[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 89 KB, 600x340, 17NUCLEAR-articleLarge.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2722646 No.2722646 [Reply] [Original]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/world/asia/17nuclear.html?_r=1&hp

>In the worst case, experts say, workers could be forced to vacate the plant altogether, and the fuel rods in reactors and spent fuel pools would be left to meltdown, leading to much larger releases of radioactive materials.

Okay, what the fuck does this mean? "Much larger" how? Does anyone even know?

>> No.2722703

well the releases they've had are supposedly from a small amount of the fuel rods melting down... if all the fuel rods they've got go then the release will be much larger yes?

i know we all want a reason to get excited but seriously even if the whole thing espl0dez its still a very different thing to a nuclear bomb and you really have nothing to fear.

>> No.2722710

>electricity company is finishing a high power line to supply power to the cooling system
once that is done, everything will be fine.

>> No.2722714

Bump, the other threads are just "hurr durr nukes bad nukes strong" shitstorms by now. I just want to know what the plausible worst-case scenario is. Could, say, residents of Tokyo be in serious danger?

>> No.2722724

>>2722710
the cooling systems are still intact?

>> No.2722732
File: 435 KB, 1186x1117, fuck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2722732

>>2722703
40 years worth of spent fuel rods are already all over the fucking place.

>> No.2722739

nobody knows
it's not a conspiracy
they aren't purposely withholding the information so that they can kill off some of their citizens
nobody. fucking. knows.

>> No.2722742

>>2722714
depends on how much radiation exposure you consider dangerous. ask different people you'll get different answers.

also, banana

>> No.2722750

>>2722710
I've said this enough times myself, and been proven wrong enough times, to become sick of it. Everything is not alright. At best this will not turn into a total catastrophe.

>> No.2722754

>>2722724
i would assume so, the only reason the cannot cool is because the do not have sufficient power
>>2722732
look at where the steel frame is
now look at the picture
fuel storage is below what got blown off
what got blown off was essentially sheet metal
doesnt take much to do that

>> No.2722761

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/16/science/plume-graphic.html?ref=science

simulation stops right before Fallout starts. Invest in pipboys today.

>> No.2722771

>>2722761
>arbitrary units
oh lawd

>> No.2722790

Watch Discovery Channel's 'The Battle for Chernobyl'.

You'll understand why there aren't instant, 100% accurate updates all the time.

You are dealing with a large object, which if mishandled produces substances harmful to humans, animals, and the environment. The situation needs to be dealt with swiftly.

No time for reporters.

No time for bringing in outside sources to survey the damage.

No time for media appearances.

Like I said, if you watch their documentary from a few years back, it will be PAINFULLY clear as to why things are transpiring the way they are.

>> No.2722795

>>2722771
Measuring radiation in general is usually done in Arbitrary units. 1Sv is just the minimum amount of radiation required for instant effects, and the measurements are based off of that.

>> No.2722810

>>2722790
watching NOVA's Inside Chernobyl's Sarcophagus gave me the creeps.

>> No.2722814

what they need is some soviet russian nuclear technicians
they are not scared of mere radiation
fuck evacuating the plant

hell if that was me in there i would stay if there was a chance it could be stopped by me/technicians inside
lives of several people<lives of many people

>> No.2722815

watch this video in a dark room with all other sounds turned off but the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKnFurg5-Ag

>> No.2722834

>>2722814
read a Russian article, they basically said it is no big deal.
one guy said he sat in a office with 250 exposure for weeks

>> No.2722844

OP here, I also found this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8387051/Japan-nuclear-plant-Just-48-hours-to-av
oid-another-Chernobyl.html

I was thinking there was no way this could approach Chernobyl levels. It's not just random morons they're quoting, though. But then other "experts" are saying that's retarded. It's all very confusing.

>> No.2722854

>>2722844
it physically is impossoble for it be worse than chernobyl
the reactors where shut down
chernobyl couldnt be shut down

chernobyl was a graphite moderated reactor
these use water moderation

>> No.2722876
File: 214 KB, 640x384, vlcsnap-2011-03-15-02h13m00s216.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2722876

>>2722834

>"It was like being on another planet. The whole thing was covered in radio active waste. I didn't know what world I was in. As soon as you stepped out there, you could feel it. There were large 'chunks' of graphite all over. You could not hear, you could not smell anything. You would grind your teeth and it would feel like there was nothing there, you only had a metal taste in your mouth. I started snapping pictures, you can see the radiation imprinting itself on the film, rising up from the ground." -Igor Kostin, only on-scene journalist/photographer at Chernobyl.

>> No.2722885

>>2722834

yeah, but Russians don't give a fuck about anything, ever.

>> No.2722900

People not worrying about Fukushima
>Scientists and Engineers

People worrying about Fukushima
>People who get their information from public news and don't question it.

Nuff said.

>> No.2722906

>>2722854
yea, except for the fact that there is WAY more radioactive material in play here, than was ever at chernobyl.

>> No.2722923

>>2722876
>>2722876
i meant they said it was no big deal about japan,
I am sure there are no questions about Chernobyl.

btw I once read a book on American nuclear program, they said that pilots dropping test bombs would see their skeletons even though their eyes where shut and windows shuttered.
Is this possible or is it just a tale?
the book was really good, plenty of photographs, plenty of people got fucked over by the US, ill try to find the name of it.

>> No.2722926

>>2722900
lol...

>still thinks people will believe this

seriously, guys your viral marketing has gotten progressively weaker over the past few days. almost like you guys are getting burnt out, or perhaps...even....MELTED DOWN.

trolololololloll.jpg

>> No.2722945

>>2722926

Your poor grammar makes whatever you said irrelevant.

>> No.2722974

>>2722900
nobody is really worried about repercussions on a wider scale than say 50 miles, except for morons, however the damned thing ain't under control yet and there is still a credible threat to that local area

>> No.2722977

>>2722945
wow....and desperate too, apparently.

i mean it was fun cock slapping all the bitches that thought the mar 15 pole shift bullshit was real, but beating on you ass hats is more fun.

>> No.2722986

I don't worry about the reactors, they are a far lesser problem than the spent fuel rods. If those spent rods burn, and burn long enough, then that could lead to a release of radiation larger than at Chernobyl.

From what I've heard (but this is somewhat unclear) number 4 has only the equivalent of one reactor load of spent rods in its pool. When it shut down for maintenance they removed all the older rods on location. I suspect the spent rods in pool 4 are the ones which were in the reactor before the maintenance shutdown.

>> No.2723001

>>2722974
hilarious

>http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/16/science/plume-graphic.html?ref=science

keep making that little pro nuke bubble. its really fun bursting it.

>> No.2723008

>>2723001
>any plume will be diluted as it travels and, at worst, would have extremely minor health consequences in the United States.

taken straight from that article....

>> No.2723019

>>2723008
there's a lot between japan and the united states though, last I checked.

>> No.2723022

>>2722986
no reactor 4 has extra fuel rods, not all of which are spent in its pool, which is why its the greatest threat at the plant right now. Though pressure has been building in reactor 3 along with heat and it would be a good idea to get control over that even though it has more failsafes than the pool

>> No.2723036

>>2723022
they are finishing up a high capacity power line to the plant
once cooling is back on line
everything will wind back down

>> No.2723041

>>2723008
oh yea...NRC is real independent, not 100% funded by pro nuke lobby or anything...

because the NRC is the same thing as the UN treaty ban

>> No.2723050

>>2722900

Hey, you know what, I was one of those guys who was frustrated at how badly the media fear mongered the whole scene and essentially abandoned the notion that there was a fucking earthquake and tsunami. But then I realized something awesome.

And now I laugh at all the people who are anti-nuclear.

>> No.2723056

Lol people are still worrying about this? They have almost finished the power lines to restore power to the cooling systems and everything is going to be fine.

>> No.2723062

nothings gonna happen guys, look the giant radioactive cloud stops just off the coast

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/16/science/plume-graphic.html?ref=science

guess we have the same "god's protection" that stopped the chernobyl cloud from hitting france

>> No.2723064

>>2723036
Hopefully, but I think they still have to switch out the pumps for temporary working ones, unless they already did that, and frankly given the progress so far I wouldn't rely too much on everything going smoothly.

>> No.2723188

>>2723062
>implying it will be as radioactive after travelling 5000 miles (Japan-California) as 900 miles (Chernobyl-France)
>implying it's as radioactive as Chernobyl in the first place

>> No.2723223

>>2723188
yea your right, there is WAY more material here than at chernobyl, so it will be much stronger.

and it will be riding the jet stream, so it will actually get here quicker...but of course distance gets rid of radioactivity, right? right guys? thats what half-life means, right? farther away something is the less radiation?

>> No.2723243

>>2723223
>how do i dispersion of material????
>farther away less reactive
yes, thats right
for numerous reasons
to travel a longer distance i will take more time
how do i half-life???

>> No.2723260

>>2723243
This is...not convincing.

>> No.2723267

>>2723243
so your drunk too.

thats a shame.

>> No.2723352

>>2723223
Let's assume the fatal dose at the reactor is 5000 mSv, which is just above the Ld50 (which is being generous, since the article said it "could be the fatal dose")
In 50 km, it becomes 16x the background level, which would be 0.16 mSv.
there's 9000 km between the US and Japan. If the radiation level can go from 5000 to 0.16 mSv over 50km, what do you think it will become over 9000 km?

>> No.2723359

>>2723352
so now your on crack.

dude get some help.

>> No.2723364

>>2723359
>your

>> No.2723366

>>2723364
yep, definitely crack.

this thread is nor a /sci/ intervention.

we all want the best for your bro.

>> No.2723531

even in the case of meltdown everything will be covered with sand or whatever
if you're more than 500km(even this is a large number) away from the power plant you don't have to worry about

let's not forget the chernobyl incident
when the reactor blew up no body form the city died of radiation poisoning

>> No.2723548

I would laugh pretty hard if this somehow led to a nuclear explosion. I know it can't, but still. Every time so far that people on here have said that it can't get any worse, it has, so I'd be amused if it went all the way.

>> No.2723559

>>2723531
>when the reactor blew up no body form the city died of radiation poisoning
I think I would rather die quickly than grow numerous tumors, lose white blood cells, and create mutant jellyfish children.

>> No.2723601

>>2723559
please read a little more about the incident
it's not as dramatic as the media makes it
the tumors and mutations were slightly above the average percentage
if you have a group of 1000 people it's just normal that at least one of them will develop a tumor or have an offspring with some genetic disorder
also there was a study in the forests in the irradiated regions
all animals are living and reproducing just fine there is no abundance of mutant bears, wolves and rats


the people who died form radiation poisoning were the workers at the plant and the volunteers that buried the radioactive remains

>> No.2723605

>>2723601

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21038158

The Chernobyl accident and cognitive functioning: a study of Norwegian adolescents exposed in utero

Abstract

The results of investigations on the cognitive outcomes of adolescents exposed prenatally to radiation from Chernobyl are inconsistent. In 2005 through 2006, we assessed individuals exposed prenatally (N = 84) and controls (N = 94) using a broad neuropsychological test battery. Neuropsychological performance was significantly weaker in the 84 adolescents exposed prenatally compared to the 94 controls on measures of verbal working memory, verbal memory, and executive functioning when controlling for possible confounders. Our findings add new and important support to the hypothesis that the Chernobyl accident had a specific effect on the neuropsychological functioning of those exposed prenatally.

I'm not sure that anybody fully understands the repercussions of the Chernobyl accident yet.

>> No.2723616

>>2723605
Would be nice to know if they have any way to test how much exposure they received.

>> No.2723629

>>2723616
geiger counter

>> No.2723632

>>2723605
you do realize that in 84 there were no video games
not so much television and especially no computers

everything fun you could do back then were drugs or being part of a street gang (i'm born 86)
it's normal that people are more clever now
they just get exposed to more information and technology at younger age

>> No.2723634

>>2723632
it wasnt years....
n is the number of subjects....
as in 84 people

>> No.2723639

>>2723632
>>2723632

Ugh, the subjects were matched with controls.

>> No.2723650

>>2723634
my point was that there are many factors that can influence a test like that
obviously the irradiated part didn't grow up in the same conditions as the other group

>> No.2723660

>>2723650
>>2723650
>>2723650

You are a mong cunt. The subjects were Norwegian 18 year olds, and they were matched with age identical Norwegian controls. Norway is ethnically and economically homogeneous. They were able to do this because of Norway's geography. Fallout was heavily dispersed in some counties (they recruited the subjects from one such county) and totally absent in others (they recruited the controls from one such county).

>> No.2723674

>>2723632
>he actually thinks t.v and video games make people smart.

>> No.2723676

Reactor #2 containment has been breached because of internal hydrogen explosions. It's a minor leak but if 2 is not properly cooled we can except a lot of radioactive steam to come out. Chances are there will be hydrogen in that gas too and it will cause more explosions. 1 & 3 should be quite stable by now, most of their heat has already been cooled away. The spent fuel pools are the major concern, but winds are to the ocean so nobody is not even going to notice inlands no matter what happens. They are adding water to the pools with helicopters and cannons so they should be fine.

>> No.2723687

Hey /sci/, /a/ here.. If a nuclear explosion does happen(even if you say there is a really small chance), how will this affect the distribution of anime?

>> No.2723691

>>2723674
I'm even more surprised that he thinks, "that in 84 there were no video games not so much television and especially no computers". having spent my teen years in 80's, I can tell you much of it was spent in front of a computer or video game console. and wtf about not so much television?

>> No.2723708

>>2723687
>nuclear explosion

No.

>> No.2723711
File: 64 KB, 750x600, Facepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2723711

>>2723632

>thinks there was no TV, video games, or computers in 1984

>> No.2723712

>>2723687
Anime will become 100% more fucked up.

>> No.2723717

>>2723660
ok i'll give you an analogy with japan
the A-bombs that dropped above Hiroshima and Nagasaki
the radioactive fallout is much greater from an nuclear detonation
also the bombs detonated above the surface which means wider fallout spread
this should mean that half of japan should be mentally impaired
or airplane pilots, they receive a lot of radiation during a lifetime
or doctors and nurses that work with a x-ray machine or handle the radioactive debris

things just don't add up
plus the groups are too small to take such a claim seriously

>> No.2723724

>>2723717
what doesn't add up is the fact those bombs spread far less radioactive material than chernobyl.

but thats viral marketer/astro-turfer math for ya.

>> No.2723735

>>2723691
>>2723711
how many people had personal consoles or computers in 84 or even 94
what could you watch on tv?
back then there were no science channels(at least in my country)

>> No.2723737

>>2723717

That's not true. Chernobyl had far greater impact than nuclear bombs dropped on Japan. And now seeing Fukushima is just another Chernobyl waiting to happen i just don't see how anyone can say nuclear power is not dangerous. Maybe in another 100 years it will be when we have better technology to deal with it but for now it just isn't safe.

>> No.2723739

Hey I got an idea.

Remember when the BP oil spill happened? One of their solutions was to just throw a giant dome over the leak. It didnt work. But why dont they try building a massive dome and just encase the power plant? It would at least buy you some time right?

I mean it would have to be a large and thick dome but...

>> No.2723743

>>2723605
fuck this shit.
I'm born january 87 so thats the reason I'm dumb

>> No.2723744

>>2723739

And what is those reactors explode? You think some concrete bunker can contain a nuclear explosion? lol..

>> No.2723751

>>2723724
>those bombs spread far less radioactive material than chernobyl
do you really believe that?
it's not the radioactive material that is radioactive when the explosion happens all the air becomes radioactive

radioactive means that the particle has an extra neutron/s in its nucleus and thus becomes unstable which splits and makes other elements nearby radioactive

>> No.2723752

>>2723744
>>2723744

Oh is that whats going to happen if they melt down? A nuclear explosion?

You know, thats what I assumed a meltdown was originally, a nuclear explosion, but somehow through all this talk I just started to assume it meant a shit ton of radioactive material being thrown into the air.

Nevermind then, a dome definitely wouldnt work against a nuclear explosion.

But would that be awesome if it could? How thick, and how strong would a dome have to be to contain a nuclear explosion?

>> No.2723755

>>2723744
Sarcasm, how does it work?!?

Nuclear explosion = impossible

>> No.2723757

>>2723739
Where do I lobby a proposal of putting a gigantic concrete dome around canada?

>> No.2723764

>>2723735
>how many people had personal consoles or computers in 84
at that time I had an atari 2600, a commodore 64, and an apple 2e. I don't recall any friends in my school who didn't own at leave a game console.
>what could you watch on tv?
whatever was on. lots of cartoons, and of course episodes of doctor who. (and please don't insist that doctor who only started airing in 2005)
>back then there were no science channels
NOVA. began airing in 1974. I watched a ton of their shows growing up on PBS.
>(at least in my country)
you grew up in a 3rd world country.

>> No.2723767

>>2723744
a nuclear reactor can't explode
the hydrogen from the water can and it won't destruct the dome
the problem is that it would take much time and effort and people are going to be evacuated no matter if there is a dome or not

>> No.2723774

Can't you see that everyone saying that nuclear reactor cannot explode is in fact trolling. Nuclear reactors run on the same fuel that power the atomic bomb, and it can explode given the right circumstances. It is not very likely though, I say chances of Fukushima's reactor exploding are maybe 10%, not more..

>> No.2723778

>>2723757
you're a faggot, sincerely canada

>> No.2723783

>>2723767
>a nuclear reactor can't explode
perhaps not the same way as you're thinking, but please tell that to russia.

>> No.2723785

>>2723764
well not exactly a 3d world country but close
my country was part of the USSR

>> No.2723786

>>2723774

Im not really keen about this, but dont you need some pretty damn percise conditions for a nuclear explosion?

The only thing I really know is how the first atomic bomb went off, and it was essentially a uranium bullet shot at a uranium ball, causing an atom to split which released a massive amount of energy.

How could a nuclear reactor cause a nuclear explosion?

>> No.2723791

>>2722646
lol mass media

>> No.2723795

>>2723774
lol

>> No.2723799
File: 10 KB, 318x129, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2723799

>>2723774
To reach critical mass with a reactor is like... punching chuck norris.

Well... Maybe that analogy wasn't appropriate.

ohwell.jpg

Also, captcha hates me.

>> No.2723807

>>2723737
We have the technology. The Reactors in Japan are using old, outdated models. If they were using the Gen 3 or 4 there would be no problem. The Design of these reactors are from the seventies.

>> No.2723812

>>2723632
>street gangs

Chav detected.

>> No.2723818

>>2723807
New Jersey's got a 1969 reactor! At Oyster Creek. It's going to be shut down when it hits 50 years, though. Reason: they don't wanna build a cooling tower to save all the fish.

>> No.2723819

>>2723786
I think it's not so much a nuclear blast as it is a blast caused by rapid pressure when the nuclear material comes in contact with another substance, such as simple water, which could blow lots of the radioactive material in many directions at explosive speed. wiki Kyshtym disaster for a basic example.

now, the chance of this happening if the fuel does not escape the reactor is very very low. if it escapes, then it's rather likely.

>> No.2723820

>>2723786
it's possible
lets say that the uranium melts gathers in a cavity under the reactor chamber then a really big explosion compresses it also there should be a neutron deflector
you'd have to do the math to see how much neutrons you need to get deflected and how strong the explosion
but it has to be pretty strong
it's what we call a probable impossibility
like quantum mechanically it's possible for you to go trough a solid wall but it's very improbable

>> No.2723824

>>2723818

sounds about right - god forbid the advancement of science.

>> No.2723825

>>2723807
27 of these "old, outdated models" like the ones at fukushima reactors 1 through 5 are currently in operation within the US. all Mark I designs. and yes, they should have been decommissioned long ago.

>> No.2723827

>>2723824
I guess that's why Snooki and the Situation are so messed up

>> No.2723830

>>2723825
including Oyster Creek, right?

>> No.2723834

>>2723825
Most of the Nuclear Facilities around the world are old designs that are not as safe and efficient as the new designs, the reason most are still going is that the generally keep the same nuclear facility for 50 years before they install a new one, which I find stupid because the older models aren't as safe.

>> No.2723837

>>2723834
>nuclear energy has been around for, like, 60 years, amirite?

>> No.2723838

>>2723830
yep, I see it in the list on this page:

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/13/6256121-general-electric-designed-reactors-in-fuku
shima-have-23-sisters-in-us

also, looks like the currently remaining count of Mark I's within the US is 23, not 27.

>> No.2723839

>>2723834
changing the reactor means that you change the project
the main building may have to be redesigned
the staff reeducated to get to know the new reactor
the economic plan has to be recalculated

it's not as easy as it sounds
also everything costs more money and time

>> No.2723841
File: 40 KB, 477x361, 298909d60d36091ad2324baf41a5542c..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2723841

What does that mean, "To play it out"? Fucking thing sucks, FUCK IT, WE'LL DO IT LIVE.

>> No.2723842

>>2723839
that's what happens when everything's a custom build - you need to learn it all over again when you make a new one.

>> No.2723847

>>2723838
so what happened to the four other reactors?

>> No.2723848

Latest reports show a decrease in radiation in the plants

>> No.2723849

>>2722646
Chernobyl, but with Godzilla.

>> No.2723852

>>2723839
Yes, but with the new reactors there is a lot less of a risk of disasters happening. It is worth the money and time to build new reactors.

>> No.2723856

>>2723852
And it helps the fish, too. :)

>> No.2723858

>>2723847
I'm guessing they have been decommissioned in recent years. I have no idea how far back the 27 figure is from. I'm taking this page to be what's current:

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/list-power-reactor-units.html

>> No.2723862

>>2723848
this is good to hear, unless of course the decrease is caused by someone inadvertently closing a steam valve again.

>> No.2723874

>>2723862
Also, unless you want a radioactive fireworks show

>> No.2723880

>>2723834
One of the problems is that regulations have gotten so out of hand that just getting a new reactor licensed and built is far too expensive to make them attractive. Now I'm all for regulation to ensure safety, but when it takes almost a decade just to get permission to build something is wrong with the system.

>> No.2723887

>>2723880
>when it takes almost a decade just to get permission to build something is wrong with the system

>> No.2723889

>>2723887
true dat

>> No.2723894
File: 18 KB, 345x470, Fallout shelter sign.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2723894

>>2722646

>> No.2723899

>>2723880
if you want to build something that you can't control, there is something wrong with the system

>> No.2723902

>>2723735
most kids I knew had a sinclair spectrum a commadore 64 or a bbc micro. many others had sharp, tandy or amstrads. Also Atari.
There have been over 1200 nuclear detonations on earth since the first alot of these underground but at first just in remote areas.
There isn't going to be a nuclear explosion but even so a simple hydrogen ignition that is contained to the point that the container can withstand before exploding will explode with the force equal to the containment.
As far away from chernobyl as wales in uk was affected sheep eating the grass on the hills were effected and so radioactive they were unfit for human consumption and destroyed.It started a trend of welsh sheep farmers an heroing due to going broke.
Its not the end of the world but still 'Its a shit state of affairs to be in Tommy and all the fresh air in the world wont make a bit of fucking difference'
The way the Japanese people are holding together has amazed me if it were my town they would have started stealing each others dustbins and lighting fires on day one.

>> No.2723907

>>2723902
anyone remember apple IIe and TRS-80?

*two of the most common computers from when I was a kid

>> No.2723922

>>2723907
anything that didn't plug into the tv was out of my price range.

>> No.2723937

>>2723922
>school computers

Anyhow, you have a point there - Atari was a video game system, and I don't recall Commodore 64s.

captcha - Therese antseq

>> No.2723952

>>2723937
we had a 1k zx81 followed by some bbc micros 32k later there was an archimedes but I didn't get to use that.
happy days

>> No.2723957

>>2723952
What's an Archimedes? should I ask the Fonz?

>> No.2723967

>>2723957
I think the last of the bbc computers

>> No.2723978
File: 60 KB, 627x365, archimedes computer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2723978

>>2723952
this. Some British thing.

>> No.2723983

>>2723978
Although I suspect that's not an original monitor....

>> No.2724017

>>2723899

Fuck you. Just fuck you. You won't listen to a single thing people say. You're an ignorant fuckhead who can't overcome his inhibitions.

>> No.2724021

>>2724017
>there is always something wrong with the system

>> No.2724034

>>2724017
u mad?

>> No.2724040

>>2724034
No, I just like saying "fuck you, fucktard" because I can fap to it.

>> No.2724047
File: 50 KB, 294x381, mad snappy answers to stupid questions.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2724047

>>2724040
>>2724034

>> No.2724054

>>2724034

Way to prove my point.

>> No.2724062

>>2724054
come on throw your arguments at me. That was my first post in this thread, and you start to insult me, real classy.
But it proofs that all pro-nuclear power people are pretty stupid

>> No.2724064

>>2723899
clearly you don't know about the control rods

>> No.2724070

>>2724064
clearly you don't know about fukushima

>> No.2724071

>>2724064
it's under control

>> No.2724089

>>2724071
yeah. sending water cannons and choppers in to cool it really looks like control

>> No.2724097

>>2724089
glad you're starting to understand it better

>> No.2724099

>>2724062

LOLRIGHTCAUSEIMTHESAMEASALLPRONUCLEARPEOPLE

My arguments?

Less death/TWh than all other energy sources.
It coped better than all other energy sources after a 9.0 quake and the resulting tsunami.

>> No.2724101

>>2724089

The oil refinery is still blazing. That's so much safer.

You people act like this all happened at random, as opposed to a massive natural disaster.

>> No.2724130

I have a good feeling this question will be so stupid that I'll be accused of trolling, but I've been wondering... There are tons of sea-water being dumped and pumped into the reactors constantly and I guess the water is evaporating pretty quickly, at least as far as I can tell from the news. So... will the constant rate of evaporation of the tons of seawater have any negative impact on anything or is it all completely harmless?

>> No.2724131

>>2724099
yeah it coped really well.
the immediate death is not the real problem, the consequential damages are a problem.
The contamination of huge areas is a problem.

>> No.2724145

>>2724131
Even if it turns into another minamata, it will still stay safer than almost anything.

>> No.2724213

>>2724145
no

>> No.2724217

>>2724213
yes. even if it goes critical it's only the immediate vicinity that will receive splashes. then they bulldozer stuff on it.

>> No.2724221

I just heard on our news that power will today be restored to the pumps.
Wouldn't that fix all the problems?

>> No.2724231

>>2724213
Yes. Just because you have observational bias doesn't mean that other means of energy production is safer.

Unlike in fantasies and dreams, your beliefs DON'T actually define reality.