• Japan Nuclear Situation "Out of Control"
    205 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28626175]Why don't we have more categories? Chernobyl was bad obviously but it was hardly the worst imaginable nuclear disaster.[/QUOTE] Category 7 covers everything Chernobyl level and up.
[QUOTE=Billiam;28626387]Category 7 covers everything Chernobyl level and up.[/QUOTE] Aye. And when something worse happens, they'll create a new category.
[QUOTE=archangel125;28626475]Aye. And when something worse happens, they'll create a new category.[/QUOTE] "'Category 8: Intentional Event' i.e. Nuclear Bombings, poisonings" sounds like a good one to me.
I'd argue this is no higher than a 5 as the Japanese still haven't felt it necessary to extend the mandatory evacuation beyond 20KM, but this disaster is clearly on par with Three Mile Island. I'd still rate it as 4 for the time being though as this is still limited to "Local consequences" AND there have not been any reports of radiation having caused health hazards outside the reactors at this point. Remember 2 things - each level on that scale is supposed to be "an order of magnitude" more than the last, and when the news reports "higher radiation detected at ..." they're talking about minute levels of radiation, only higher than the background reading. They never mention a value, but I can safely bet the levels would still be in the microSv range.
I wonder how a huge nuclear catastrophe would affect the future of japan/the fallout zone not trying to make a joke here or anything, but a stalker taking place in japan sounds really cool.
[QUOTE=Torquil;28625673]It's not an issue with them getting sick now. They're all just at high risk of developing cancer within the next few years if exposed to too much radiation.[/QUOTE] And of course radiation sickness which takes effect pretty soon after the exposure.
How could it be worse? lvl7 is the worse scenario. Unless it spawns a nuclear holocaust, there's no need for a new category.
[QUOTE=subenji99;28626607]I'd argue this is no higher than a 5 as the Japanese still haven't felt it necessary to extend the mandatory evacuation beyond 20KM, but this disaster is clearly on par with Three Mile Island. I'd still rate it as 4 for the time being though as this is still limited to "Local consequences" AND there have not been any reports of radiation having caused health hazards outside the reactors at this point. Remember 2 things - each level on that scale is supposed to be "an order of magnitude" more than the last, and when the news reports "higher radiation detected at ..." they're talking about minute levels of radiation, only higher than the background reading. They never mention a value, but I can safely bet the levels would still be in the microSv range.[/QUOTE] It's 30km now.
This is worth a read. [url]http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2011/03/15/japans-real-disaster/[/url]
[QUOTE=Bllasae;28626738]It's 30km now.[/QUOTE] You got a time on this? They've been recommending people within 30KM to evacuate since Monday yes, but that is why I said "mandatory" - to my knowledge that still hasn't been expanded past 20KM. [editline]16th March 2011[/editline] Yep, I'm correct still. [quote]Japanese authorities have informed the IAEA that the evacuation of the population from the 20-kilometre zone around Fukushima Daiichi has been successfully completed. The Japanese authorities have also advised that people within a 30-km radius to take cover indoors.[/quote] [url]http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html[/url] (2h30m ago) [editline]16th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=petieng;28626879]This is worth a read. [url]http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2011/03/15/japans-real-disaster/[/url][/QUOTE] Excellent article. [quote]The situation in Japan is horrific — but because of the earthquake and tsunami, not because of the malfunctioning atomic reactor station. The earthquake and its awful aftermath killed at least thousands of people, perhaps tens of thousands. That is an unspeakable tragedy. The damaged reactors at Fukushima haven’t killed anyone, and while posing a clear danger, especially to workers heroically fighting the malfunction, the odds are that any harm to public health will be minor, if public health is harmed at all.[/quote] People need to bear this in mind. It is also an argument for the safety of Nuclear reactors.
I don't like how it's being stated that the situation is out of control. They still have back up plans even if it goes into something like Chernobyl.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28626175]Why don't we have more categories? Chernobyl was bad obviously but it was hardly the worst imaginable nuclear disaster.[/QUOTE] There are so few well known nuclear incidents. Nobody remembers shit like Windscale No.1, the '52 Chalk River incident (and AGAIN in '58), or Santa Susana. Everyone knows what chernobyl was (gamers especially which is what 99% of this forum consists of) so of course that would be the first thing they think of.
-snipped pun about metro, jaspion and japan-
[QUOTE=MIPS;28628181]There are so few well known nuclear incidents. Nobody remembers shit like Windscale No.1, the '52 Chalk River incident (and AGAIN in '58), or Santa Susana. Everyone knows what chernobyl was (gamers especially which is what 99% of this forum consists of) so of course that would be the first thing they think of.[/QUOTE] My mom used to work at Santa Susana :D
Battles over; the 50 guys inside the plant just stopped operations. [editline]15th March 2011[/editline] All 6 reactors are officially damaged in some way; 3 are contained and are "Three Mile Island"-type, and the other 3 (4,5,6) which can be assumed to be the fuel ones, are not-contained, and could be a Chernobyl-type explosion.
[QUOTE=Bllasae;28628527]Battles over; the 50 guys inside the plant [b]just stopped operations.[/b] [editline]15th March 2011[/editline] All 6 reactors are officially damaged in some way; 3 are contained and are "Three Mile Island"-type, and the other 3 (4,5,6) which can be assumed to be the fuel ones, are not-contained, and could be a Chernobyl-type explosion.[/QUOTE] Correction: Just stopped operations [b]and EVACUATED[/b].
Shiiiiiiiit
[QUOTE=darksoul69;28628711]Correction: Just stopped operations [B]and EVACUATED[/B].[/QUOTE] Yeah, thanks. I guess this is over. Anyone know if they're sending in more guys to replace them, or are they just done?
Get out of there, it's gonna blow!
If they left nobody behind even to transition the next team, I think it's safe to say they are throwing in the towel.
Well, this is not good, at all.
IAEA wants to upgrade to level 6.
[QUOTE=Ridge;28628898]IAEA wants to upgrade to level 6.[/QUOTE] According to CNN, they already did.
shit shit its gonna blow
[QUOTE=Bllasae;28628913]According to CNN, they already did.[/QUOTE] Just saw that now on CNN. Fuck.
[QUOTE=subenji99;28627039] The situation in Japan is horrific — but because of the earthquake and tsunami, not because of the malfunctioning atomic reactor station. The earthquake and its awful aftermath killed at least thousands of people, perhaps tens of thousands. That is an unspeakable tragedy. The damaged reactors at Fukushima haven’t killed anyone, and while posing a clear danger, especially to workers heroically fighting the malfunction, the odds are that any harm to public health will be minor, if public health is harmed at all. [/QUOTE] What? Does the writer even know how radiation works? The only reason it hasn't killed anyone yet is because it takes a long time. If we just abandon the reactor and say 'lets help the flood victims,' the radiation will go out of control and hundreds of thousands could die, especially on a nation as small as japan. You can't just ignore nuclear reactors. They work in different ways. Tsunami's death tolls look like this: [IMG]http://gyazo.com/ac453e95a532f004e94ab57921847be2.png[/IMG] Initially, they kill tons, but as time goes on they kill less and less. Nuclear reactor death tolls look like this: [IMG]http://gyazo.com/2058eb5e8f7ae1b5bfd1c42e7f46c299.png[/IMG] Initially it doesn't kill anyone, but if you leave it untreated, it will fuck up the entire population, and their children as well.
I bet they are just switching teams or something and CNN jumped the gun a bit too early. [editline].[/editline] lol CNN just removed that headline. Guess they were wrong?
[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;28629021]I bet they are just switching teams or something and CNN jumped the gun a bit too early.[/QUOTE][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12755739[/url] Can we panic now?
[QUOTE=Political Gamer;28629029][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12755739[/url] Can we panic now?[/QUOTE] Welp time to go down to Rite aid and stock up on Rad X.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;28628986]What? Does the writer even know how radiation works? The only reason it hasn't killed anyone yet is because it takes a long time. If we just abandon the reactor and say 'lets help the flood victims,' the radiation will go out of control and hundreds of thousands could die, especially on a nation as small as japan. You can't just ignore nuclear reactors. They work in different ways. Tsunami's death tolls look like this: [img_thumb]http://gyazo.com/ac453e95a532f004e94ab57921847be2.png[/img_thumb] Initially, they kill tons, but as time goes on they kill less and less. Nuclear reactor death tolls look like this: [img_thumb]http://gyazo.com/2058eb5e8f7ae1b5bfd1c42e7f46c299.png[/img_thumb] Initially it doesn't kill anyone, but if you leave it untreated, it will fuck up the entire population, and their children as well.[/QUOTE] According to those graphs tsunamis kill infinity people when they first happen but it's okay because the nuclear reactor will kill negative infinity people and cancel it out
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.