Nuclear power plant explodes
azotic
Martin Eastburn
If the plant exploded, not much would be left.
1. It was likely a Hydrogen gas explosion in the outer
containment building. It has two domes.
The unit is in serious condition - The rods are dropped,
but loss of power and the emergency backup failed the
pool let off steam. The outer dome was damaged in the
quake. That is one issue.
2. the scary issue is they still don't have coolant water
and reverted to pumping sea water.
That is a last level response as the salt does nothing good.
My understanding that with the salt water pumping the internal
temperature has dropped.
3. There isn't enough fuel to have a nuke explosion or implosion.
I expect detectors will pick up radiation of one sort or another
sometime this week on the west coast.
Martin
Tom Gardner
"Martin Eastburn" <lion...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:UkWep.464931$Ph5.3...@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com...
The anti-nuke people are celebrating!
Ignoramus25538
explosion".
1) That explosion made the outer building crash, so, there is little
access to the reactor and likely all pipes are damaged too.
The reactor is likely impossible to control and even to access, in
fact if the containment vessel is undamaged but access to it is
prevented, I am not sure how they can pump seawater into it.
Perhaps they can find a way to just hook up the reactor to a huge
steel cable and use an aircraft carrier to drag it to the ocean.
2) The hydrogen could only be produced inside the reactor, by exposure
of water to superheated rod cladding. If so, this means that the
reactor was, well, superheated even at that time, so I would surmise
it has gone worse since then.
For some reason, I find myself very skeptical about what will happen
to the reactor in the future.
3) Even if it explodes like the Chernobyl reactor, the damage to
mankind will be limited due to prevailing western winds, which will
carry most of the fallout into the Pacific.
Myself, I had a benign thyroid tumor in 1993, 7 years after
Chernobyl. I was in the Ukraine at the moment when it exploded. I was
lucky that the tumor was found during a routine medical check.
i
Pete C.
Chernobyl isn't really a good comparison to a commercial power reactor.
Chernobyl was a very old reactor design, with limited safety systems, in
a state of pretty poor maintenance, and it still performed safely up
until some idiots decided to play with it. Chernobyl is a great example
of how safe nuclear power actually is since it took real effort to get
it to fail.
Ignoramus25538
I agree with you, but the Japanese plant is also a very old design.
Instead of idiots, they had an earthquake and a tsunami.
i
Ignoramus25538
The building that was blown up IS the containment building.
The reactor is inside a containment vessel -- a steel pressure
vessel. The vessel is inside the building, which by now is collapsed.
I hope that I am mistaken about it.
Here's a good read.
http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/3824043948/update-on-fukushima-reactor
i
Boris Kapusta
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.25538.invalid> wrote:
>I disagree with those who say that "it was just a hydrogen
>explosion".
Bush did it.
Rich Grise
>
> I expect detectors will pick up radiation of one sort or another
> sometime this week on the west coast.
>
airplane at 35,000 feet, or a chest X-ray.
Cheers!
Rich
John R. Carroll
They were already reporting over 1000 times the normal background this
morning.
--
John R. Carroll
Larry Jaques
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.25538.invalid> wrote:
>I disagree with those who say that "it was just a hydrogen
>explosion".
>
>1) That explosion made the outer building crash, so, there is little
>access to the reactor and likely all pipes are damaged too.
>
>The reactor is likely impossible to control and even to access, in
>fact if the containment vessel is undamaged but access to it is
>prevented, I am not sure how they can pump seawater into it.
>
>Perhaps they can find a way to just hook up the reactor to a huge
>steel cable and use an aircraft carrier to drag it to the ocean.
What for, to create an environmental hazard of untold magnitude?
It stays where it is, if it -is- truly damaged beyond repair, until it
can be safely dismantled and stored underground in glass.
>2) The hydrogen could only be produced inside the reactor, by exposure
>of water to superheated rod cladding. If so, this means that the
>reactor was, well, superheated even at that time, so I would surmise
>it has gone worse since then.
>
>For some reason, I find myself very skeptical about what will happen
>to the reactor in the future.
We'll see once the paranoid speculation stops and the truth comes out.
Have they even gotten inside yet? News online is sparse.
>3) Even if it explodes like the Chernobyl reactor, the damage to
>mankind will be limited due to prevailing western winds, which will
>carry most of the fallout into the Pacific.
>
>Myself, I had a benign thyroid tumor in 1993, 7 years after
>Chernobyl. I was in the Ukraine at the moment when it exploded. I was
>lucky that the tumor was found during a routine medical check.
Are you saying that you got cancer from Chernobyl, Ig?
--
Whomsoever controls the volume of money in any country is
absolute master of all industry and commerce and when you
realize that the entire system is very easily controlled,
one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you
will not have to be told how periods of inflation and
depression originate. --James Garfield
Rich Grise
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
> I disagree with those who say that "it was just a hydrogen
> explosion".
>
> 1) That explosion made the outer building crash,
What, exactly, does "made the outer building crash" mean?
Thanks,
Rich
Larry Jaques
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.25538.invalid> wrote:
>One more thing.
>
>The building that was blown up IS the containment building.
>
>The reactor is inside a containment vessel -- a steel pressure
>vessel. The vessel is inside the building, which by now is collapsed.
>
>I hope that I am mistaken about it.
>
>Here's a good read.
>
>http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/3824043948/update-on-fukushima-reactor
I saw lots of speculation there (the Union of Concerned Scientists is
anything BUT neutral) but not much meat. Where's the beef?
http://tinyurl.com/4uqqyot Check their other headlines. Who's leading
whom on? Libby AGWK anti-nuke "environmental campaign group" bastids.
I'll wait for Japan and the Fukishima crew to tell us the real deal
there.
John R. Carroll
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 23:37:24 -0600, Ignoramus25538
> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.25538.invalid> wrote:
>
>> One more thing.
>>
>> The building that was blown up IS the containment building.
>>
>> The reactor is inside a containment vessel -- a steel pressure
>> vessel. The vessel is inside the building, which by now is collapsed.
>>
>> I hope that I am mistaken about it.
>>
>> Here's a good read.
>>
>> http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/3824043948/update-on-fukushima-reactor
>
> I saw lots of speculation there (the Union of Concerned Scientists is
> anything BUT neutral) but not much meat. Where's the beef?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4uqqyot Check their other headlines. Who's leading
> whom on? Libby AGWK anti-nuke "environmental campaign group" bastids.
>
> I'll wait for Japan and the Fukishima crew to tell us the real deal
> there.
Both have done so.
First, they pumped boric acid into the core to kill neutron production.
They were also pumping coolant into the core to keep the rods covered using
steam powered pumps.
Then they began with sea water, which is the end of the reactor as far as
anything useful is concerned.
Cooling the core from the temp. it was at - aprox. 1000F takes five to ten
hours.
As the water enters the core it doesn't just boil, it dissociates and they
vent the hyfogen to the containment.
It exploded and the containment came down on the core.
What they are now hoping is that the floor of the containment isn't degraded
to the point where material from the melted portion of the core will enter
the water table through the ground.
That's what happened at Chernoble.
In the end, this thing isn't going to be turned into a glass anything. It
won't be something that can be handled.
They will pump properly formulated concrete as a casement and that will be
that. Well, that and monitoring the site for the next 10,000 years.
--
John R. Carroll
anorton
"Rich Grise" <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ilhnm5$kkl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Rich,
1000 times backround (which is being measured at the Japanese plant not on
the west coast) is nothing to scoff at, and it is not to same as one chest
X-ray or long flight.
We receive about 0.8 to 1 millirem per day of background, so 1000 times
this would be 800 to 1000 millirems per day. A chest X-ray is about 8
millirems, so this would be equivalent to 100 to 125 chest X rays every
single day! Actuarial tables say that 1000 millirems takes 51 days off your
life.
But the radiation you receive from external sources is not even the most
worrying thing. If you breathe in a particle of radioactive material and it
lodges in your lung, the constant intense bombardment of adjacent cells
means a greatly increased risk of cancer in that area.
John R. Carroll
> "Rich Grise" <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ilhnm5$kkl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> John R. Carroll wrote:
>>> Rich Grise wrote:
>>>> Martin Eastburn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I expect detectors will pick up radiation of one sort or another
>>>>> sometime this week on the west coast.
>>>>>
>>>> Which will probably be about as much over background as you get in
>>>> an airplane at 35,000 feet, or a chest X-ray.
>>>
>>> They were already reporting over 1000 times the normal background
>>> this morning.
>>>
>> Yeah - about as much as in an airplane at 35,000 feet, or a chest
>> x-ray. Cheers!
>> Rich
>>
>
> Rich,
>
> 1000 times backround (which is being measured at the Japanese plant
> not on the west coast)
Yeah, my bad.
--
John R. Carroll
rangerssuck
> "Martin Eastburn" <lionsl...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
>
> news:UkWep.464931$Ph5.3...@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Thread should read an explosion at a Nuclear Power Plant.
>
> > If the plant exploded, not much would be left.
>
> > 1. It was likely a Hydrogen gas explosion in the outer
> > containment building. It has two domes.
>
> > The unit is in serious condition - The rods are dropped,
> > but loss of power and the emergency backup failed the
> > pool let off steam. The outer dome was damaged in the
> > quake. That is one issue.
>
> > 2. the scary issue is they still don't have coolant water
> > and reverted to pumping sea water.
> > That is a last level response as the salt does nothing good.
>
> > My understanding that with the salt water pumping the internal
> > temperature has dropped.
>
> > 3. There isn't enough fuel to have a nuke explosion or implosion.
>
> > I expect detectors will pick up radiation of one sort or another
> > sometime this week on the west coast.
>
> > Martin
>
> > On 3/12/2011 2:49 AM, azotic wrote:
> >> Holy crap!!!!!!!!
>
>
> >> Best Regards
> >> Tom.
>
> The anti-nuke people are celebrating!-
celebrating? CELEBRATING? You really are a fucking asshole, Tom.
Tom Gardner
"rangerssuck" <range...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1783ee30-6b7a-40cb...@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
Thanks! Coming from you, that's a complement. You are anti-nuke no doubt and see
this as a great opportunity to press the case for no nuke power. Good for you!
Anything that furthers your goals is A-Okay! The end ALWAYS justifies the means,
doesn't it? You don't give a damn how many people die, lose their homes and
livelihoods as long as it benefits your politics. You libs ALWAYS hate everything not
in your pamphlet that tells you what and who to hate. I'm GLAD I'm on your hate list,
it means I'm on the correct track. But, please don't do the "liberal mass-murder"
thing like you guys do when you don't get your way or your hate boils over. Instead,
why don't you seek psychological help? I know you relish your hatred but it consumes
you. With proper therapy, you might become a productive member of society.
Dennis #1
"Tom Gardner" <w@w> wrote in message
news:WvGdnehSk_QiXOHQ...@giganews.com...
I agree Tom, the failures in Japan are going to put chances of many of us
(eg Australia) getting nuclear power back decades. I wonder if a few decades
into the future those like the anti-nuclear greenies will be effectively be
viewed as those who stuffed our evironment.
Ignoramus858
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:57:55 -0600, Ignoramus25538
><ignoram...@NOSPAM.25538.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I disagree with those who say that "it was just a hydrogen
>>explosion".
>>
>>1) That explosion made the outer building crash, so, there is little
>>access to the reactor and likely all pipes are damaged too.
>>
>>The reactor is likely impossible to control and even to access, in
>>fact if the containment vessel is undamaged but access to it is
>>prevented, I am not sure how they can pump seawater into it.
>>
>>Perhaps they can find a way to just hook up the reactor to a huge
>>steel cable and use an aircraft carrier to drag it to the ocean.
>
> What for, to create an environmental hazard of untold magnitude?
> It stays where it is, if it -is- truly damaged beyond repair, until it
> can be safely dismantled and stored underground in glass.
It is already an environmental hazard, emitting radioactive materials,
so it is breached in one way or another.
>
>>2) The hydrogen could only be produced inside the reactor, by exposure
>>of water to superheated rod cladding. If so, this means that the
>>reactor was, well, superheated even at that time, so I would surmise
>>it has gone worse since then.
>>
>>For some reason, I find myself very skeptical about what will happen
>>to the reactor in the future.
>
> We'll see once the paranoid speculation stops and the truth comes out.
> Have they even gotten inside yet? News online is sparse.
They cannot get there de to radiation, the reactor is not accessible,
as far as I can tell.
>
>>3) Even if it explodes like the Chernobyl reactor, the damage to
>>mankind will be limited due to prevailing western winds, which will
>>carry most of the fallout into the Pacific.
>>
>>Myself, I had a benign thyroid tumor in 1993, 7 years after
>>Chernobyl. I was in the Ukraine at the moment when it exploded. I was
>>lucky that the tumor was found during a routine medical check.
>
> Are you saying that you got cancer from Chernobyl, Ig?
>
It was not a cancerous tumor, it was a benign one, but since it could
turn cancerous any time, it was removed. Along with it went 2/3 of my
thyroid.
i
Ignoramus858
><ignoram...@NOSPAM.25538.invalid> wrote:
>
>>One more thing.
>>
>>The building that was blown up IS the containment building.
>>
>>The reactor is inside a containment vessel -- a steel pressure
>>vessel. The vessel is inside the building, which by now is collapsed.
>>
>>I hope that I am mistaken about it.
>>
>>Here's a good read.
>>
>>http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/3824043948/update-on-fukushima-reactor
>
> I saw lots of speculation there (the Union of Concerned Scientists is
> anything BUT neutral) but not much meat. Where's the beef?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4uqqyot Check their other headlines. Who's leading
> whom on? Libby AGWK anti-nuke "environmental campaign group" bastids.
>
> I'll wait for Japan and the Fukishima crew to tell us the real deal
> there.
>
As far as I can tell, no real news came overnight, just more of people
repeating each other.
i
Jim Wilkins
> ...
> What they are now hoping is that the floor of the containment isn't degraded
> to the point where material from the melted portion of the core will enter
> the water table through the ground.
> That's what happened at Chernoble.
> John R. Carroll-
But NOT at Three Mile Island where the molten core didn't even damage
the finish where it pooled up at the bottom of the pressure vessel.
jsw
Larry Jaques
wrote:
>I agree Tom, the failures in Japan are going to put chances of many of us
>(eg Australia) getting nuclear power back decades.
Yeah, damnit, it appears that way, but please wait until the truth
comes out. All that's happening right now is that the anti-nuke groups
are spewing bullshit fears.
>I wonder if a few decades
>into the future those like the anti-nuclear greenies will be effectively be
>viewed as those who stuffed our evironment.
I already view them as the anti-environment terrorists. I wouldn't put
it past one of the venomous anti-nuke fidiots to blow up a plant, just
to prove how bad it could be. Crazy mofos.
--
You create your opportunities by asking for them.
-- Patty Hansen
Larry Jaques
<ignora...@NOSPAM.858.invalid> wrote:
>On 2011-03-13, Larry Jaques <lja...@invalid.diversify.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:57:55 -0600, Ignoramus25538
>><ignoram...@NOSPAM.25538.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I disagree with those who say that "it was just a hydrogen
>>>explosion".
>>>
>>>1) That explosion made the outer building crash, so, there is little
>>>access to the reactor and likely all pipes are damaged too.
>>>
>>>The reactor is likely impossible to control and even to access, in
>>>fact if the containment vessel is undamaged but access to it is
>>>prevented, I am not sure how they can pump seawater into it.
>>>
>>>Perhaps they can find a way to just hook up the reactor to a huge
>>>steel cable and use an aircraft carrier to drag it to the ocean.
>>
>> What for, to create an environmental hazard of untold magnitude?
>> It stays where it is, if it -is- truly damaged beyond repair, until it
>> can be safely dismantled and stored underground in glass.
>
>It is already an environmental hazard, emitting radioactive materials,
>so it is breached in one way or another.
I couldn't find a cite for any level of radioactivity being produced.
All I find is fearmongering. Can you list a specific link for me?
>>>2) The hydrogen could only be produced inside the reactor, by exposure
>>>of water to superheated rod cladding. If so, this means that the
>>>reactor was, well, superheated even at that time, so I would surmise
>>>it has gone worse since then.
>>>
>>>For some reason, I find myself very skeptical about what will happen
>>>to the reactor in the future.
>>
>> We'll see once the paranoid speculation stops and the truth comes out.
>> Have they even gotten inside yet? News online is sparse.
>
>They cannot get there de to radiation, the reactor is not accessible,
>as far as I can tell.
All I see is speculation. Newscritters seem to be filling in all the
data holes with fears and wild speculation.
>>>3) Even if it explodes like the Chernobyl reactor, the damage to
>>>mankind will be limited due to prevailing western winds, which will
>>>carry most of the fallout into the Pacific.
>>>
>>>Myself, I had a benign thyroid tumor in 1993, 7 years after
>>>Chernobyl. I was in the Ukraine at the moment when it exploded. I was
>>>lucky that the tumor was found during a routine medical check.
>>
>> Are you saying that you got cancer from Chernobyl, Ig?
>
>It was not a cancerous tumor, it was a benign one, but since it could
>turn cancerous any time, it was removed. Along with it went 2/3 of my
>thyroid.
You skirted the question nicely, Ig. Were you told or did you discern
that your tumor was a direct cause of Chernobyl radioactivity? Yes or
no, please.
Jim Wilkins
wrote:
> ...>
> >I wonder if a few decades
> >into the future those like the anti-nuclear greenies will be effectively be
> >viewed as those who stuffed our evironment.
>
> I already view them as the anti-environment terrorists. I wouldn't put
> it past one of the venomous anti-nuke fidiots to blow up a plant, just
> to prove how bad it could be. Crazy mofos.
>
Lets see them learn to live with the consequences; rolling blackouts
and rationed electricity:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/us/14meters.html
Larry Jaques
Nunya is mistaken (or the Liberal lied. Imagine that.) He also can't
spell Chernobyl and didn't take the time to find out. Hmm...
"Groundwater
Groundwater was not badly affected by the Chernobyl accident since
radionuclides with short half-lives decayed away long before they
could affect groundwater supplies, and longer-lived radionuclides such
as radiocaesium and radiostrontium were adsorbed to surface soils
before they could transfer to groundwater.[68] However, significant
transfers of radionuclides to groundwater have occurred from waste
disposal sites in the 30 km (19 mi) exclusion zone around Chernobyl.
Although there is a potential for transfer of radionuclides from these
disposal sites off-site (i.e. out of the 30 km (19 mi) exclusion
zone), the IAEA Chernobyl Report[68] argues that this is not
significant in comparison to current levels of washout of
surface-deposited radioactivity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
John R. Carroll
>
> I agree Tom, the failures in Japan are going to put chances of many
> of us (eg Australia) getting nuclear power back decades.
I wouldn't be so sure of that.
New reactor technology bears little resemblance to what was being built in
the 70's.
Third generation facilities just stop completely on a catastrophic failure
along the lines the Japanese plants have suffered.
>I wonder if
> a few decades into the future those like the anti-nuclear greenies
> will be effectively be viewed as those who stuffed our evironment.
The only money and effort going towards anti-nuke efforts is coming from the
oil, gas and coal industries.
At least in the US.
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
TMI was a PR disaster. An expensive one but the real failure was in it's
operation.
What put the kybosh on construction wasn't "the Greenies", it was that
nobody wanted to make the huge investment required only to end up with a
large concrete monument.
These plants can't be put back into operation at all beyond a certain point
and that's too big an investment to write off even once - especially in
today's deregulated market.
Dynergy is facing bankruptcy over smaller losses.
The chance of this sort of failure in a new GE reactor design are
effectively ( and I think actualy) zero.
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
Just insane.
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 07:22:23 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
> <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 13, 3:02 am, "John R. Carroll" <nunyabidn...@dev.null> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> What they are now hoping is that the floor of the containment isn't
>>> degraded to the point where material from the melted portion of the
>>> core will enter the water table through the ground.
>>> That's what happened at Chernoble.
>>
>> the finish where it pooled up at the bottom of the pressure vessel.
>
> Nunya is mistaken (or the Liberal lied. Imagine that.) He also can't
> spell Chernobyl and didn't take the time to find out. Hmm...
>
> "Groundwater
>
> Groundwater was not badly affected by the Chernobyl accident since
> radionuclides with short half-lives decayed away long before they
> could affect groundwater supplies, and longer-lived radionuclides such
> as radiocaesium and radiostrontium were adsorbed to surface soils
> before they could transfer to groundwater.[68] However, significant
> transfers of radionuclides to groundwater have occurred from waste
> disposal sites in the 30 km (19 mi) exclusion zone around Chernobyl.
> Although there is a potential for transfer of radionuclides from these
> disposal sites off-site (i.e. out of the 30 km (19 mi) exclusion
> zone), the IAEA Chernobyl Report[68] argues that this is not
> significant in comparison to current levels of washout of
> surface-deposited radioactivity."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
Your own cite contradicts you Larry.
"Recent tests (ca. 1997) have shown that caesium-137 levels in trees of the
area are continuing to rise. There is some evidence that contamination is
migrating into underground aquifers and closed bodies of water such as lakes
and ponds (2001, Germenchuk). "
--
John R. Carroll
Ignoramus858
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 08:13:55 -0500, Ignoramus858
><ignora...@NOSPAM.858.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2011-03-13, Larry Jaques <lja...@invalid.diversify.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:57:55 -0600, Ignoramus25538
>>><ignoram...@NOSPAM.25538.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I disagree with those who say that "it was just a hydrogen
>>>>explosion".
>>>>
>>>>1) That explosion made the outer building crash, so, there is little
>>>>access to the reactor and likely all pipes are damaged too.
>>>>
>>>>The reactor is likely impossible to control and even to access, in
>>>>fact if the containment vessel is undamaged but access to it is
>>>>prevented, I am not sure how they can pump seawater into it.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps they can find a way to just hook up the reactor to a huge
>>>>steel cable and use an aircraft carrier to drag it to the ocean.
>>>
>>> What for, to create an environmental hazard of untold magnitude?
>>> It stays where it is, if it -is- truly damaged beyond repair, until it
>>> can be safely dismantled and stored underground in glass.
>>
>>It is already an environmental hazard, emitting radioactive materials,
>>so it is breached in one way or another.
>
> I couldn't find a cite for any level of radioactivity being produced.
> All I find is fearmongering. Can you list a specific link for me?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14nuclear.html?pagewanted=2
``Radiation levels outside the plant, which had retreated overnight,
shot up to 1,204 microsieverts per hour, or over twice Japan’s legal
limit, Mr. Edano said.''
It is not that much, but it does mean that the reactor is no longer
isolated.
>
>>>>2) The hydrogen could only be produced inside the reactor, by exposure
>>>>of water to superheated rod cladding. If so, this means that the
>>>>reactor was, well, superheated even at that time, so I would surmise
>>>>it has gone worse since then.
>>>>
>>>>For some reason, I find myself very skeptical about what will happen
>>>>to the reactor in the future.
>>>
>>> We'll see once the paranoid speculation stops and the truth comes out.
>>> Have they even gotten inside yet? News online is sparse.
>>
>>They cannot get there de to radiation, the reactor is not accessible,
>>as far as I can tell.
>
> All I see is speculation. Newscritters seem to be filling in all the
> data holes with fears and wild speculation.
Not much data comes out, it seems.
``an explosion caused by hydrogen that tore the outer wall and roof off
the building housing the reactor, although the steel containment of
the reactor remained in place''
The building housing the reactor is the containment building.
You would figure that the reactor is in its rubble.
>
>
>>>>3) Even if it explodes like the Chernobyl reactor, the damage to
>>>>mankind will be limited due to prevailing western winds, which will
>>>>carry most of the fallout into the Pacific.
>>>>
>>>>Myself, I had a benign thyroid tumor in 1993, 7 years after
>>>>Chernobyl. I was in the Ukraine at the moment when it exploded. I was
>>>>lucky that the tumor was found during a routine medical check.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that you got cancer from Chernobyl, Ig?
>>
>>It was not a cancerous tumor, it was a benign one, but since it could
>>turn cancerous any time, it was removed. Along with it went 2/3 of my
>>thyroid.
>
> You skirted the question nicely, Ig. Were you told or did you discern
> that your tumor was a direct cause of Chernobyl radioactivity? Yes or
> no, please.
>
I have no idea if it was related or not. How can anyone be certain?
But I know that thyroid disease increased greatly after it.
http://thyroid.about.com/cs/nuclearexposure/a/chernob.htm
``According to the World Health Organization, the Chernobyl nuclear
disaster will cause 50,000 new cases of thyroid cancer among young
people living in the areas most affected by the nuclear
disaster. Specifically, the rate of thyroid cancer in adolescents aged
15 to 18 is also now three times higher than it was before the 1986
disaster took place. The incidence of thyroid cancer in children rose
10-fold in children who lived in the Ukraine region.''
Based on this, the answer is, probably yes, it was related. I am lucky
that I had annual medical checkups then.
i
Ignoramus858
They are pumping seawater into the reactor.
I am smart enough to figure out that seawater comes from the sea.
But where does it go TO after it comes out of the reactor?
And are they cooling the inside of the reactor, or outside of this
shell?
i
.
I see we have here a great example of the pot calling the kettle black -
thank you for the delicious irony of your response - may it live with
you always.
rangerssuck
> "rangerssuck" <rangerss...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You really are out of your mind. I suggest you go back and read my
other recent posts in this group regarding nuclear powerplants, and
then come back and apologize. But you won't.
Jim Wilkins
wrote:
> One more thing.
>
> They are pumping seawater into the reactor.
>
> I am smart enough to figure out that seawater comes from the sea.
>
> But where does it go TO after it comes out of the reactor?
>
> And are they cooling the inside of the reactor, or outside of this
> shell?
>
> i
>
Is it time for a drop of iodine disinfectant in the coffee?
http://www.livescience.com/13203-japan-nuclear-meltdown-iodide-pills-work.html
What exactly does "Chernobyl" mean? I know the color but not the
second part.
jsw
Tom Gardner
"Larry Jaques" <lja...@invalid.diversify.com> wrote in message
news:vvmpn6p4m4nac59j1...@4ax.com...
I have a number of friends and relatives in Japan that I know I won't find out about
for a long, long time and these idiots gleefully mark a win in their column.
Tom Gardner
"John R. Carroll" <nunyab...@dev.null> wrote in message
news:o7WdnWOYgNXXYuHQ...@giganews.com...
Probably not the only money but a significant source. "He who controls the Spice
controls the Universe!"
Tom Gardner
"John R. Carroll" <nunyab...@dev.null> wrote in message
Another complement! Can you disprove what I said? <crickets> Is everyone that you
don't like or disagree with "Insane"? Typical response from the fringe left. Do you
dispense your hate or do you just let it consume you? Shall I forward all the proof
of my statement to you? How big is your mailbox? Here's a couple, more to come...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,750545,00.html
http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=29337
Larry Jaques
<ignora...@NOSPAM.858.invalid> wrote:
Well, still isolated but still hot and producing enough steam to
require some release.
>>>>>2) The hydrogen could only be produced inside the reactor, by exposure
>>>>>of water to superheated rod cladding. If so, this means that the
>>>>>reactor was, well, superheated even at that time, so I would surmise
>>>>>it has gone worse since then.
>>>>>
>>>>>For some reason, I find myself very skeptical about what will happen
>>>>>to the reactor in the future.
>>>>
>>>> We'll see once the paranoid speculation stops and the truth comes out.
>>>> Have they even gotten inside yet? News online is sparse.
>>>
>>>They cannot get there de to radiation, the reactor is not accessible,
>>>as far as I can tell.
>>
>> All I see is speculation. Newscritters seem to be filling in all the
>> data holes with fears and wild speculation.
>
>Not much data comes out, it seems.
>
>
>``an explosion caused by hydrogen that tore the outer wall and roof off
>the building housing the reactor, although the steel containment of
>the reactor remained in place''
>
>The building housing the reactor is the containment building.
>
>You would figure that the reactor is in its rubble.
In that same article it mentions that the explosion was in the turbine
building, not the reactor building. That makes sense: A ten meter
diameter turbine wheel was spinning and when it got hammered by an 8.9
quake, it fractured, releasing lots of steam and shrapnel. I saw the
turbine wheels exposed at the Encina Power plant in Carlsbad, CA about
30 years ago and they're really something. I wouldn't want to be in
line with one when it cut loose.
I says nothing about benign tumors, which are non-cancerous, so I'm
still wondering. Were you beside it, upwind, or downwind that day?
Larry Jaques
<ignora...@NOSPAM.858.invalid> wrote:
>One more thing.
>
>They are pumping seawater into the reactor.
>
>I am smart enough to figure out that seawater comes from the sea.
>
>But where does it go TO after it comes out of the reactor?
>
>And are they cooling the inside of the reactor, or outside of this
>shell?
That's just dumb. Let it melt. It's not going anywhere. Adding water
just increases the chance of radioactive steam release.
P.S: I forgot to say "Congrats" on having found and removed your
tumor. That's gotta be scary as hell.
Boris Kapusta
I've been corresponding with people I know in Tokyo over email
throughout all of this. Phone service is sketchy but internet appears
to be solid.
Ed Huntress
"Tom Gardner" <w@w> wrote in message
'Got anything from the US, or are you just talking about the greenies in
Germany? BTW, the second one is just a summary of the first, with a link to
it.
--
Ed Huntress
Tom Gardner
****************
You call me an "asshole" and expect an apology? Does vulgarity make you feel
important and powerful? Good for you! You show your tiny little mentality with
everything you post, troll. Have you ever posted on-topic? Why don't you stay in the
troll section of Usenet?
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nunyab...@dev.null> wrote in message
> news:o7WdnWOYgNXXYuHQ...@giganews.com...
>> Dennis #1 wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree Tom, the failures in Japan are going to put chances of many
>>> of us (eg Australia) getting nuclear power back decades.
>>
>> I wouldn't be so sure of that.
>> New reactor technology bears little resemblance to what was being
>> built in the 70's. Third generation facilities just stop completely
>> on a catastrophic failure along the lines the Japanese plants have
>> suffered.
>>> I wonder if
>>> a few decades into the future those like the anti-nuclear greenies
>>> will be effectively be viewed as those who stuffed our evironment.
>>
>> The only money and effort going towards anti-nuke efforts is coming
>> from the oil, gas and coal industries.
>> At least in the US.
>>
>>
>
> controls the Spice controls the Universe!"
Something like that.
As with most of these sorts of things, the first question I try and answer
is who loses in the event of a change and benefits from stasis.
Then the search for anecdotal and emperical evidence begins.
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
Just an observation based on your posts.
--
John R. Carroll
Martin Eastburn
On 3/12/2011 11:15 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Ignoramus25538 wrote:
>>
>> I disagree with those who say that "it was just a hydrogen
>> explosion".
>>
>> 1) That explosion made the outer building crash, so, there is little
>> access to the reactor and likely all pipes are damaged too.
>>
>> The reactor is likely impossible to control and even to access, in
>> fact if the containment vessel is undamaged but access to it is
>> prevented, I am not sure how they can pump seawater into it.
>>
>> Perhaps they can find a way to just hook up the reactor to a huge
>> steel cable and use an aircraft carrier to drag it to the ocean.
>>
>> 2) The hydrogen could only be produced inside the reactor, by exposure
>> of water to superheated rod cladding. If so, this means that the
>> reactor was, well, superheated even at that time, so I would surmise
>> it has gone worse since then.
>>
>> For some reason, I find myself very skeptical about what will happen
>> to the reactor in the future.
>>
>> 3) Even if it explodes like the Chernobyl reactor, the damage to
>> mankind will be limited due to prevailing western winds, which will
>> carry most of the fallout into the Pacific.
>>
>> Myself, I had a benign thyroid tumor in 1993, 7 years after
>> Chernobyl. I was in the Ukraine at the moment when it exploded. I was
>> lucky that the tumor was found during a routine medical check.
>>
>> i
>
> Chernobyl isn't really a good comparison to a commercial power reactor.
> Chernobyl was a very old reactor design, with limited safety systems, in
> a state of pretty poor maintenance, and it still performed safely up
> until some idiots decided to play with it. Chernobyl is a great example
> of how safe nuclear power actually is since it took real effort to get
> it to fail.
right.
Chernobyl was a carbon unit. Not a tank of water. If one lowers a very
hot tube into carbon - it gives off CO2 and starts to burn. It then
destroys itself and you can't lower all of the way - preventing
shutdown. The carbon doesn't cool but shuts down interaction and volume
mass. Water does the same but also cools.
In water, the rods are dropped and if the coolant is there they get
cool. If not - or the tank is low or not conditioned with water
through an exchanger the pool will be heated and steam / boil out.
It then gets hotter with less water. Thus the want to add sea water.
The sea water is a stop gap and short lived. As they add more sea water
it cools and cools - steams and steams. But it will cool off.
The core is forever dead. Sea water killed all pipes.
The report was the outer containment building was cracked by the
earthquake. Pipes go in / out of the system - and it is these that
breached due to high pressure and temperature.
Naturally the steam given off from the salt water is likely nuke marked.
Martin
John
The Nuke plant that is over the hill from me has a couple of million
gallons of water stored for just such an emergency. It is uphill from
the reactors and therefore doesn't need to be pumped in if there is an
emergency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Kanto_Earthquake
John
Ignoramus858
You need to read a few more recent articles. It is the reactor
containment building that exlpoded and collapsed.
I was kind of beside it. My mom thinks that I was downwind. It is hard
to tell by now.
i
Michael A. Terrell
The new Duke/Progress Energy nuclear plant in Florida is to be a
Westinghouse design.
--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.
Ignoramus858
><ignora...@NOSPAM.858.invalid> wrote:
>
>>One more thing.
>>
>>They are pumping seawater into the reactor.
>>
>>I am smart enough to figure out that seawater comes from the sea.
>>
>>But where does it go TO after it comes out of the reactor?
>>
>>And are they cooling the inside of the reactor, or outside of this
>>shell?
>
> That's just dumb. Let it melt. It's not going anywhere. Adding water
> just increases the chance of radioactive steam release.
>
> P.S: I forgot to say "Congrats" on having found and removed your
> tumor. That's gotta be scary as hell.
>
Thanks. I lucked out big time. I am still not certain if Chernobyl is
to blame.
i
Ignoramus858
> On Mar 13, 4:04?pm, Ignoramus858 <ignoramus...@NOSPAM.858.invalid>
Chernobyl means, in Ukrainian, this type of grass:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_vulgaris
i
John R. Carroll
The AP1000 is a very good design by all accounts. China is going full bore
with these things but they bought hardware and the technology.
The emergency cooling is sort of a self licking ice cream cone.
I don't know how many reactors the Japanese are going to lose but it's at
least two so far.
Both are old but still, that's a lot of money to waste on a concrete land
mark.
I just read that they will be venting to the atmosphere for a considerable
period of time.
Possibly as long as a year - which seems a bit overstated - but people are
going to be unable to go home until the mess is buttoned up.
This is going to be an ongoing saga.
The Bank of Japan dumped more than eighty billion dollars into the Japanese
economy this morning.
That's real money.
--
John R. Carroll
Larry Jaques
That damnear every Liberal donates against and fights nuke power is
the other significant source.
Larry Jaques
>
>"rangerssuck" <range...@gmail.com> wrote in message
--nothing of value, as usual--
>You call me an "asshole" and expect an apology? Does vulgarity make you feel
>important and powerful? Good for you! You show your tiny little mentality with
>everything you post, troll. Have you ever posted on-topic? Why don't you stay in the
>troll section of Usenet?
You -know- he's a troll and still you talk with him? <sigh>
John
One of the workers at the local Nuke plant would set off the radiation
detector that they scan everyone with when they enter the plant. Come
to find out he took a vacation in Europe and brought back some food
products that he was consuming. The products had enough radiation to
set off the alarms.
John
Larry Jaques
<ignora...@NOSPAM.858.invalid> wrote:
>On 2011-03-13, Jim Wilkins <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What exactly does "Chernobyl" mean? I know the color but not the
>> second part.
>>
>Chernobyl means, in Ukrainian, this type of grass:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_vulgaris
Not grass, it's usually called sagebrush or wormwood. I have some
planted in my front yard for the wonderful, rural smell. I think it's
A. ludoviciana rather than vulgaris.
Steve W.
> The AP1000 is a very good design by all accounts. China is going full bore
> with these things but they bought hardware and the technology.
> The emergency cooling is sort of a self licking ice cream cone.
>
> I don't know how many reactors the Japanese are going to lose but it's at
> least two so far.
> Both are old but still, that's a lot of money to waste on a concrete land
> mark.
> I just read that they will be venting to the atmosphere for a considerable
> period of time.
> Possibly as long as a year - which seems a bit overstated - but people are
> going to be unable to go home until the mess is buttoned up.
> This is going to be an ongoing saga.
>
> The Bank of Japan dumped more than eighty billion dollars into the Japanese
> economy this morning.
> That's real money.
>
By WILLIAM TUCKER
Even while thousands of people are reported dead or missing, whole
neighborhoods lie in ruins, and gas and oil fires rage out of control,
press coverage of the Japanese earthquake has quickly settled on the
troubles at two nuclear reactors as the center of the catastrophe.
Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), a longtime opponent of nuclear power, has
warned of "another Chernobyl" and predicted "the same thing could happen
here." In response, he has called for an immediate suspension of
licensing procedures for the Westinghouse AP1000, a "Generation III"
reactor that has been laboring through design review at the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for seven years.
Before we respond with such panic, though, it would be useful to review
exactly what is happening in Japan and what we have to fear from it.
The core of a nuclear reactor operates at about 550 degrees Fahrenheit,
well below the temperature of a coal furnace and only slightly hotter
than a kitchen oven. If anything unusual occurs, the control rods
immediately drop, shutting off the nuclear reaction. You can't have a
"runaway reactor," nor can a reactor explode like a nuclear bomb. A
commercial reactor is to a bomb what Vaseline is to napalm. Although
both are made from petroleum jelly, only one of them has potentially
explosive material.
Once the reactor has shut down, there remains "decay heat" from traces
of other radioactive isotopes. This can take more than a week to cool
down, and the rods must be continually bathed in cooling waters to keep
them from overheating.
On all Generation II reactors—the ones currently in operation—the
cooling water is circulated by electric pumps. The new Generation III
reactors such as the AP1000 have a simplified "passive" cooling system
where the water circulates by natural convection with no pumping required.
If the pumps are knocked out in a Generation II reactor—as they were at
Fukushima Daiichi by the tsunami—the water in the cooling system can
overheat and evaporate. The resulting steam increases internal pressure
that must be vented. There was a small release of radioactive steam at
Three Mile Island in 1979, and there have also been a few releases at
Fukushima Daiichi. These produce radiation at about the level of one
dental X-ray in the immediate vicinity and quickly dissipate.
If the coolant continues to evaporate, the water level can fall below
the level of the fuel rods, exposing them. This will cause a meltdown,
meaning the fuel rods melt to the bottom of the steel pressure vessel.
Early speculation was that in a case like this the fuel might continue
melting right through the steel and perhaps even through the concrete
containment structure—the so-called China syndrome, where the fuel would
melt all the way to China. But Three Mile Island proved this doesn't
happen. The melted fuel rods simply aren't hot enough to melt steel or
concrete.
The decay heat must still be absorbed, however, and as a last-ditch
effort the emergency core cooling system can be activated to flood the
entire containment structure with water. This will do considerable
damage to the reactor but will prevent any further steam releases. The
Japanese have now reportedly done this using seawater in at least two of
the troubled reactors. These reactors will never be restarted.
None of this amounts to "another Chernobyl." The Chernobyl reactor had
two crucial design flaws. First, it used graphite (carbon) instead of
water to "moderate" the neutrons, which makes possible the nuclear
reaction. The graphite caught fire in April 1986 and burned for four
days. Water does not catch fire.
Second, Chernobyl had no containment structure. When the graphite caught
fire, it spouted a plume of radioactive smoke that spread across the
globe. A containment structure would have both smothered the fire and
contained the radioactivity.
If a meltdown does occur in Japan, it will be a disaster for the Tokyo
Electric Power Company but not for the general public. Whatever steam
releases occur will have a negligible impact. Researchers have spent 30
years trying to find health effects from the steam releases at Three
Mile Island and have come up with nothing. With all the death,
devastation and disease now threatening tens of thousands in Japan, it
is trivializing and almost obscene to spend so much time worrying about
damage to a nuclear reactor.
What the Japanese earthquake has proved is that even the oldest
containment structures can withstand the impact of one of the largest
earthquakes in recorded history. The problem has been with the
electrical pumps required to operate the cooling system. It would be
tragic if the result of the Japanese accident were to prevent
development of Generation III reactors, which eliminate this design flaw.
Mr. Tucker is author of "Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead
the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey" (Bartleby Press,
2010).
--
Steve W.
John R. Carroll
Mr. Markey is a little behind the times.
The AP1000 design has been certified and approved.
At least I remember reading recently that it had been.
--
John R. Carroll
Tom Gardner
Cheap, abundant energy HAS to be the bane of every liberal. With cheap, clean power,
all social problems go away and liberals exist to exploit victimhood and without
victims, liberals go away.
Tom Gardner
My bad! I redid this laptop and haven't filled the loony bin yet. I had forgotten
how vitriolic and vulgar they are. What attracts these trolls to rcm? They know
nothing about the subjects. And, why do people respond to them? <G>
Jim Wilkins
wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 22:45:37 -0500, Ignoramus858
>
> >On 2011-03-13, Jim Wilkins <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> What exactly does "Chernobyl" mean? I know the color but not the
> >> second part.
>
> >Chernobyl means, in Ukrainian, this type of grass:
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_vulgaris
>
> Not grass, it's usually called sagebrush or wormwood. I have some
> planted in my front yard for the wonderful, rural smell. I think it's
> A. ludoviciana rather than vulgaris.
Oh, Chorno, not Cherno. I wondered if it could be translated
"Blackened Crater".
jsw
Larry Jaques
wrote:
Scary, but read up on naturally radioactive places and find that their
incidences of cancer are lower than the rest of society's. I guess
that living with a higher than normal rad count beefs up your immune
system.
Speaking of alarms, my BS alarm went off and I was astounded to read
in my newspaper a few years ago about a local guy in Medford, OR who
set off a fire truck's radiation alarm as he passed by the truck in
his car. They chased him down (while the police caught up to them) and
he told them he had just had nuclear chemo at the local hospital. Them
rad monitor thangs be SENSITIVE! No wonder they tell you to stay away
from your partner and all kids for a week after nuke chemo.
--
Small opportunities are often the beginning of great enterprises.
-- Demosthenes
Ignoramus1540
Larry, radiation has effects that are specific to where it is
applied. It is one thing to get a dose X from backgroud radiation,
spread over the entire body. It it quite another thing to get the same
dose from radioactive iodine, localized in a one ounce organ like
thyroid.
i
Larry Jaques
wrote:
>John R. Carroll wrote:
>
>> The AP1000 is a very good design by all accounts. China is going full bore
>> with these things but they bought hardware and the technology.
>> The emergency cooling is sort of a self licking ice cream cone.
>>
>> I don't know how many reactors the Japanese are going to lose but it's at
>> least two so far.
>> Both are old but still, that's a lot of money to waste on a concrete land
>> mark.
>> I just read that they will be venting to the atmosphere for a considerable
>> period of time.
>> Possibly as long as a year - which seems a bit overstated - but people are
>> going to be unable to go home until the mess is buttoned up.
>> This is going to be an ongoing saga.
>>
>> The Bank of Japan dumped more than eighty billion dollars into the Japanese
>> economy this morning.
>> That's real money.
>>
>
>By WILLIAM TUCKER
>
>Even while thousands of people are reported dead or missing, whole
>neighborhoods lie in ruins, and gas and oil fires rage out of control,
>press coverage of the Japanese earthquake has quickly settled on the
>troubles at two nuclear reactors as the center of the catastrophe.
>
>Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), a longtime opponent of nuclear power
...and complete asshole warmingist (though he supports dirty, hot coal
over cool, clean nuclear power) from Taxachusetts.
>warned of "another Chernobyl" and predicted "the same thing could happen
>here." In response, he has called for an immediate suspension of
>licensing procedures for the Westinghouse AP1000, a "Generation III"
>reactor that has been laboring through design review at the Nuclear
>Regulatory Commission for seven years.
Predictable Liberal knee-jerk action.
--big snip--
>Mr. Tucker is author of "Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead
>the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey" (Bartleby Press,
>2010).
Though I'm not completely in sync with his ideas, I highly recommend
this book. It covers the gamut of power options in detail.
rangerssuck
Apparently, you have never read my posts IN SUPPORT of nuckear power.
nor have you read my posts concerning meatalworking. But that is to be
expected from narrow-minded, tunnel-vision-afflicted individuals like
you. I'm sorry I called you an asshole. It was a knee-jerk response to
your incredibly insensitive remark implying that anyone would be happy
about the release of radiation from a damaged nuclear plant.
Are you really so far out there on the wing that you don't believe
that people can agree on some subjects while disagreeing on others? Do
you really have no room in your life for anyone who isn't exactly like
you? If so, then plonk away.
Larry Jaques
I knew that. My comment was more regarding the Europeans than Japan. I
should have specified. And I know that people visiting high-rad areas
aren't as safe eating those foods as those who were born there.
jim
Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 21:12:49 +0800, "Dennis #1" <blu...@blibber.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I agree Tom, the failures in Japan are going to put chances of many of us
> >(eg Australia) getting nuclear power back decades.
>
> Yeah, damnit, it appears that way, but please wait until the truth
> comes out. All that's happening right now is that the anti-nuke groups
> are spewing bullshit fears.
>
> >I wonder if a few decades
> >into the future those like the anti-nuclear greenies will be effectively be
> >viewed as those who stuffed our evironment.
>
> I already view them as the anti-environment terrorists. I wouldn't put
> it past one of the venomous anti-nuke fidiots to blow up a plant, just
> to prove how bad it could be. Crazy mofos.
Can you see the huge contradiction in your statement?
If opponents to nuclear are the ones in control
Why would they need to blow anything up
that would just weaken their position
Fact is the opponents to nuclear have
practically zero political clout
The only reason more nuclear plants are not being built
is because investors think the risks outweigh the rewards
jim
Tom Gardner wrote:
>
> Cheap, abundant energy HAS to be the bane of every liberal. With cheap, clean power,
> all social problems go away and liberals exist to exploit victimhood and without
> victims, liberals go away.
So liberals are literally undermining the efforts to extract resources
like oil?
Do Liberals dig holes under oil reservoirs
and that explains why the oil has become
so deep and difficult to extract?
Tom Gardner
**************
Yes, the fringe left relishes anything that furthers the agenda as does the fringe
right, I point out both. I apologize for my reaction but I have seen and read such
comments that verify my observations. My politics is Capitalism, neither and both
liberal and conservative. I run my business for the benefit of my employees,
customers, suppliers and community and take advantage of or lie to none.
Sunworshipper
Hmmm, I skipped over the third dead horse beating about magog in a
book. How did you get to blackended crater? That's what it looked
like. Strange, like Gilgamesh era comet, wormwood, Amarah Crater. Did
the designers or powers that be name it knowing eventually it would
melt down and look like a crater? The comet would look fuzzy like the
plant also. And it is north of Is it real.
http://www.prophecyfellowship.org/showthread.php?t=246466
They should just build the power plants in a vertical hard rock mine
and just bury it in concrete when it expires.
SW
Sunworshipper
wrote:
Furthermore, impacts make green tektites from the nickel in iron
meteorites. Would nickel burn green like the plant in the atmosphere?
SW
Steve W.
Since when do FACTS matter to the anti-nuke, anti-wind, anti-oil
drilling, anti-gun bunch...
Much better to come out screaming and get those sound bites about the
doom and gloom and determine what happened from a couple pictures
instead of actually asking about what actually happened.
Note just how many anti-nuke people on this group jumped up and started
saying "see what did WE tell you, look how bad those nukes are"
Instead of actually READING and listening to the facts about what is
happening and what is likely to occur, you have people screaming
"MELTDOWN, MELTDOWN the world is going to end." "It's going to be a
Chernobyl sized disaster."
Of course these same people only real education about nuclear power
comes from the TV or "news stories".
I have quite a few friend in the industry, one of whom was one of the
designers on the AP1000. A few more are high level operations and
containment designers. For the most part they are ALL saying that there
has NOT been enough information given yet for people who are not
actually on site to determine the level of damage.
--
Steve W.
Steve W.
No they just place the areas where the material is off limits or declare
it a national reserve and lock it away.
They also like to make the regulatory system so difficult that there is
no way to get through it.
--
Steve W.
rangerssuck
>
> - Show quoted text -
You may have read such comments, but I assure you, you did not read
them from me. My political beliefs are, in general, very different
from yours. That does not, however, mean that we need to be enemies,
nor does it mean that we disagree on everything.
jim
"Steve W." wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
> >
> > Tom Gardner wrote:
> >
> >> Cheap, abundant energy HAS to be the bane of every liberal. With cheap, clean power,
> >> all social problems go away and liberals exist to exploit victimhood and without
> >> victims, liberals go away.
> >
> > So liberals are literally undermining the efforts to extract resources
> > like oil?
> >
> > Do Liberals dig holes under oil reservoirs
> > and that explains why the oil has become
> > so deep and difficult to extract?
>
> No they just place the areas where the material is off limits or declare
> it a national reserve and lock it away.
That may be, but extracting it from the ground
and consuming at a much faster rate
would have accomplished exactly what?
If the US continued to extract and consume US oil reserves
along the same trajectory as it was heading on in 1971
How much US oil would be left today?
In other words US is consuming half
as much domestic oil as it did in 1971
Had the US continued to extract and consume
along the trajectory it was set on in 1971
it would be consuming 3 times as much oil
from US sources instead of half as much
So how much oil would be left in the ground had the US taken
your pedal to the metal approach to extraction and consumption?
> They also like to make the regulatory system so difficult that there is
> no way to get through it.
Maybe there is no way for you to wrap your head around it
But...
Almost all industry regulation is formulated by
persons from the regulated industry
And then those regulations are administered
by persons from that regulated industry also
The oil industry is the prime example of this
-jim
>
> --
> Steve W.
Steve W.
>> No they just place the areas where the material is off limits or declare
>> it a national reserve and lock it away.
>
> That may be, but extracting it from the ground
> and consuming at a much faster rate
> would have accomplished exactly what?
>
> If the US continued to extract and consume US oil reserves
> along the same trajectory as it was heading on in 1971
> How much US oil would be left today?
In case you haven't noticed there have been MORE oil reserves found in
the US since that time. Just been banned by the liberals from actually
getting them.
>
> In other words US is consuming half
> as much domestic oil as it did in 1971
> Had the US continued to extract and consume
> along the trajectory it was set on in 1971
> it would be consuming 3 times as much oil
> from US sources instead of half as much
>
> So how much oil would be left in the ground had the US taken
> your pedal to the metal approach to extraction and consumption?
>
>
>> They also like to make the regulatory system so difficult that there is
>> no way to get through it.
>
> Maybe there is no way for you to wrap your head around it
> But...
> Almost all industry regulation is formulated by
> persons from the regulated industry
> And then those regulations are administered
> by persons from that regulated industry also
> The oil industry is the prime example of this
>
> -jim
So in your world Obama isn't the person who signed the moratorium on
drilling offshore, and it couldn't have been Bill Clinton who signed the
laws that locked up thousands of acres of coal, and it must have been
the nasty people at BP who drew up abd singed the paperwork blocking
drilling on the north slope and in ANWAR.
I'm sure it was folks from Exxon who created the latest permit system
that runs the applicant in circles and stops anything from actually
happening in oil exploration .
Just like it is those folks who design and build the big wind turbines
who passed laws stopping them from being constructed off the coast of Mass.
Yep sure can see how it is the INDUSTRY in charge.
Maybe you need to actually understand how the REAL world operates. Not
your little SIM world.
--
Steve W.
jim
"Steve W." wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
> >> No they just place the areas where the material is off limits or declare
> >> it a national reserve and lock it away.
> >
> > That may be, but extracting it from the ground
> > and consuming at a much faster rate
> > would have accomplished exactly what?
> >
> > If the US continued to extract and consume US oil reserves
> > along the same trajectory as it was heading on in 1971
> > How much US oil would be left today?
>
> In case you haven't noticed there have been MORE oil reserves found in
> the US since that time. Just been banned by the liberals from actually
> getting them.
Your not even going to make a wild guess
at what the answer is
>
> >
> > In other words US is consuming half
> > as much domestic oil as it did in 1971
> > Had the US continued to extract and consume
> > along the trajectory it was set on in 1971
> > it would be consuming 3 times as much oil
> > from US sources instead of half as much
> >
> > So how much oil would be left in the ground had the US taken
> > your pedal to the metal approach to extraction and consumption?
> >
> >
> >> They also like to make the regulatory system so difficult that there is
> >> no way to get through it.
> >
> > Maybe there is no way for you to wrap your head around it
> > But...
> > Almost all industry regulation is formulated by
> > persons from the regulated industry
> > And then those regulations are administered
> > by persons from that regulated industry also
> > The oil industry is the prime example of this
> >
> > -jim
>
> So in your world Obama isn't the person who signed the moratorium on
> drilling offshore, and it couldn't have been Bill Clinton who signed the
> laws that locked up thousands of acres of coal, and it must have been
> the nasty people at BP who drew up abd singed the paperwork blocking
> drilling on the north slope and in ANWAR.
I didn't say anything about the hob goblins who sign stuff
Did hob goblins sign something
that locked up your ability to reason?
And why are you calling folks nasty
they're just trying to make a buck
> I'm sure it was folks from Exxon who created the latest permit system
> that runs the applicant in circles and stops anything from actually
> happening in oil exploration .
I'm also sure it was the folks from Exxon (inter alia)
It is easy to tell (what appears like circles to you)
helps Exxon make more money in the long run
but why don't you try to tell me how it hurts Exxon
One of the things Exxon has probably noticed
that seems to have escaped your attention
the stuff is not losing value
as it sits there underground
And it isn't as if Exxon is sitting off in the corner
with nothing to do but
cry and mope about where they might find
a barrel of oil to sell
> Just like it is those folks who design and build the big wind turbines
> who passed laws stopping them from being constructed off the coast of Mass.
You mean the wind industry might not be so entrenched
as the oil industry
Oh My! Quelle surprise
Tom Gardner
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
news:xumdnXQe0-tB5ePQ...@bright.net...
So, just who the FUCK is responsible for me not getting my atomic-powered flying car
that I was promised when I was a kid?
Rich Grise
>>detector that they scan everyone with when they enter the plant. Come
>>to find out he took a vacation in Europe and brought back some food
>>products that he was consuming. The products had enough radiation to
>>set off the alarms.
>
> Scary, but read up on naturally radioactive places and find that their
> incidences of cancer are lower than the rest of society's. I guess
> that living with a higher than normal rad count beefs up your immune
> system.
>
> Speaking of alarms, my BS alarm went off and I was astounded to read
> in my newspaper a few years ago about a local guy in Medford, OR who
> set off a fire truck's radiation alarm as he passed by the truck in
> his car. They chased him down (while the police caught up to them) and
> he told them he had just had nuclear chemo at the local hospital. Them
> rad monitor thangs be SENSITIVE! No wonder they tell you to stay away
> from your partner and all kids for a week after nuke chemo.
Isn't it terribly strange that "radiation," which is used to _treat_
cancer, is now also getting blamed for _causing_ it?
Which does it do, cause it or cure it? Can you really have it both
ways?
Thanks,
Rich
Tom Gardner
***************
I prefer civil discourse but bristle when insulted. Most people don't like vulgar
terms. And, I don't just agree or just disagree with anyone and learn something from
everyone.
John R. Carroll
Clinton.
Look it up.
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
Your posts, for better or worse, aren't a reflection of whoever you are
responding to.
You know that.
--
John R. Carroll
Beryl
>
> Note just how many anti-nuke people on this group jumped up and started
> saying "see what did WE tell you, look how bad those nukes are"
How many? Where?
All I see are pro-nuke people repeatedly jumping up to tell us what
anti-nuke people must be saying.
John
I didn't get an atomic car but I did have a chemistry set with some
uranium and some other stuff that would cause the agents to raid your
house today if they knew you had the stuff.
John
Tom Gardner
"Rich Grise" <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ilm72l$qd7$5...@news.eternal-september.org...
It depends on the polarity and frequency of the radiation.
Gru...@wanderingabouttheearth.org
It is difficult to ignore the journalists, though.
They are positively squealing and touching themselves over this.
"WHAT? They did not design something for a 9.0 earthquake, followed by a 30
foot tsunami??"
"That's why we need WIND and SOLAR! And HYDROGEN!"
It's all free, you know.
Every dump-picker on EBay is selling every treadmill motor they find as a
"wind generator", so it must be true.
Rich Grise
Well, duh. Of course not. They have their Obamessiah issue an imperial
edict forbidding drilling.
If you can't see the difference there, then you either need medical
attention or at least remedial education in elementary science.
Hope This Helps!
Rich
Rich Grise
> "Steve W." wrote:
>>
>> No they just place the areas where the material is off limits or declare
>> it a national reserve and lock it away.
>
> That may be, but extracting it from the ground
> and consuming at a much faster rate
> would have accomplished exactly what?
1. Reduce dependence on Islamist countries' oil.
2. Keep the cost of gasoline below $4.00 (going on 5)/gallon.
3. Let the corn farmers actually produce food, rather than have their
resources diverted to pie-in-the-sky schemes for "ethanol."
4. Remove the necessity for the astronomical government subsidies (paid for
out of your pocket, unless you evade your taxes) needed to create the
illusion that solar and wind are viable.
5. Employ a lot of people who build and operate the rigs and refineries.
OK, that's all I have so off the top of my head - anybody else want to chime
in on this one?
Thanks,
Rich
Rich Grise
>
> So, just who the FUCK is responsible for me not getting my atomic-powered
> flying car that I was promised when I was a kid?
Flying cars? Are you kidding? We would need full implementation of some
sort of collision-avoidance system - can you imagine if the drivers who
kill 50,000 people every year on the highways, which are well-defined
paths, were allowed to fly in three dimensions?
Well, maybe it would help with Darwinizing the idiots. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
rangerssuck
> So, just who the FUCK is responsible for me not getting my atomic-powered flying car
> that I was promised when I was a kid?
Tom -
Yet another thing we agree on (imagine that - two in a day!).
I plan to start a class-action lawsuit against the publishers of
Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. They promised me a flying car,
a jetpack and a gyrocopter and a hovercraft. They have utterly failed
to deliver, and I'm pissed. I think about this every time I'm forced
to drive into midtown Manhattan on business (as I will be doing
tomorrow). It would be so completely cool to be flying around the city
like the Jetsons.
jim
>
> jim wrote:
> ? "Steve W." wrote:
> ??
> ?? No they just place the areas where the material is off limits or declare
> ?? it a national reserve and lock it away.
> ?
> ? That may be, but extracting it from the ground
> ? and consuming at a much faster rate
> ? would have accomplished exactly what?
>
> 1. Reduce dependence on Islamist countries' oil.
> 2. Keep the cost of gasoline below $4.00 (going on 5)/gallon.
> 3. Let the corn farmers actually produce food, rather than have their
> resources diverted to pie-in-the-sky schemes for "ethanol."
> 4. Remove the necessity for the astronomical government subsidies (paid for
> out of your pocket, unless you evade your taxes) needed to create the
> illusion that solar and wind are viable.
> 5. Employ a lot of people who build and operate the rigs and refineries.
>
The only thing your plan accomplishes is to deplete
the oil supply earlier rather than later
Are you in a hurry to get it out of the ground
before the price goes up?
Farmers are much happier growing crops
they can sell at a profit
rather growing food that no one wants at a loss
and having the government make up the difference
Tom Gardner
"Rich Grise" <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote in message
How did the Jetsons do it?
Tom Gardner
Tom -
*********
That's why I'm such a bitter old man.
Rich Grise
Well, being a cartoon probably helped. ;-D
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
> On Mar 14, 7:06 pm, "Tom Gardner" <w@w> wrote:
>
>> So, just who the FUCK is responsible for me not getting my atomic-powered
>> flying car that I was promised when I was a kid?
>
>
> I plan to start a class-action lawsuit against the publishers of
> Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. They promised me a flying car,
> a jetpack and a gyrocopter and a hovercraft. They have utterly failed
> to deliver, and I'm pissed. I think about this every time I'm forced
> to drive into midtown Manhattan on business (as I will be doing
> tomorrow). It would be so completely cool to be flying around the city
> like the Jetsons.
Well, you _could_ get or build a gyrocopter; jetpacks exist, but they're
prohibitively expensive and can only carry a few minutes' worth of
fuel, and you can build your own hovercraft:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=hovercraft+construction+project
There have been several flying cars on the market in the past, but
apparently nobody could afford one, and there's that pesky pilot's
license issue, but I guess you don't need a license for an ultralight.
So what's your real problem?
Thanks,
Rich
Larry Jaques
With sprockets. They were pre-Flubber.
--
Small opportunities are often the beginning of great enterprises.
-- Demosthenes
jim
> > So liberals are literally undermining the efforts to extract resources
> > like oil?
> >
> > Do Liberals dig holes under oil reservoirs
> > and that explains why the oil has become
> > so deep and difficult to extract?
>
> Well, duh. Of course not. They have their Obamessiah issue an imperial
> edict forbidding drilling.
>
> If you can't see the difference there, then you either need medical
> attention or at least remedial education in elementary science.
>
I can see the difference or
why would I have posed it as a premise to a question
that depended solely on pondering the difference
But instead of pondering
You assert without any thought or evidence in support
that consumption of US domestic oil reserves
at the maximum possible rate is an inherently good thing
And you make it clear that anyone who questions
this self-serving logic
is obviously evil
and thus ends the discussion
rangerssuck
> rangerssuck wrote:
> > On Mar 14, 7:06 pm, "Tom Gardner" <w@w> wrote:
>
> >> So, just who the FUCK is responsible for me not getting my atomic-powered
> >> flying car that I was promised when I was a kid?
>
> > Yet another thing we agree on (imagine that - two in a day!).
>
> > I plan to start a class-action lawsuit against the publishers of
> > Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. They promised me a flying car,
> > a jetpack and a gyrocopter and a hovercraft. They have utterly failed
> > to deliver, and I'm pissed. I think about this every time I'm forced
> > to drive into midtown Manhattan on business (as I will be doing
> > tomorrow). It would be so completely cool to be flying around the city
> > like the Jetsons.
>
> Well, you _could_ get or build a gyrocopter; jetpacks exist, but they're
> prohibitively expensive and can only carry a few minutes' worth of
>
> There have been several flying cars on the market in the past, but
> apparently nobody could afford one, and there's that pesky pilot's
> license issue, but I guess you don't need a license for an ultralight.
>
> So what's your real problem?
>
> Thanks,
> Rich
What's the deal, Rich? Are you a corporate shill for Popular Science?
Promises were made, promises were broken. I intend to hold them (or is
it you?) to account.
rangerssuck
> "rangerssuck" <rangerss...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You ought to try being a bitter old man driving in the neighborhood of
the Empire State Building. THAT will really put a frown on you :-)