[ 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: 48 KB, 600x350, fukushima.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6363598 No.6363598 [Reply] [Original]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRPmxQqn3tg#t=530
anybody wanna confirm or dispute this?
I don't wanna die

>> No.6363615

>>6363598
Yep, it's the end
Radiation is everwhere
RIP humanity

>> No.6363636

>>6363598
Can't we just blow up the reactors with atomic bombs? That way, they won't react. There will be some radiation from the bomb, but a lot less if the reactor fell or whatever the video was saying.

>> No.6363648

>>6363636
Doesn't sound like that could cause any problems.

>> No.6363659
File: 14 KB, 246x250, 044.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6363659

holy fuck what a flaming alarmist faggot
I couldn't even watch the entire things. he is literaly pulling shit out of his butthole and gives it to you as TRUTH...

>> No.6363663

>>6363659
He makes baseless claims and so do you. Who should I believe?

>> No.6363670

>>6363598
Its really bad the fukushima situation, but keep in mind... Ruppert is no expert on this kid of thing BY ANY MEANS.

At 2:34 he claims that by flooding the reactor cores with sea-water, the Tepco engineers prevented three 'small atom bomb explosions'.

This statement is complete and utter bullshit, in that the material in a nuclear reactor is entirely incapable of EVER undergoing a critical mass chain reaction. It's called weapons grade material for a reason, and it takes a lot of purification to get that grade.

What the tepco people did was postpone, at best, the inevitable core meltdowns which almost certainly occured despite their actions. Ruppert should know better really, at this point he is just fear mongering.

Fukushima is a really, really bad thing tho. Japan is seriously fucked.

>> No.6363678

>>6363663
I only claimed he is full of shit.
Which he is.
Reactor fuel is 3-4% U-235
Weapons grade is 90% enriched.
You can never get an nuclear explosion from fucking fuel rods.

>> No.6363699

>>6363636
thats an interesting get

>> No.6363723

>>>/mu/44447303
kek

>> No.6363750 [DELETED] 

>>6363723
Hi there

>> No.6363778

Any of you guys seen Collapse? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeufX6S-Q_s I'm currently watching it, what do you guys think about that?
I feel like he's not a complete nutcase, but i think he has some weird complex where he believes he is this messianic figure, who is above others, and the only person who sees things coming.

>> No.6363864

Yeah, its over were already dead but you don't know it yet, in fact your in hell right now.

>> No.6363894

>>6363864
2deep m8, 2deep

>> No.6363896

>>6363778

i think people are the sum of the experiences they encounter.

in observing them you bring out the best and worst in them.

which side do people aim for?


anyway it sounds like a conspiracy from what i saw but if your logical about it, its his own argument.

...what would a personal rebuilding feel like?

..and would it not be reasonable to think the governments would do the same?

so oil is a pretty big thing, most heads of state would sit down and put it on a list.

...get it?

thats why they are the government.

although why the president signs of on bills rather than writes them is something else entirely.

and how government agencies do the same im entirely clueless about.

its not a conspiracy, its the ideas put forward by people employed to do certain tasks.

so i stopped at oil.

its not a cover up until people start doing whats right for the country.


anyway, the same can be said about any field of theory or practice.

>> No.6363910

>>6363896
i have no idea what you just said..

>> No.6363921

good, its the wrong approach to seeing the world.

>> No.6363949

>>6363896
i bet there are only a handful of people on this thread, or any of em for that matter, that have a chance at truly understanding what you just typed

>> No.6364009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGfYLdOQQ0c

>> No.6364021

>>6364009
damn nigga, that's scary. Any word on whether the radiation claim holds any water? or just unsubstantiated paranoia?

>> No.6364031

>>6364021
No, most of this stuff is alarmist bullshit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN7Zm8XO7Zc

^Video from a person who actually works with radiation on a daily basis, debunking several Fukushima alarmists

>> No.6364034

You could release all the radioactive material in that plant directly into the ocean, right now, and you would never notice. There are two reasons.
1) Bioaccumulation only works with stable isotopes. Dangerous radioactive materials have short half-lives... materials with long half-lives are, by their very nature, not all that radioactive.
2) The ocean is fucking huge. Mind-blowingly, staggeringly, fucking huge. Dilution is a powerful thing.

The tuna thing is an outright lie, by the way. I mean, yes there's some radiation detectable in those tuna, but the levels are no higher than they were 10 years ago. None of it is attributable to Fukushima.

Here's a fun link that's tangentially related. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTJlkEE3edo

>> No.6364042

>>6364031
>>6364034
thunderf00t hivemind

>> No.6364060

>>6363678
dis
the concern has been and always will be a steam explosion basically atomizing the fuel rods and spreading them all over.
except i dont really think that can actually happen in "modern" reactors
chernobyl was a russian reactor, meaning it might as well have been built in 1890

>> No.6364064

>>6364034
>that greenpeace commercial
>airplane hits reactor dome
>implied horrible accident
uh
that jet would be smeared across the dome. SMEARED. those things are terrifyingly strong

>> No.6364074

>>6364034
You bring up a lot of good points. I am no expert, but the reasoning you have presented here seems sound. The only reason I made this post is to say
>>thunderf00t
Wasn't he involved in the great Atheist-Theist youtube debates a few years ago? I would hate to discredit your source based on an unrelated subject, but come on, folks.

>> No.6364105

>>6364074
I have no idea what those debates are, why they are so great, nor why they would be relevant. However, he does have a fun 40 part series mocking creationists, so it sounds plausible, I guess?

Anyway, the link was not critical to what I was saying... just fun facts about beach sand.

>>6364064
Isn't that awesome?
> Plane: "Holy shit we're going in arglbarglbablblblblbffffff....."
> Wall: "Ho-hum, another day at the office...."

>> No.6364158

>>6364074
Regardless of him being involved in that kind of thing, it doesn't discredit him at all. He works in a nuclear power plant, and from the video series he did on debunking these alarmists, he's obviously knowledgeable in the subject.

>> No.6364174

>>6364034
>Dangerous radioactive materials have short half-lives... materials with long half-lives are, by their very nature, not all that radioactive.
This is a stupidly ignorant post. A half-life of a hundred or even thousands of years is plenty short enough for a material to be dangerously radioactive and carcinogenic.

Materials with extremely short half-lives don't accumulate in reactors over decades to worrisome quantities. These are reactors, not atomic bombs, they have a slow, steady rate of fission and production of radioisotopes (which, over time, can greatly exceed that of any weapon). It's the longer-lived ones that we have to worry about.

>> No.6364204

>>6364060
Fukushima released enough radioactive materials that it could have killed millions and rendered a huge area of land uninhabitable, if the wind had not been blowing directly out from it into one of the widest and most empty stretches of ocean on the planet.

Stop trying to spin this shit as some kind of evidence that nuclear is safe. Fukushima was evidence that "modern" nuclear power plants in first-world countries could blow up and spray radioactive materials as badly as Chernobyl did.

The idiotic nuclear optimism of the past has come up against the reality that nuclear plants, after being a really expensive way to get electricity even AFTER a huge up-front investment and years of construction, still have huge decommissioning costs after you've received all of their questionable benefits, and leave an indefinite obligation/hazard in the form of long-lived wastes that are, for practical purposes, never going away.

The options at this point are to admit nuclear power was always a bad idea, and just accept that it's a big expensive mess which we now have to pay for (and avoid creating such messes for future generations), or to try and hide how bad it is by running reactors past the end of their planned service life or cutting corners on the decommissioning and waste storage, which can only end in millions of deaths.

Guess which approach you've been advocating for.

>> No.6364217

>>6364204
>Fukushima was evidence that "modern" nuclear power plants in first-world countries could blow up and spray radioactive materials as badly as Chernobyl did.

ok, either you're vastly overestimating fukushima or vastly underestimating chernobyl
which is it?

>> No.6364222

>>6364204
>or to try and hide how bad it is by running reactors past the end of their planned service life
also, this is mostly because nuclear power plants are legally quite difficult to build in the US (all dem lawsuits), but the demand for their electricity is still there
and they make a LOT of electricity
so the current practice is to use existing plants and retrofit them as needed, and it seems to be doing ok, but i'd prefer new plants

>> No.6364275

>>6364217
If you think there's a "vast" difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima other than Fukushima being located on a coast and luckily having nearly all of its radioactive material blown out to sea, you're badly ignorant of one or both.

>>6364222
That's an excuse, not a reason. The reason is that decommissioning and final waste disposal costs will be ruinous without generating any revenue, which leads to badly unsafe plants continuing to be operated to delay paying those costs.

>> No.6364283

>>6364275
>If you think there's a "vast" difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima other than Fukushima being located on a coast and luckily having nearly all of its radioactive material blown out to sea, you're badly ignorant of one or both.

welp that's all i needed to hear
i have a homework exercise for you, go look up the amount of uranium and burnt graphite released from chernobyl
then look up the amount of isotopes released from fukushima
just total volumes

and decommissioning isnt THAT bad, and waste disposal also isnt that bad. nuclear reactors generate so much revenue, stably, over their entire extremely long life that its usually more than worth it.....or at least it would be if there were no political insanity surrounding it, and if yucca mountain was a thing
what sucks is decommissioning after an accident, mostly because everything is really messy instead of just the pot and the piping

>> No.6364328

You're definitely going to die someday, but if Fukushima is the cause of your demise I'll eat my calculator.

>> No.6364336

>>6364204
>Fukushima released enough radioactive materials that it could have killed millions and rendered a huge area of land uninhabitable, if the wind had not been blowing directly out from it into one of the widest and most empty stretches of ocean on the planet.
So that's why the people in the immediate vicinity and on boats just off-shore all died horrible deaths, right?

>> No.6364385

>>6364283
>the amount of uranium and burnt graphite released from chernobyl
Uranium and graphite occur naturally and are not dangerous. This is not a number worth comparing to anything.

And Fukushima hasn't stopped leaking radioactive material.

>> No.6364391

>>6364385
>Uranium and graphite occur naturally and are not dangerous
true, but the stuff released from chernobyl was the real dirty stuff, mixed with all kinds of nasties from normal reactor operation, and it got pulverized and spewed all over the place, AND THEN all the encasing graphite (impregnated with nasties) started burning and kept burning for a long ass time, spreading all over the place. and stuff dont go away quickly

chernobyl was very bad
fukushima was kind of worrisome for about 36 hours, then it was mostly just alarmism

>> No.6364398

>>6364385
Arsenic, lead, radium, radon, asbestos, nightshade, hemlock, and AIDS also occur naturally. Doesn't mean they're not dangerous.

>> No.6364415

>>6364391
Fukushima had an immediate release of about a fifth of what Chernobyl released in total, and stuff has been trickling out ever since.

Chernobyl was probably somewhat worse in total than Fukushima will end up being, but there's certainly not a vast difference between the two in terms of total release of radioisotopes.

The big difference was that Fukushima is on the coast, with the wind blowing in the right direction.

>>6364336
>So that's why the people in the immediate vicinity and on boats just off-shore all died horrible deaths, right?
There was a prompt and well-organized evacuation of the affected area, something that wouldn't have been possible if the wind blew the radioisotopes along the length of Japan rather than out to sea.

Japan is a lot more densely populated than the Ukraine. The death toll could have been horrific, and a significant percentage of Japan's living space rendered uninhabitable. People were saved by the direction the wind blew.

>> No.6364446

my prof analyzed seaweed and determined that there is more naturally occuring carbon-14 in your body than the amount of radiation you can get from fukushima (this is from vancouver, pacific west coast). muricans be safe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saM85y8lFm4

>> No.6366262

>>6364034
>Bioaccumulation
The radioactive isotope caesium-137 has a half-life of about 30 years and is used in medical applications, industrial gauges, and hydrology. Although the element is only mildly toxic, it is a hazardous material as a metal and its radioisotopes present a high health risk if released into the environment.