Japan struggling to cool down nuclear reactor - Polidicks

Reuters and TEPCO. "CNN is reporting that a meltdown may be underway. Stay tuned for updates"

[QUOTE=Funny;28570455]Reactor 3's cooling has now failed, going the same path as #1[/QUOTE] Well fuck. At least they have a team there. [quote=Funny]"CNN is reporting that a meltdown may be underway. Stay tuned for updates"[/quote] You've got to be kidding me

[QUOTE=Funny;28570796]Reuters and TEPCO. "CNN is reporting that a meltdown may be underway. Stay tuned for updates"[/QUOTE] Shi-

Japan's Edano saying that fuel rods at TEPCO Fukushima nuclear plant No. 1 reactor now covered with water

[quote]The plant has also lost its *emergency cooling system at a second reactor, Japan’s nuclear power safety agency said last night. The emergency *system is no longer functioning at the No 3 reactor, and workers were trying to pump water up to the site.[/quote] [quote]The blast blew off the reactor roof and demolished walls. But casing round the nuclear fuel survived, preventing a full-scale leak, officials said. *Government spokesman Yukio Edano said tests indicated radiation levels and pressure in the reactor had *decreased after the blast. He said: “The reactor container was not damaged. The explosion didn’t occur inside it.[/quote] [quote]“The sea water will cause irreparable damage to the plant but they have obviously decided that it is an old facility. Early indications are that there should not be much lasting *contamination.”[/quote] This means that the Executive Decision was made to prevent a meltdown, even if the reactors were ruined in the process. [url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/03/13/sea-water-bid-to-halt-meltdown-at-fukushima-nuclear-plant-115875-22985881/]--SOURCE--[/url]

So is it over?

[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;28548319]S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Shadow of Fukushima[/QUOTE] I'd play it...

Poor japan :frown:

[QUOTE=MIPS;28571000]This means that the Executive Decision was made to prevent a meltdown, even if the reactors were ruined in the process. [url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/03/13/sea-water-bid-to-halt-meltdown-at-fukushima-nuclear-plant-115875-22985881/]--SOURCE--[/url][/QUOTE] I don't see a problem with ruining the reactors. It's a bigger priority to stop the meltdown and save everyone, even if it costs Japan a reactor or two.

nuclear reactors pay for themselves, it's obvious they're going to brick this one then build a new one once all this is cleared up

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;28582045]nuclear reactors pay for themselves, it's obvious they're going to brick this one then build a new one once all this is cleared up[/QUOTE] A new, far more effective one, at that.

Or maybe not use freaking nuclear power at all. You'd think Japan would know better.

[QUOTE=Tuskin;28582176]Or maybe not use freaking nuclear power at all. You'd think Japan would know better.[/QUOTE] Go chew on a brick luddite. Nuclear power is by far the best method of power generation we have.

Allow me to explain why this won't be LOLCHERNOBYL2 in a special way by copypasting my responses to the thickos in the other thread [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28581985]"Oh Chernobyl was an isolated case that would NEVER happen again we should use nuclear power as much as possible everywhere forever!" :downs:[/QUOTE] So you'd prefer: Conjunctivitis, mineshaft collapses, pollution, oil spills, death, disease, fires, explosions, leakages and suffocations, and general lung cancer from Oil, Gas, and Coal outlets? Aside from the waste, Nuclear Power is probably the safest motherfucking method of power at this minute, And in the long term, when we develop proper disposal for nuclear waste, It will be THE Safest method. THis was not nuke power's fault. It was the earthquakes. Dimwad. FYI but, This won't be as bad as Chernobyl if it does happen, Why? Because modern power plants aren't as bad. Chernobyl was caused by a test with the failsafes off, They're prepared for this, Chernobyl was just a total "Ok let's put this h-OH GOD WHA". they are expecting this and prepared for it. [highlight][u]Calm The Fuck Down STALKER fans.[/u][/highlight] [editline]13th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28582336]Really that's funny because it looks like there's a meltdown and radioactive steam is venting, but whatever I guess this is another totally isolated case. [editline]13th March 2011[/editline] Oh so that different design somehow changes the situation, there isn't a meltdown, and they aren't venting radioactive cesium? Because, I was so certain they were.[/QUOTE] Chernobyl was a catastrophic steam explosion caused by a bunch of fucknuggets thinking it was a good idea to test a new theory with the failsafes off. And they are VENTING THE STEAM TO STOP IT EXPLODING YOU UTTER BRICK. [editline]13th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Tuskin;28582176]Or maybe not use freaking nuclear power at all. You'd think Japan would know better.[/QUOTE] [quote=WHAT I FUCKING SAID IN THE OTHER THREAD YOU SENSELESS UNINTELLIGENT SCIENCELESS LUDDITE]So you'd prefer: Conjunctivitis, mineshaft collapses, pollution, oil spills, death, disease, fires, explosions, leakages and suffocations, and general lung cancer from Oil, Gas, and Coal outlets? Aside from the waste, Nuclear Power is probably the safest motherfucking method of power at this minute, And in the long term, when we develop proper disposal for nuclear waste, It will be THE Safest method. THis was not nuke power's fault. It was the earthquakes. Dimwad. [/quote]

Whats the status on the reactor?

Sounds like it is leaking since the entire city has been reported with higher than normal radiation levels.

[QUOTE=Test Card F;28582461]Chernobyl was a catastrophic steam explosion caused by a bunch of fucknuggets thinking it was a good idea to test a new theory with the failsafes off. And they are VENTING THE STEAM TO STOP IT EXPLODING YOU UTTER BRICK.[/QUOTE] Actually, it was a combination of bad desing of the building, a reactor with questionable safety and crew which didn't got told about the incidents regarding the experiments conducted on the reactor. So yea, the "fucknuggets" made a mistake because the state didn't want to tell them it was a mistake, resulting in a catastrophe.

In a region like Japan, its make sense that a volcanic eruption would follow such a massive earthquake.

[B][highlight]IT WILL MOST LIKELY NOT EVEN BE CLOSE TO THREE MILE ISLAND, AT WORST CASE SCENARIO IT WOULD BE AS BAD AS THREE MILE ISLAND, READ UP ON SHIT, GET SMARTER, STOP SPREADING STUPID SHIT[/highlight] [/B]For one the only reason chernobyl got that bad was because a fire broke out and set fire to the carbon(graphite) shielding that had a shit ton of radiation in it, and the smoke spread it, no nuclear reactor after chernobyl uses this. And learn how nuclear power works, here's a basic lesson on it that was posted earlier in the thread, but no one seemed to watch it. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BHdsjo-NR4[/media]

[QUOTE=bravehat;28582215]Go chew on a brick luddite. Nuclear power is by far the best method of power generation we have.[/QUOTE] Errr, I disagree. Its pretty darn good, up until the part where you have to store the Nuclear waste. And even if we do find a safe and practical way to store or dispose of the waste, its still not really a renewable resource. I would rather see advances in renewable energy than nuclear power generation.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;28586229]Errr, I disagree. Its pretty darn good, up until the part where you have to store the Nuclear waste. And even if we do find a safe and practical way to store or dispose of the waste, its still not really a renewable resource. I would rather see advances in renewable energy than nuclear power generation.[/QUOTE] Sure, a billion years isn't renewable, but fucking hell it's close, hell chernobyl is still generating heat.

[QUOTE=Crimor;28586116][B][highlight]IT WILL MOST LIKELY NOT EVEN BE CLOSE TO THREE MILE ISLAND, AT WORST CASE SCENARIO IT WOULD BE AS BAD AS THREE MILE ISLAND, READ UP ON SHIT, GET SMARTER, STOP SPREADING STUPID SHIT[/highlight] [/B]For one the only reason chernobyl got that bad was because a fire broke out and set fire to the carbon(graphite) shielding that had a shit ton of radiation in it, and the smoke spread it, no nuclear reactor after chernobyl uses this. And learn how nuclear power works, here's a basic lesson on it that was posted earlier in the thread, but no one seemed to watch it. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BHdsjo-NR4[/media][/QUOTE] OMFG CORPORATED LIE! tHis will be like 28.4x as bad as chernobyl and the reactor will asploded if they cant get the reacter cooled down.

[QUOTE=Test Card F;28582461]Allow me to explain why this won't be LOLCHERNOBYL2 in a special way by copypasting my responses to the thickos in the other thread [/QUOTE] Woah woah woah I never ever said nuclear power should be prohibited from the looks of it everyone assumed that.

[QUOTE=User;28586382]OMFG CORPORATED LIE! tHis will be like 28.4x as bad as chernobyl and the reactor will asploded if they cant get the reacter cooled down.[/QUOTE] If you're trying to be funny, then you failed. If you're trying to be serious, then you're grossly misinformed.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;28586229]Errr, I disagree. Its pretty darn good, up until the part where you have to store the Nuclear waste. And even if we do find a safe and practical way to store or dispose of the waste, its still not really a renewable resource. I would rather see advances in renewable energy than nuclear power generation.[/QUOTE] I agree that advances in renewables would be great, but because they're currently not up to the job. Stuff like geo-thermal, hydro and solar power is great if you have the right geography or weather conditions, which very few places do. Wind on the other hand, is pretty awful. A "20MW" wind farm will produce 20MW of electricity at full load, but the power generation is proportional to the velocity cubed, meaning most of the time they're producing nowhere near that. In the winter their production is made worse by the fact they have to consume energy to power the heating filaments that stop the mechanisms freezing. The concrete foundations for one wind turbine are huge and the CO2 released from creating that concrete can take the turbine many years to pay back. Even hydro isn't that great. Building hydroelectric dams is going to dramatically effect settlements and ecosystems up and down stream. All methods of power generations have their drawbacks, but nuclear is the currently the best solution, with lower carbon emissions than hydro and wind and huge energy output. Nuclear waste is the largest problem, but it's problems are, in most cases greatly exaggerated. If we wait around for some 'silver bullet' technology with no drawbacks, we'll be waiting a long time, and screw up the climate in the process. Also, here's some CO2 emission data for different power generation methods. [url]http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn268.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=petieng;28586663]I agree that advances in renewables would be great, but because they're currently not up to the job. Stuff like geo-thermal, hydro and solar power is great if you have the right geography or weather conditions, which very few places do. Wind on the other hand, is pretty awful. A "20MW" wind farm will produce 20MW of electricity at full load, but the power generation is proportional to the velocity cubed, meaning most of the time they're producing nowhere near that. In the winter their production is made worse by the fact they have to consume energy to power the heating filaments that stop the mechanisms freezing. The concrete foundations for one wind turbine are huge and the CO2 released from creating that concrete can take the turbine many years to pay back. Even hydro isn't that great. Building hydroelectric dams is going to dramatically effect settlements and ecosystems up and down stream. All methods of power generations have their drawbacks, but nuclear is the currently the best solution, with lower carbon emissions than hydro and wind and huge energy output. Nuclear waste is the largest problem, but it's problems are, in most cases greatly exaggerated. If we wait around for some 'silver bullet' technology with no drawbacks, we'll be waiting a long time, and screw up the climate in the process.[/QUOTE] If only life was like Sim City, just spam Wind turbines and Solar Plants.

[QUOTE=petieng;28586663]I agree that advances in renewables would be great, but because they're currently not up to the job. Stuff like geo-thermal, hydro and solar power is great if you have the right geography or weather conditions, which very few places do. Wind on the other hand, is pretty awful. A "20MW" wind farm will produce 20MW of electricity at full load, but the power generation is proportional to the velocity cubed, meaning most of the time they're producing nowhere near that. In the winter their production is made worse by the fact they have to consume energy to power the heating filaments that stop the mechanisms freezing. The concrete foundations for one wind turbine are huge and the CO2 released from creating that concrete can take the turbine many years to pay back. Even hydro isn't that great. Building hydroelectric dams is going to dramatically effect settlements and ecosystems up and down stream. All methods of power generations have their drawbacks, but nuclear is the currently the best solution, with lower carbon emissions than hydro and wind and huge energy output. Nuclear waste is the largest problem, but it's problems are, in most cases greatly exaggerated. If we wait around for some 'silver bullet' technology with no drawbacks, we'll be waiting a long time, and screw up the climate in the process.[/QUOTE] hey, someone else here isn't being all silly about wind power :respek:

[QUOTE=Crimor;28586366]Sure, a billion years isn't renewable, but fucking hell it's close, hell chernobyl is still generating heat.[/QUOTE] What the hell are you talking about? Most fuel rods last for around 3-6 years before they have to be replaced and disposed of, and the U-235 needed to make up these fuel rods only comprises .72% of the amount of Uranium on Earth. If you think we have a billion years of nuclear fuel left, you are sorely mistaken.

ITT: PRO and ANTI nuclear advocates fight eachother and nuclear apocalypse STALKER fans join the brawl too. Anyways, we will not find out just how bad this has become until proper inspections are carried out. Even though the worst of the situation is now over it still will probably be a few weeks at the soonest before we know what the final damage report will be.

[QUOTE=petieng;28586663] Nuclear waste is the largest problem, but it's problems are, in most cases greatly exaggerated.[/QUOTE] While I agree with you on most of your points, I feel obliged to ask what you are basing this statement on.