Fukushima reactors
 

I'm just curious if anyone else thinks the media, and the japanese and american governments are downplaying the radiation threat from fukushima? Here's one report that says the radiation in the water near the plant is over 3000 times the legal limit. Another report I recently read said one of the cores melted through the concrete containment vessels. Tokyo water is now unsafe for infants to drink due to radiation.

I'm not sure if the amount of radiation already released is a threat to the US, but I feel like we aren't getting the whole story. Also the bigger problem is that there doesn't seem like there's an end in sight. They aren't getting the reactors under control and the international community isn't responding at all.

Typically I'm not for the US providing aid to other countries in anyway, but I feel this is an international crisis and needs to be treated as such. The effects of radiation do not go away anytime soon.

http://www.xkcd.com/radiation/

http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/radiation.png

?Prescription for Survival?: A Debate on the Future of Nuclear Energy Between Anti-Coal Advocate George Monbiot and Anti-Nuclear Activist Dr. Helen Caldicott

sorry this link doesn't really relate to this tread. feel free to delete.

This website/blog that I have been following has info. links, discussion, etc.
There's a mix of opinion & questioning. It leans a bit toward the 'industry' side,
but there is a lot of good info to sort through.

Nuclear BraveNewClimate

I see and hear many people that were steadfastly of the mindset:
"not providing aid to other countries in any way," evolving beyond the parochial.
It's happening, this birth of global thinking stuff. Albeit kinda painfully slow.

I dunno if it's Pollyannish thinking,
but I sense the earth beneath The Oligarchs, is beginning to liquefy.

Yay.

This is a serious problem, yet it highlights the trouble dealing with nuclear waste, generating lots of radioactive waste in trying to get it under control, and some control/safety designs that we not thought of.

Like, why wouldn't they have enough Boric acid or whatever neutron absorber of their choice is on hand to dump in?

I'm not 100% anti-nuclear, I have been nuclear plants, Yucca Mt., U 238 mines, centrifuges and such, but we need to have a talk on the safety and design of new and old reactors.

The conversation that people in power normally have is ridiculously small minded.


What pisses me off are people like Obama who insists that nuclear power is the best and most clean way for power in our future but then drop any and all advocacy for safe plants and laws ensuring what just happened in Japan won't happen here.

I am really surprised every night when I go to sleep that a major catastrophe has not occurred here in the US. Maybe I am paranoid but it seems to me our planet is either about to enter a new age of climate or its giving off its death rattle.

If anybody can talk me down about the number of earthquakes and such please do.

I am open to nuclear power if its done in a safe manner only.

The public news about seawater near the reactor seemed fairly meaningless to me. It was 300m away at at time when the exclusion zone was 20km. Fishing there is banned and no sane person would drink that water. A level of 10000 times normal holds no information - if the normal level is low.

I'm not dismissing the risk. However the content and framing of that particular newsbite caused me to dismiss it as unhelpful.

And if I recall correctly... the radioactive iodine has a real short half-life. 8 days or something.

I think Japan is doing what any powerful country with a lot to lose would do. They're downplaying it. They have a lot to lose both with their national finances and their appearance of strength if they appear to be weak or terribly affected.

i think it's going to turn into chernoble. I hate to say it

In terms of what? Economic impact? Permanent exclusion zone? Environmental impact?

Chernobyl honestly didn't have that great of an environmental impact outside of the immediate vicinity. There was some radiation in Central and Western Europe, but nothing that was of an immediate health concern (in retrospect).

Fukishima has the potential to contaminate the Pacific, and not just the immediate area.

You are correct. can you imagine the radiation levels 15 miles off the coast in 6 months? espically after there dumping all of the containmented water back into the ocean.

all i ment was the enviromental impact in the immediate vicinity. I read in the paper this morning that were sending a giant cement truck on a plane to japan to help with efforts???

It is hard to figure out how this won't be a Chernobyl. Either in reality, or psychologically. I would expect that there will be at least a 25 mile zone where no one wants to live, even if the government won't stop them.

The big problem is dealing with all of the disformed rods. Are they going to be able to stabilize them, block the release of any more radiation, or disperse and store...

thats the question

today, there comparing it to chernoble.

Japan ups nuke crisis severity to match Chernobyl - Yahoo! News

Dr. Michio Kaku is one of my fave guys of all time and has this to say on my favorite news show.
Expert: Despite Japanese Gov't Claims of Decreasing Radiation, Fukushima a "Ticking Time Bomb"