Huge blast at Japan nuclear power plant - a partial nuclear meltdown has occured
843 replies, posted
[QUOTE=J!NX;28582801]Are you having a melt down? :smug:[/QUOTE]
Test Card F: 125% Critical, or, How I Had an Internet Meltdown
I can't open a beer because i am a molten mass of radioactive material. What-ho!
Wow this thread really did meltdown.
Any recent news on the situation?
[QUOTE=Test Card F;28582837]I can't open a beer because i am a molten mass of radioactive material. What-ho![/QUOTE]
you're also underaged
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;28582759]Well actually, after Chernobyl, many people's position on nuclear power did change. Some, of course, pushed for nuclear power to be banned or better regulated. Others pushed for more safely-designed plants.
Furthermore this catastrophe will pave the way for future engineers to design even safer plants that can withstand 9.0 earthquakes.
Everyone acknowledges the risks, we just go about the acknowledgement differently.[/QUOTE]
But it just seems that there is always something reactors are at risk of, and that the next risk will just be something else. People uphold nuclear as the best viable resource just because it's more efficient in ways or more recently developed but this just proves that they still don't have it down to something that people can openly say that it is safer than other resources.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;28582780]There are no real risks though, so many safety precautions are put in place it is incredibly rare that anything like this should ever happen, you also need to remember that this has happened in a country prone to natural disasters. In countries like the UK there is no real risk to nuclear powerplants, making them an ideal power source. Plus if it wasn't for the tsunami knocking out the back up generators things would like have been a lot better.[/QUOTE] It doesn't bother you that this resource requires more safety regulations than anything else? Even a bit?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;28582828]Test Card F: 125% Critical, or, How I Had an Internet Meltdown[/QUOTE]
Rated winner.
Well if you can't laugh at yourself.
Back to the rails of this thread, what could be done to help resolve the issues?
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28582847]But it just seems that there is always something reactors are at risk of, and that the next risk will just be something else. People uphold nuclear as the best viable resource just because it's more efficient in ways or more recently developed but this just proves that they still don't have it down to something that people can openly say that it is safer than other resources.[/QUOTE]
Atleast you're arguing properly now.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28582847]But it just seems that there is always something reactors are at risk of, and that the next risk will just be something else. People uphold nuclear as the best viable resource just because it's more efficient in ways or more recently developed but this just proves that they still don't have it down to something that people can openly say that it is safer than other resources.[/QUOTE]
But with that logic oil is also far to risky, especially after the whole BP incident. Just because it has a problem in one place does not mean it will have problems in another.
[QUOTE=J!NX;28582862]Back to the rails of this thread, what could be done to help resolve the issues?[/QUOTE]
They're resolving it. They're going to vent the radioactive steam(Or so i heard) and as such it'll prevent another explosion.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28582847]But it just seems that there is always something reactors are at risk of, and that the next risk will just be something else. People uphold nuclear as the best viable resource just because it's more efficient in ways or more recently developed but this just proves that they still don't have it down to something that people can openly say that it is safer than other resources.[/QUOTE]
It's an iterative process, I'll admit.
Though I do think it says something that the reactor is holding up this well after a 8.9 earthquake, tsunami, and a power cut.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;28582894]It's an iterative process, I'll admit.
Though I do think it says something that the reactor is holding up this well after a 8.9 earthquake, tsunami, and a power cut.[/QUOTE]
Not only that but the fact it already sustained a large blast.
[QUOTE=Test Card F;28582897]Not only that but the fact it already sustained a large blast.[/QUOTE]
That ... counts against it
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;28582904]That ... counts against it[/QUOTE]
That wasn't the actual reactor itself, but rather pressure build up.
So, anyone able to write up a post on everything thats so far happened?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;28582926]That wasn't the actual reactor itself, but rather pressure build up.[/QUOTE]
True, but it still released some radiation, and is millions of dollars worth of damage.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;28582904]That ... counts against it[/QUOTE]
I don't really know really i'm just spouting words. I'm hitting the fatigue i get whenever i expend alot of intelligent information i've gathered for a worthless reason.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;28582946]True, but it still released some radiation, and is millions of dollars worth of damage.[/QUOTE]
Considering the earthquake likely caused millions of dollars worth of damage to the planet, I think money is the last of the worries.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;28583014]I think money is the last of the worries.[/QUOTE]
You'd be suprised.
[QUOTE=Dj-J3;28583031]You'd be suprised.[/QUOTE]
Well of course money will be a worry, but you can't really blame the plant because of the pressure causing millions of dollars worth of damage after it's just been hit by a tsunami and an earthquake.
[quote]
[LIST=1]
[*] [B]1548:[/B] Mr Goto said the reactors at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant were suffering pressure build-ups way beyond that for which they were designed. There was a severe risk of an explosion, with radioactive material being strewn over a very wide area - beyond the 20km evacuation zone set up by the authorities - he added. Mr Goto calculated that because Reactor No 3 at Fukushima-Daiichi - where pressure is rising and there is a risk of an explosion - used a type of fuel known as Mox, a mixture of plutonium oxide and uranium oxide, the radioactive fallout from any meltdown might be twice as bad.
[/LIST]
[/quote] fuckerdy fuck fuck
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698[/url]
Oooh shoite.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;28582946]True, but it still released some radiation, and is millions of dollars worth of damage.[/QUOTE]
Estimates are being put at over 200-700 billion dollars for the recontruction of Japan following the events. And considering that a nuclear plant cost around 10 billion dollars, i think it will be more than millions for the nuclear plant alone.
[QUOTE=Beafman;28583176]Estimates are being put at over 200-700 billion dollars for the recontruction of Japan following the events. And considering that a nuclear plant cost around 10 billion dollars, i think it will be more than millions for the nuclear plant alone.[/QUOTE]
perfect time to have a massive disaster, when your economy is weakest
[QUOTE=Occlusion;28583112]fuckerdy fuck fuck
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698[/url][/QUOTE]
Oh balls. At least the explosion risks kind of settled, but Reactor 3 is causing trouble.
[QUOTE=JLea;28559598][img_thumb]http://s1.directupload.net/images/110312/42d4dk27.jpg[/img_thumb]
[editline]12th March 2011[/editline]
That's payback for the nukes :smug:
too bad its not real
Rate dumb if you hate the US.[/QUOTE]
I thought we didn't use the Rad anymore, I thought they were replaced by the Gray and the Röntgens
Not sure if it has been posted yet, but this is a must-read regarding the nuclear meltdown: [url]http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/[/url]
tl;dr : this is not Chernobyl v2, everything will be OK.
Here's a guy that has a Geiger counter outside his apartment.
[url]http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/geiger_index.html[/url]
1 micro Sievert. Man, that's about the same as you receive from picking up a rock on the ground! Bone chilling stuff, better start cutting room for a third arm in your clothes now.
[QUOTE=Occlusion;28583112]fuckerdy fuck fuck
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698[/url][/QUOTE]
It seems like everything that has less than 0,000005345% of happening is happening in Japan.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if a fucking meteorite hit there right now
[editline]13th March 2011[/editline]
I think it's also needless to say how much apeshit Greenpeace is going to be about this.
Pros:
It's safer than coal.
More renewable than coal. (Almost infinitely so)
Kills no one. Coal kills approx. 100,000 people in the first world every year.
Releases less radiation into the environment than coal.
Better for the environment by such a ridiculous amount.
Cons:
It sounds scary.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.