclear fusion. The examples you've given are not economically viable and do not exist respectively. You'll need to wait another forty years before fusion seems likely

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:17:23 2011 No.2688551 >>2688531 yea, because one plant covering an area nearly half the US with >700 RADS is sooo "clean" and "safe"..... god, how could i have been so narrow minded and luddite to not support nukes?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:19:23 2011 No.2688565 >>2688551 you mean from the nuclear explosion that hasn't happened? wow

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:19:23 2011 No.2688568

>>2688423
>>2688503
Thank you for restoring a tiny bit of my hope in mankind.
Nuclear power is the future of energy, too bad the concept is tainted by scaremongering uneducated green idiots that don't understand the difference between facts and fantasy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:20:23 2011 No.2688573 File: 36 KB, 421x600, wyattderp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2688565 >Nuclear reactors are safe because one of them hasn't catastrophically failed yet

>>	sage sage Sat Mar 12 15:20:23 2011 No.2688576 File: 18 KB, 267x273, 1269751101073.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2685277 >made up graphic >implying califonia is jesusland Have you even been to the west coast nigger? LMFAO

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:20:23 2011 No.2688578 >>2688568 >too bad the concept is tainted by the fact that it can destroy all life on the planet and costs more than any other power source to implement. fix'd that for you viral marketing goonies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:21:23 2011 No.2688582 >>2688551 And my unicorn says you're full of shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:21:23 2011 No.2688584 File: 49 KB, 450x338, wiggum-unicorn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2688551 Believing in fearmongering is fun!!

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:21:23 2011 No.2688585 >>2688576 >implying it doesn't also cover Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:22:23 2011 No.2688587 File: 1.19 MB, 1649x454, radx.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:22:23 2011 No.2688590 Fuck you corporate big wigs Both coal and nuclear are shit forms of energy there are much safer alternatives

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:22:23 2011 No.2688592

>>2688521
>produces enough waste every year to make the planet completely uninhabitable
>Mfw people actually believe this
I don't even think we have enough nuclear waste to achieve that even if we handeled the whole waste issue like bunch of retards.
For exmaple if we just dumped everything that even resembles nuclear waste and just dump it into sahara and pour shitload of concrete over the pile. Some one might get hurt and idiots who go there to dig will get killed but so what, that is only million lives lost at max and this would be basically the most retarded way of handling nuclear waste.

Now we can use modern methods and have basically no harm done and if we compare it to alternatives like coal then even less harm is done.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:22:23 2011 No.2688595
File: 44 KB, 230x230, 1297538119568.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2688578
> it can destroy all life on the planet
MAXIMUM TROLLING
FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

>>	снайпер Sat Mar 12 15:22:23 2011 No.2688599 >>2688551 It's a troll image. Now can you kindly fuck off please?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:23:23 2011 No.2688602 >>2688584 >>2688582 Unicornmind

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:23:23 2011 No.2688609

>>2688446

Then we'll get to have loads of fun when we get broadsided by both peak oil and peak coil in 15+- years, the shale gas runs dry, and wind and solar STILL suck like they always have.

The problem with nuclear power is that we're using reactor designs that are half a century old and inherently unsafe, and refuse to approve safer reactors because the old ones are dangerous. It's the height of stupidity and the reason energy is going to be far more expensive in coming years instead of far less. Just to make sure everyone understands me: Instead of replacing dangerous nuclear reactors with safer, cheaper models, and then using that technology to displace fossil fuels, we'd rather preserve the status quo (fossil fuels) while waiting for miracles (renewables) and leaving the dangerous reactors in place (stupid). The world's energy policies are simply baffling and so are its priorities - even where renewables might stand a chance we barely fund their development anyway. (But we've had better reactor tech for decades! The MSRE didn't stop being a thing that happened!)

Sloth is the intersection of capability and inaction and we're the laziest country on the fucking planet - and where America goes, the western world follows.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:24:23 2011 No.2688615 >>2688592 Damn you are fucking dense did you not even learn from chernobyl? It spread out pretty bad because of radioactive dust and particles getting carried by the air. Just think of a volcano eruption and how the ash gets carried quite far away.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:25:23 2011 No.2688622 >>2688609 >cheaper models Nuclear reactors are fucking expensive

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:27:23 2011 No.2688631 >>2688615 You imply that everyone should have learned from Chernobyl, and yet imply that we didn't do anything about it? The Fukushima reactors CAN'T go Chernobyl. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:28:23 2011 No.2688637

>>2688615
And basically no one was killed. Compare that to coal where there are thousands of casualties per year possibly hundreds of thousands and the added effect of CO2 pollution and greenhouse effect.

>Just look at this water man, that shit is everywhere

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:28:23 2011 No.2688640 >>2688631 [citation needed] How much are you getting paid to spew you propaganda?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:29:23 2011 No.2688645 >the problem with nuclear power is the massive destructive potential and astronomical costs ITT; fix'd

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:29:23 2011 No.2688647 >>2688622 >implying that nuclear reactors don't pay for themselves

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:29:23 2011 No.2688648 >>2688637 >Radioactive dust is safe You're throwing bullets off a cliff and just because one hasn't gone off yet you're assuming it is safe to do so

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:30:23 2011 No.2688650

>>2688525

With that attitude you can go fuck yourself right away. Don't act like you know shit about me if you can't even understand a simple message I write on an image board without flipping out like a little baby girl.

>>2688527

Most bullshit number I found: Greenpeace: 200,000

Also more realistic but may still be overestimated 4000

50 something direct deaths, that's right.

300.000 people resettled.
Large portion of the 30 km zone won't be habitable for hundreds of years.

I still think that's pretty hardcore for one power plant. And also I DON'T ARGUE FOR COAL! I argue that nuclear fission is not the magic alternative you make it out to be.

снайпер Sat Mar 12 15:30:23 2011 No.2688651

>>2688622
They're expensive because of the red tape and bureaucracy involved. It takes 12 years, read that again - TWELVE FUCKING YEARS, to approve a new reactor.

That's not "build a new reactor". That's "approve".

Why? Because dumbasses who can't tell their assholes from their elbows think all Nuclear reactors work like Chernobyl.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:30:23 2011 No.2688654 >>2688647 Hahahahahahaha Seriously how much are you getting paid like 8 bucks an hour or what?

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:30:23 2011 No.2688655

To everyone claiming nuclear power is completely safe and failproof - prove it or fuck off. All you've said up to now is HURR IT'S CLEAN DURR and HURR YOU'RE FEARMONGERING DURR. Provide credible, infallible evidence that this stuff is as great as you claim.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:31:23 2011 No.2688662
File: 32 KB, 1230x780, How incredibly fucking you are.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2688573
The 6th largest earthquake in recorded history hit a 40 year old reactor. Complications cause a huge fucking H/O explosion that leaves the surrounding building a blown-out skeleton.
Containment vessel intact.
Controlled ventilation ensures no risk of explosion.
You making inflatory hyperbole statements.

Lets see: deaths from the earthquake 2k+
Death from nuclear complications: 0

Let me put things this way: Every human being is at a greater risk of dying from coal-related health problems or meteor strikes than nuclear disasters. Hell, you're probably more liekly to die due to cardiovascular complications from your salt intake.

Here, have an infographic explaining the situation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:32:23 2011 No.2688668 >>2688651 Chernobyl was not because of the design of the reactor it was because of human error

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:33:23 2011 No.2688680 >>2688655 It's safer than coal. And way to move the goalposts with your absolutist standards. Nothing is completely safe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:33:23 2011 No.2688681 >>2688662 Again just because one hasn't failed catastrophically you assume that they are safe

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:33:23 2011 No.2688682 >>2688655 doesn't exist, nuclear power is the most destructive and least safe form of power on the planet

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:33:23 2011 No.2688686 >>2688645 > ... of older reactor models that we refuse to replace because everything America knows about nuclear power it learned from Jane Fonda. You're not very good at this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:34:23 2011 No.2688689 >>2688654 >>2688640 You are delusional, or trolling.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:34:23 2011 No.2688690 >>2688648 Well considering it was safe in the Chernobyl disaster. So you got basically no argument. For every death caused by nuclear power it has saved thousands more

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:34:23 2011 No.2688692 >>2688662 >let me put it this way: all the deaths and cancer from this radiation pollution will be 10 years down the road and nearly impossible to pin on us fix'd

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:35:23 2011 No.2688698 >>2688622 If only we were allowed to build SMRs. Which aren't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:35:23 2011 No.2688700 >>2688689 >Thinks nuclear energy is safe >Calls other people delusional LOL Also what is your plan for dealing with all the radioactive waste? Shit has a half life that is like a billion years or more

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:35:23 2011 No.2688702 >>2688682 >nuclear power is the most destructive and least safe form of power on the planet oh wow, really? Are you fucking serious? You haven't even TRIED to look at actual data.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:36:23 2011 No.2688707 >>2688655 Could you instead say anything that is to be considered "safe"

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:36:23 2011 No.2688711 >>2688700 "Nuclear waste" is just "unprocessed fuel".

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:37:23 2011 No.2688713 This thread is trolls pretending to be Luddites.

снайпер Sat Mar 12 15:37:23 2011 No.2688714

>>2688650
>Large portion of the 30 km zone won't be habitable for hundreds of years.

Go take another look at the exclusion zone.

Not only are people living there, it also hasn't turned into a radioactive desert. In fact, the removal of the human population ended up helping the animal populations more than the radiation hurt them.

But all that aside, there is still your complete and utter inability to comprehend that nuclear disasters like Chernobyl *cannot* happen anymore. Our reactors are designed so that it's impossible. The worst case situations with our reactors involve meltdowns within the sealed containment buildings.

On the absolute newest designs? They can't even physically melt down.

But because of people like you, we're stuck with the older, shittier reactors, never building the newer, more efficient and safer stuff.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:37:23 2011 No.2688722 >>2688711 Go tell Goebbels I grow tired of hearing your retarded statements.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:38:23 2011 No.2688728

>>2688680
>And way to move the goalposts with your absolutist standards. Nothing is completely safe.

Here's the thing - if a dam or a coal processing plant suffers an explosion - the results are local and not residual. If a failure is that much more dangerous and affects so many more people, fuck yes you better have higher standards.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:40:23 2011 No.2688736 >>2688714 This. Anyone who pretends Chernobyl is relevant to safety of modern nuclear power is ignorant. Possibly willingly ignorant. Three Mile Island (and Fukushima) are more relevant. And they're pretty irrelevant on a scale of disasters.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:41:23 2011 No.2688744 >>2688728 But nuclear already meets those standards. Coal power kills more people than nuclear, per kWh.

>>	снайпер Sat Mar 12 15:41:23 2011 No.2688746 >>2688668 Chernobyl was a combination of a retarded reactor design and a really stupid "experiment" that involved shutting off safety systems, combined with a bunch of people who had no proper knowledge or business running a nuclear reactor.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:41:23 2011 No.2688748 >>2688728 > Not residual. > Heavy metal particulates don't exist. > It's like the Kingston ash spill never happened!

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:41:23 2011 No.2688749

>>2688662
>Let me put things this way: Every human being is at a greater risk of dying from coal-related health problems or meteor strikes than nuclear disasters. Hell, you're probably more liekly to die due to cardiovascular complications from your salt intake.

ALL SYSTEMS ARE LINEAR. WHO'S EVER HEARD OF NON-LINEARITY? PLEASE STOP PRETENDING IT EXISTS, THANKS.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:41:23 2011 No.2688750 >>2688722 Way to Godwin yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:42:23 2011 No.2688756 >>2688749 Shouting "nonlinear" is not support for your position. Or can't you form a coherent argument?

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:43:23 2011 No.2688765

>>2688728
First: define safe.

Second: Coal power plant isn't biggest danger with the.
Operating one is actually dangerous and harmfull.
Operating coal power stations produce dangerous amounts of toxic substances that kill people living near the stations and harms ecosystems on global scale.
Then there is the fuel, also known as coal, that needs to be mined.
Every year hundreds of lifes are lost to coal mining.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:44:23 2011 No.2688776 >>2688650 you keep saying that- but if not fission- then where do we go? renewable simply cannot take up the slack, and coal is more dangerous and less efficient. Oh, and fusion doesn't exist yet. So Einstein, what do we do?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:46:23 2011 No.2688781 >>2688765 Well that went to shit Meant to say >Second: Coal power plant exploding isn't biggest danger with them.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:48:23 2011 No.2688792

>>2688756
You're just shouting LOLSAFE based on extrapolations when so far we've never had anything spectacularly bad, but the potential for disaster is huge. It's not that it's unlikely, it's that if a plant fails and the wrong wind catches it or it just happens to be located close enough to the wrong place, it could change the world.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:49:23 2011 No.2688800 >>2688792 You fail risk estimation forever. Chernobyl events ARE NOT POSSIBLE with modern designs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:50:23 2011 No.2688809 >>2688792 I dont get how >Potential harm is huge is worse than >Actual harm is way bigger Must be some retard logic that i don't know.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:51:23 2011 No.2688813 >>2688800 And TMI level events wouldn't even be possible if we were ALLOWED TO RETIRE THE FUCKING WATER REACTORS. Which we CAN'T. This is as stupid as saying that stoves are banned because open pit fires are dangerous.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:51:23 2011 No.2688815

>>2685297
Because if we weren't blasted by fallout, there would have had to have been a land invasion and many more would have died

For The Greater Good ;_;

See, what I'm trying to say here is that if you're not trolling, you're f*naughty!*cking retarded, nigger. People would have died, no matter what. Don't be self-righteous. You're killing people. Why does it make a difference when or where you choose to do the inevitable deed?

>>	снайпер Sat Mar 12 15:51:23 2011 No.2688817 >>2688792 >You're just shouting LOLDANGEROUS based on extrapolations when so far we've never had anything spectacularly bad. Hey look, that same argument works in the reverse. Bro, go do something productive with your life instead of trolling.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:51:23 2011 No.2688818
File: 552 KB, 772x297, lewis 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

See this county? This is Lewis County, in Western Washington. It is the most inbred, bible thumping county on the entire West Coast. It is full of asshole christians, super conservitards, and just about everything you would find down south (even Rednecks/Hillbillies, this place is shit).

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:52:23 2011 No.2688823
File: 850 KB, 921x529, lewis2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

See this power plant? This is a coal fired power plant, it is the dirtiest power plant on the West Coast and it is 5km outside of Centralia. Because of science you can assume that coal plants causes such a retarded behaviour in people, see West Virgina for example. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that coal fired plants cause Jesus Freaks. While Nuclear would only make non-religious freaks.

CASE CLOSED.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:52:23 2011 No.2688825

>>2688776
Get over our obsession with nuclear weapons and put the money to work improving nuclear power? Fusion wouldn't be so far off if it wasn't constantly getting sidelined in favor of weapons research and utterly moronic plans to expand our arsenal.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:55:23 2011 No.2688838

>>2688825

Not trying to troll or derail, but the most successful attempt at igniting a fusion reaction to date was the Tsar Bomb. By deriving an estimated 97% of its yield from atomic fusion it was the most efficient fusion reactor yet constructed.

I get this weird feeling that in a hundred years when we finally do build an artificial fusion reactor the building is going to be visible from space.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:55:23 2011 No.2688843

>>2688809
The martingale system makes you more money than everyone else gambling with steady bets like suckers, until it wipes you out completely. Saying it works because you're making money in the short term in spite of the potential danger is no different from saying nuclear power is safe because it's cleaner and saves more lives when it doesn't fail than other forms of power.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:56:23 2011 No.2688844 >>2688825 ... But we're actively DECREASING our arsenal. Pakistan and India, however....

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:56:23 2011 No.2688849 >>2688825 >Implying that military and sciense fundin are the same thing In europe we are trying to create fusion power. Only thing keeping it down is not enough funding and retards shouting >Ohmygosh nuculear is baddest derp derp

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:57:23 2011 No.2688862

>>2688843
Again, you're appealing to the argument that nuclear reactors can cause catastrophic damage, a la chernobyl.

This is not possible with modern designs. NOT. POSSIBLE.

You think we're playing Russian Roulette, but it turns out there are no bullets in the gun anymore. We took them out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:58:23 2011 No.2688870 >>2688862 >>2688862 See you keep saying that but you have no evidence to support it at all TRUST ME GUIZE ITS SAFE

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:59:23 2011 No.2688878 >>2688843 Assessing nuclear power to be safer than coal includes the entire history. Including Chernobyl, even, though it is irrelevant to assessing the safety of modern designs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 15:59:23 2011 No.2688883 >>2688862 I wouldn't say that we're not exactly gambling here. Water reactors are still dangerous. They need to go. Their successors are what we should aim to build, because renewables are nowhere near mature and won't be for decades.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:01:23 2011 No.2688898 >>2688870 Educate yourself. It's embarrassing. Do you realize you've been arguing from ignorance this whole time? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safety

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:01:23 2011 No.2688901 >>2688883 >Lets not develop renewable energy it is a waste of time build nuclear reactors instead because they make the company I am working for a shit load of money

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:02:23 2011 No.2688907 >>2688883 Fair enough. But even with water-moderated reactors (like Fukushima), you can't get a Chernobyl-level event.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:03:23 2011 No.2688916

>>2688843
No im saying that when nuclear works there is no problem and when coal is working there is huge harm done to everyone

When nuclear isn't working then there is some local problems for example: slight increase in canser risk and power shortages. When coal isn't working we have problems such as power shortages.

You dont seem to get that worst nuclear disaster in the history has killed less than 5k people while you can be sure that some normally working coal power plant in some developing country has single-handedly killed more than that.

The worst thing nuclear has to offer is better than what coal offers when it works properly. Not to even venture to increasing safety in the nuclear power if people like you could just die inhaling coal. Modern nuclear power plants can't physically explode.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:04:23 2011 No.2688919

>>2688901
Why is it always anti-nuke luddites who scream "conspiracy"? I could say the same about you working for a solar panel manufacturer, but I don't. Why? Because not only is it false, it is a fallacy.

Even IF he stood to gain monetarily from nuclear power, it does make him wrong. It just means you should exercise greater scrutiny.

But you haven't even begun to exercise scrutiny, have you? That is, get the information yourself and evaluate it personally? You've already made your conclusions, evidence-free.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:06:23 2011 No.2688933 >>2688919 >Even IF he stood to gain monetarily from nuclear power, it does make him wrong You accidentally your counter-argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:07:23 2011 No.2688943 >>2688933 What I said is correct. Ulterior motives and conflicts of interest do not invalidate arguments. They just prompt a greater scrutiny of the arguments. A valid argument is valid no matter who makes it. Same for invalid arguments.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:09:06 2011 No.2688948 >>2688943 I concur. Except he said: >it does make him wrong

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:09:23 2011 No.2688949 Because YOU RETARDS are so incredibly against nuclear we've been unable to get FAILSAFE designs such as molten thorium developed and approved. So in fact, if you're against nuclear power it's your fault if anything bad happens. /thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:09:23 2011 No.2688954 >>2688943 I concur. Except you said: >it does make him wrong

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:11:23 2011 No.2688961 >>2688954 Ah. Oops. Thanks. "Does not make him wrong".

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:12:23 2011 No.2688972

>>2688901

Uh-oh, he's playing the shill card!

Do you have any idea how many square miles of collecting surface it would take to build a 1 GW solar power plant in an ideal location? Ballpark it for me.

While you're at it, explain how we're supposed to get energy from such a contraption from places where the sun shines almost every day to places where it only shines every other, or less. There are entire lines of latitude where solar power simply will not work except on a purely supplemental basis.

We've been beating the dead horse of renewable energy for about as long as we've been kneecapping new nuclear, and the conclusions that we can draw from these exercises in futility are that the returns from renewables are small and the cost of impeding nuclear development is high. Both have kept coal, gas, and dangerous old-spec nuclear plants in operation far longer than prudence would allow. Fifty years of solar cells and they still cost a fortune. Windmills aren't faring much better, and with an average capacity factor of 30% I wouldn't consider them reliable either. Conventional hydro is almost entirely tapped out. Geothermal is no panacea either, especially now that we know the heat pockets can run out relatively fast unless you build over an active volcanic system.

We can worry about financing environmentalist pipedreams when we aren't staring a decades long energy crisis in the face. New reactors can also replace old ones that can catastrophically fail. It's easy to understand.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:17:23 2011 No.2689012
File: 21 KB, 400x400, baba-vanga.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The way people are talking about this power plant and radiation is frustrating.

It seems like 100% of all people are idiots.

I kinda can't believe it...

They say in the news that the water pumps caused the blasts. Idiots don't know that radiation causing steam is what made the blast happen, they just think it was water pumps.

And it seems like people think there can be a nuclear explosion, holy shit fucking idiots. The danger is radiation from dust/steam that is apparently "leaking" right now.

God damn people are stupid. How could you avoid reading about this? Were people too busy watching Jerry Springer?

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:19:23 2011 No.2689030

>>2688714

Srsly dude are you just deliberately trying to piss me off?

I did not bring Chernobyl into the disscusion it was this guy: >>2688423

this: >>2688283 is me

I never said that another Chernobyl is a thinkable scenario. All I said is that it is fucking dangerous and I don't think you can deny that.
And .. I'm still not arguing for COAL I am saying that nuclear fission is not the energy source of the future and we need to support other alternatives like Fusion and Renewable Power.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:20:23 2011 No.2689035

I read it was hydrogen igniting.

So, not even steam.

FYI, one of my highschool science teachers claimed that holes in the ozone layer cause global warming. If you're wondering why people don't know jack shit about science the school system is a good place to start looking for an answer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:21:23 2011 No.2689048 >>2688949 I am not really against nuclear power. But I am against having ignorant people in charge of it, and cost cutting, and bad failsafe designs. Politicians know more about the bible than nuclear physics, lol.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:24:23 2011 No.2689064

>>2689030
>I never said that another Chernobyl is a thinkable scenario. All I said is that it is fucking dangerous and I don't think you can deny that.
I certainly can. All current designs can't go Chernobyl, sure, but Gen III designs *cannot melt down at all*.
>And .. I'm still not arguing for COAL I am saying that nuclear fission is not the energy source of the future and we need to support other alternatives like Fusion and Renewable Power.
Fusion doesn't exist for at least another 50 years, and "Renewable" isn't going to cut it when the oil crisis hits. If we didn't need more energy, I'd agree with going renewable-only.

If we don't stop being irrationally afraid of nuclear (overestimating the risks), it's going to be coal. LOTS of it.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:26:23 2011 No.2689079

>>2689035

I suspect that Japan is putting a "spin" on things, so no one knows the read danger.

Ok, lets say it was a hydrogen explosion, even though the containment area for the steam was at triple the designed psi load right before this happened...ok so it it was a hydrogen explosion, than wouldn't that be even more effective at spreading radioactive material?

The news and Japanese government would never admit that a cloud of highly radioactive material just blew up, it is much easier to tell dumbasses it was "nothing".

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:26:23 2011 No.2689082

>>2689030
Define safe and dangerous

If you are not for nuclear you are for coal or you advocate decreasing energy usage -> Basically turnign back and going towards stone age.

Basically fusion is held back because population that is agaist nuclear power and that reduces funding. Fusion isn't ready for atleast couple of decades even if major breakthrough was made today.

Renewables are not ready and there is huge amount of infrastructure that needs to be build before we can rely on that

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:27:23 2011 No.2689086

>>2688972
New poster here

Solar Panel Efficiency-40%
Energy/M^2 on earth's surface from the sun- 1.366Kw
Energy generated by 1M^2 of solar panel- 0.5464Kw
to turn Kilowatts into Gigawatts, multiply the number by a million- 546,400M^2 of panel needed
=0.706629132 Square miles
In other words, less than 3 square miles would be needed to completely replace the fukushima plant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:27:23 2011 No.2689087 >>2689079 You don't seem to understand that the containment dome has not been breached. That building's walls are not the containment.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:27:23 2011 No.2689089 >>2689079 Okay: Here's how a grenade works:- The explosive material inside sends fragments of metal flying. Now if the explosion happened, and the fragments were not radioactive, then it would not be a radioactive explosion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:28:23 2011 No.2689096 >>2689086 >less than 3 square miles would be needed to completely replace the fukushima plant. Go try that out in Google Maps and tell me that's not fucking huge.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:29:23 2011 No.2689099 >>2689096 (cont) Though to be fair, I love the idea of using as much solar as possible. It's just that we ALSO need nuclear.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:30:23 2011 No.2689105 >>2689096 Google "size of sahara desert in square miles" and "size of japanese ocean territory in square miles" and tell me that neither of those areas could be panelled and generate enough power for the entire australasian, asian, and african area

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:32:23 2011 No.2689113 >>2689086 That number doesn't count clouds, seasons, weather in general, transportation in general and storage. You need 5-10 times possibly more to actually generate enough power reliably. And there are places where there is even less sunlight.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:32:23 2011 No.2689115

>>2689064

Any nuclear reaction can go "Chernobyl" if water pumps fail, causing the reactor to go critical.

There is no such thing as a failsafe nuclear reactor, unless it is 2 miles underground, completely sealed.

I guess some people really believe this failsafe bullshit lol.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:32:23 2011 No.2689121 >>2689086 And candles will keep the country going after sundown! And fairies and rainbows will turn the machines when it's clouded!

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:34:23 2011 No.2689126 >>2689087 Than why are radiation levels outside the containment area six times that of normal? Go read more fox news.

None !ZSrUEgIeM2 Sat Mar 12 16:37:23 2011 No.2689146

>>2689099
Math poster here.
I agree entirely, nuclear is a far better option. I doubt the amount of heavy/complex elements and molecules exist on the planet to seriously consider it a solution.

The error here is entirely with the plant's builders. Don't build a system in which you absolutely need power to keep a nuclear reaction from going critical in an area prone to earthquakes without putting the generators on stilts. It's not difficult to understand why and the company should be fined into liquidation for being fucking idiots.

>>2689113
>5-10
The actual figure is around 250watts/M^2 world wide, corrected for insolation, night, and weather. As Japan and the Sahara are both near equatorial regions with especially intense sunlight I used the other figure.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:37:23 2011 No.2689147 >>2689115 The polls say that Fukushima has not changed the people's opinion on nuclear power. Do you think they still consider nuclear power safe, or do you think they are retards like you and believed they knew all along it was gonna blow?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:38:23 2011 No.2689150 >>2689126 because gasses from station two were vented if the amount present is a problem why is it 3000 times less than the amount needed to cause radiation sickness?

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:38:23 2011 No.2689155

>>2689086
Also take into account that world used 15 TW in 2004 and 15.8 in 2006. Most of this was produced by Oil(37%) coal(25%) gas(23%) and nuclear(6%)
When oil runs out there is huge demand increase to other forms and at the same time more and more is needed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:39:23 2011 No.2689163 File: 1004 KB, 766x572, Capture2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2689096 (cont) It's rough, but I think I got the scaling right. Here's 3 square miles, about 9145 feet to a side, superimposed over the Fukushima plant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:40:23 2011 No.2689166 >>2689086 >Solar Panel Efficiency-40% More like 20%. Also, how much electricity does your solarplant produces at night.

>>	снайпер Sat Mar 12 16:41:23 2011 No.2689177 >>2689115 You couldn't be more wrong. Please go learn something about nuclear power instead of waving your ignorant dick around.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:43:23 2011 No.2689183

>>2689105

Generating the power is only part of the problem and arguably the easiest.

You have to transmit that power. You have to store at least some of it for cloudy days if you don't have other power plants operational. Those panels require a lot of care and have finite lifespans. They can be easily damaged by weather events.

Barring new developments in DSSCs or something along those lines the most efficient solar cells use materials we simply do not have enough of to make this a viable power solution for the entire world, or even a substantial fraction of it. (With very cheap dye cells you might be able to just paper roofs with them but that's a ways off.) Solar thermal might be a better bet, but it's a bit less efficient and more mechanically complicated.

Cheap, relatively inefficient solar panels for rooftop supplemental power could have a big impact on energy consumption patterns and grid reliability but they come nowhere near closing the gap. Solar powerplants are geographically constrained to a very limited number of places on earth and building a transmission network to allow them to service the whole world is daunting. SM-MSRs are a drop-in solution for the grid we already have.

It does make sense for equatorial countries and states in the southwest to take full advantage of it though. No giant HVDC lines needed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:43:23 2011 No.2689185 >>2689146 Yes it is best to produce the energy in places like sahara but 1) I just made those figures upp as a rough estimation 2) Everyone needs power not just japan, so energy transportation and storage must be taken into account

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:43:23 2011 No.2689188 >>2689177 I am 100% right. You didn't even prove me wrong. Are you saying that nuclear reactors can function without water movement? Oh really? lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:46:23 2011 No.2689207 >>2689188 0/10 On the slight chance you're not trolling, go educate yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safety

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:46:23 2011 No.2689215

>>2689155
ok, using the 250w figure and without any implementation of any other form of power generation, requiring 30TW in 2020, we would get 100 watts per metre squared on average worldwide per day. This would mean we would need 115 830.648 square miles of panel. There are 64183000 square miles of ocean.
>>2689166
More like 40.
http://www.reuk.co.uk/40-Percent-Efficiency-PV-Solar-Panels.htm
Also, the number was initially thought to take this into account, and I accept it is wrong- an area of 6 square miles would easily function instead, though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:47:23 2011 No.2689218 >>2689183 >Cheap, relatively inefficient solar panels for rooftop supplemental power could have a big impact on energy consumption patterns A whole rooftop of these solar panels won't even be enough to power a microwave. Pretty much useless IMHO.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:49:23 2011 No.2689231 LOL, those people who are arguing for solar power in the Sahara desert are totally ignoring the expensive maintenance and sandstorms.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:49:23 2011 No.2689235 >>2689215 You have to include the inefficiency of power storage system in your calculation. Solar power is only produced at day, but electricity is needed 24h.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:49:23 2011 No.2689243 >>2689188 For starters, you don't seem to be able to distinguish criticality from a meltdown. Water is a moderator, but the only moderator. Not all reactor designs use water as a coolant. Not all reactor designs use solid fuel.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:50:23 2011 No.2689248 >>2689207 And you say I couldn't be more wrong? You think a containment area is failsafe? HAHAH holy shit, go mow the lawn redneck. 0/10 Confident as fuck

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:51:23 2011 No.2689254 >>2689243 * but not the only moderator.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:52:23 2011 No.2689258

>>2689218
>even be able to power a microwave
A microwave uses the same amount of power as a house containing 3 people not using one. It's not a tiny, efficient fan that runs on AAAs

10% efficiency=25W over the day/metre
Microwave=800W
To power a microwave constantly (or three people)=32 square metres of panel
Given that solar panel efficiency is about to double, I'm pretty sure panels would have a severe impact if not run the whole show.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:52:23 2011 No.2689259 >>2689248 Yeah, don't feed the troll, everyone.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:53:23 2011 No.2689270

>>2689155
(Cont)

Also we must take into consideration the build time of these solar plants. We need many terawats of energy sometime in the near future when oil runs out. If we must replace the 6TW of power that oil produces today how quickly do you think capitalism will act and make these plants? If we presume that after 20 years oil is effectively "run out" for power production(burning it) as plastics and consumers have bigger purchasing power. That is pretty short time frame to build storage, distribution and production facilityes for solar power considering that we need thousands of square miles of solar plants

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:54:23 2011 No.2689277 >>2689270 We're going to need almost all the power we can get, from any source possible. I just hope we don't have to use much coal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:56:23 2011 No.2689290 >>2685297 This times 10

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:56:23 2011 No.2689293 >>2689243 Incorrect. It seem you don't the know the difference between critical ans supercritical. And you seem to think that a meltdown has nothing to do with the same exact material in the same exact condition. Holy shit, mind blown.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:58:23 2011 No.2689301

>>2689235
Worldwide implementation would mean around half of the panels would recieve power at once, meaning storage would not be a major issue. The figure takes into account the fact there is drastically less energy at night.
>>2689231
Those people (just me) have already said it's a dumb idea, and I prefer fission to solar. I wasn't arguing for its cost effectiveness or ease of use and more than I argue for the safety of building emergency nuclear shutdown generators susceptible to water damage in a flood-able building in a tsunami zone.
>>2689270
If we start building more fission plants Today, we will just about miss running out of electricity in the future. Implementing panels would be significantly faster than building fission stations. I'd guess that governments would be heavily involved in the project were it to take place, given its international importance

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 16:58:23 2011 No.2689307 >>2689293 Criticality is not required for meltdown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:02:23 2011 No.2689322 >>2689301 Do you have room temperature superconducting cables to transmit the power half way round the world losslessly?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:02:23 2011 No.2689328 >>2689301 You need significant local storage. But that's not an impossible problem to solve.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:02:23 2011 No.2689331

>>2689270

No sane person is claiming that oil is about to just vanish, but high prices are definitely here to stay and they could very easily climb much higher.

But, as we've seen with Libya, shocks can still happen at practically a moment's notice. If an earthquake like this happened in Saudi Arabia (not an impossibility) it would be difficult to imagine how disruptive that would be to the oil supply. We would have shortages for years and years.

That aside, you're right that on a concrete-and-steel basis solar power is a luxury item. Even if the installed capacity for solar power continues to double every 2-3 years for the next 25 years (this doubling is an established trend but 'established' does not by any means translate into 'permanent') it will still only supply about half of the world's energy. The other half needs to come from somewhere, especially as the need for desalination grows as well.

If solar power technology dramatically improves the effects could be nothing short of miraculous, but we've been praying for this for much too long, and for what? I'm not going to bet my eggs on a basket I don't yet have. That's a recipe for disaster.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:04:23 2011 No.2689340

>>2689322
do you understand this whole distributed panel thing?
Power loss would be low, panels could be build inland also, it would be entirely reasonable to build supercooled power cables inland hundreds of kilometres and then spread energy from substations there, etc.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:06:23 2011 No.2689351 >>2689307 Yes it is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:07:23 2011 No.2689357 >>2689340 you said there is no need for local storage because the other side of the planet has sunshine. either you store power or you transmit it half way round the world at night.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:08:23 2011 No.2689363

>>2689301
Im not saying that fission is the only source and i fully support both solar and fusion. I'm only saying that those who advocate that we stop all nuclear production are wrong and nuclear is considerably safer than coal.

Also storage is important because what hapens when there is coulds in sahara? And local storage is needed to prevent power shortages if something goes wrong and to accomodate for spikes in production or consumption.

Also transporting the energy from sahara to northern europe is pretty huge deal.

Well considering that there isn't any big projects currently in production or even in the design phase. And if we look at americans curretn trend of decreasing infrastructure spending and decreasing science funding things are looking bad. Capitalism might take care of this but it might be too late when solar projects are econimically feasible. I would bet my money on China where there is strong enough goverment to actually strat these kinds of projects.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:09:23 2011 No.2689365

>>2689351
Perhaps you had a stronger limit for "meltdown" than I was referring to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown
>The fuel assemblies in a reactor core can melt if heat is not removed. A nuclear reactor does not have to remain critical for a core damage incident to occur, because decay heat continues to heat the reactor fuel assemblies after the reactor has shut down, though this heat decreases with time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:12:23 2011 No.2689378 >>2689357 I didn't mean it like that, Sorry for not being clear. I meant there's no need for power to be pumped to massive storage facilities on the other side of the planet

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:12:23 2011 No.2689379 File: 24 KB, 620x404, radiation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Jesus Christ you people are dumb. The radiation will reach the atmosphere if it is released from the power plant. It won't reach America due to the curvature of the Eart

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:13:23 2011 No.2689381 >>2689379 Not a bad troll. 8/10.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:13:23 2011 No.2689382

This thread reminds me of an image I'd make if I had any artistic abilities. Its a trollface with a panpipe and he's prancing along in front of a crowd of people. The crowd is made up of people facepalming, but it parts in the center to let a small line of idiots looking all mad and argumentative following the troll piper.

It's so easy to troll sci by pretending to know nothing about nuclear energy, mostly because the world is full of idiots who know nothing about nuclear energy.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:14:23 2011 No.2689387

>>2689331
Well oil is going to basically run out in 15-25 years for food production and other low level
industry then maybe 20-30 years till it runs out from energy production and domestic use and
maybe 50 years untill there are basically no oil left for even the riches consumers.
Add to that the possible disruptive factors and we have major trouble.

Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:14:23 2011 No.2689389

>>2689382
>Its a trollface with a panpipe and he's prancing along in front of a crowd of people. The crowd is made up of people facepalming, but it parts in the center to let a small line of idiots looking all mad and argumentative following the troll piper.
It's... it's beautiful.

You should go looking for some drawfags.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:15:23 2011 No.2689392 >>2689365 That wiki article about meltdowns is horrible. That excerpt you quoted was a description of the beginning of a partial meltdown. Yeah you have heard "partial meltdown" before I am sure, now you know why wikipedia is considered shitty.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:16:23 2011 No.2689397 >>2689382 10/10 that is fucking hilarious

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:19:23 2011 No.2689411 >>2689392 You sound unnecessarily upset. Semantics. By "meltdown", I only meant melting of the fuel rods. But I don't really have strong point to make. I was mainly sticking up for >>2689243 Because you're a prick, if you're >>2689293

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:22:23 2011 No.2689421 File: 40 KB, 365x458, nubianwatts.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] the reactors in fukushima were RUNNING WAY BEFORE CHERNOBYL WAS CONSTRUCTED. yes, I MAD

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:23:23 2011 No.2689434 >>2689411 >Has never read anything about metldowns other than a small shitty wikipedia article. >You read it for the first time today.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:24:23 2011 No.2689442 >>2689421 You know what's REALLY trollface-worthy? Fukushima-1 unit 1, the oldest reactor at Fukushima-1, the one causing all the trouble? It was set to go offline THIS MONTH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_boiling_water_reactors

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:25:23 2011 No.2689446 >>2689434 You're mad because I called you a prick? Perhaps I shouldn't use labels. You were being an asshole. But you can stop anytime you want.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:25:23 2011 No.2689447 >>2689421 >States a fact that no one objected to, or argued about. >Is mad because you have nothing to add to the conversation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:26:23 2011 No.2689452 File: 7 KB, 251x232, 1289163719707.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2689442 Oh LOL

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:28:23 2011 No.2689462 >>2689446 Why would I be mad? Because I am right, and you are frustratingly searching for wikipedia articles that would back me up if you had the ability to read them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_Mad

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:29:23 2011 No.2689468 File: 24 KB, 336x331, 1289684395260.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2689462 >you are frustratingly searching for wikipedia articles that would back me up if you had the ability to read them Yeah, whatever helps you sleep at night.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 12 17:36:23 2011 No.2689506 >>2685297 true, but im from east coast and therefore need not care

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math