• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Nuclear Damage

if I would take all these advices at once, there would be no end to my tranquility ('relax', 'take chill pill', 'calm down'). whenever I attempted such a tact, like 'taking some more sleeping action', in the back of my mind, every second since march 2011, the clock was ticking and nobody could stop general consensus in society (it will be allright one day/nothing we can do), and people helped me everyday to not worry to much about the absurd facts on Dai Ichi, or nuclear industry in general. of course, there's not much anybody can do to help stop exposure of the ecosystem with radio-nucleides. this way nobody has had at least one chance, ever since an offshore quake hit Japan and caused the tsunami and so on. recently I discovered a difference in morality with regard to arguments that are lies, false excuses and general consensus concerning the danger of nuclear industry (that easily apply to Fukushima) whilst at the same time reality is yelling at everybody: 'don't believe that, don't buy that, don't accept that!'. the entire planet will end up being considered 'radio-active waste' and this is exactly unacceptable, most would agree, if they were confronted with facts, examples from reality. so, again a handful industrial criminals have done it now, including the states of France, Japan and General Electric (industrial USA). they HAD seen this coming, they WERE aware the reactors were far from safe, the cheapest, oldest design Mark-1 type, before GE exported them in 1976. also, of course, France knew this in 1999 when they exported a bunch of mox-fuel to Dai Ichi. a few posts back you can watch the detonation of stored material in factory 3 and ever since that occurred 'everything is only time passing' watching the drama unfold that can in legal terms be labeled 'gross negligence'. it's only human error, animals never build reactors! the discussion is now on a philosophical or religious level: why do humans do these things? apart from wordly gain, like money or military interests, nobody really benefits on this day: USS Ronald Reagan sailed through the plume and Dai Ichi puts 'nuclear' in a bad light, just like the Hanford-site and Chernobyl. all for nothing: if the opposition (like greenpeace) would take the political momentum of the Dai Ichi-catastrophe and succesfully BAN the use of this technology, they even would be to late to save the ecosystem from 'unimaginable' exposure! this is the reason why most people take it leisurely and only hope for the best, they know they are powerless and will have no protection for fall-out. industry and politics also know this, so because everybody is waiting for others' reactions, now the Pacific Ocean has died. in older posts I already assured you, I'm of a different hand: any leaf of grass that is exposed to any radio-active debri is more evidence of 'gross negligence' and of course any other innocent victim of radiation exposure has a right to live, so my primary goal in the future will be to help defend any creatures right to life on this world, and just mock the crooks that built these reactors, 'they missed the point', says Claudia Stauber in the Fukushima-episode of 'cabin talk', I posted earlier, 'they behave exactly like addicts!'
 
Last edited:
So, again a handful industrial criminals have done it now, including the states of France, Japan and General Electric (industrial USA). they HAD seen this coming, they WERE aware the reactors were far from safe, the cheapest, oldest design Mark-1 type, before GE exported them in 1976. also, of course, France knew this in 1999 when they exported a bunch of mox-fuel to Dai Ichi. ... 'they missed the point', says Claudia Stauber in the Fukushima-episode of 'cabin talk', I posted earlier, 'they behave exactly like addicts!'

If your argument is that the Nucelar industry runs on thanatos, I would agree. The Dai-Ichi plants should never have been ratified for use in Japan, especially not in a coastal area. Japan is, for starters, too disaster prone, vis earthquakes, cyclones, tsunamis, volcanoes etc for nuclear power to be a safe option. The people who bear the prime responsibility imo are Japan's high court, who ratified the building of the plants and performed no due dilligence in the choice of sites, abiding unquestioningly to the information provided by Dai-Ichi. The Japanese High Court were told that a natural disaster event capable of disabling the plant was impossible, yet Japan in 1920 had experienced a "perfect storm" of natural disasters before in Tokyo Bay that should have given anyone pause. Then there was the issue that the plants had not been upgraded since the 1960s when they were built. You would think that Japan of all nations would lead the world in disaster robotics, and that drones like bomb disposal robots would be activated to fix the damage. No, it was warm bodies in bad NBC suits. Some people are addicts, they're addicted to money, and they will do anything and say anything to get it.
 
If your argument is that the Nucelar industry runs on thanatos, I would agree. The Dai-Ichi plants should never have been ratified for use in Japan, especially not in a coastal area. Japan is, for starters, too disaster prone, vis earthquakes, cyclones, tsunamis, volcanoes etc for nuclear power to be a safe option. The people who bear the prime responsibility imo are Japan's high court, who ratified the building of the plants and performed no due dilligence in the choice of sites, abiding unquestioningly to the information provided by Dai-Ichi. The Japanese High Court were told that a natural disaster event capable of disabling the plant was impossible, yet Japan in 1920 had experienced a "perfect storm" of natural disasters before in Tokyo Bay that should have given anyone pause. Then there was the issue that the plants had not been upgraded since the 1960s when they were built. You would think that Japan of all nations would lead the world in disaster robotics, and that drones like bomb disposal robots would be activated to fix the damage. No, it was warm bodies in bad NBC suits. Some people are addicts, they're addicted to money, and they will do anything and say anything to get it.
That's it, pretty much.
If properly managed and engineered, nuclear power can be a very safe, green means of power production. That there have been a few problems does not mean nuclear power is generally unsafe, it just means that accidents can happen if people are stupid.
The first nuclear power station accident in Western Europe happened here in the UK (Windscale). The man who personally went into the reactor to cap it off only died recently, of old age.
List of accidents and deaths here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
OK, it doesn't list deaths that were indirectly caused by the accidents, but it's not really possible to establish those.
I was exposed to radiation when I was a kid (had a watch, a compass and an alarm clock with radioactive paint). I'm still alive.
 
That's it, pretty much.
If properly managed and engineered, nuclear power can be a very safe, green means of power production. That there have been a few problems does not mean nuclear power is generally unsafe, it just means that accidents can happen if people are stupid.

We know people do stupid things. So design so that even stupid acts cannot cause an accident. And that includes commercial imperatives and decisions made, shall we say, 'at above engineering level'.

The first nuclear power station accident in Western Europe happened here in the UK (Windscale). The man who personally went into the reactor to cap it off only died recently, of old age.
List of accidents and deaths here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
OK, it doesn't list deaths that were indirectly caused by the accidents, but it's not really possible to establish those.
We should remember this man with grateful thanks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cockcroft

His rational stubborn insistence saved many lives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cockcroft#Cockcroft's_Folly

Terence Price, future scientific advisor at the Ministry of Defence in the 1960s, pointed out "the word folly did not seem appropriate after the accident"
 
We know people do stupid things. So design so that even stupid acts cannot cause an accident. And that includes commercial imperatives and decisions made, shall we say, 'at above engineering level'.
Yep. That.
 
We know people do stupid things. So design so that even stupid acts cannot cause an accident. And that includes commercial imperatives and decisions made, shall we say, 'at above engineering level'.


We should remember this man with grateful thanks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cockcroft

His rational stubborn insistence saved many lives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cockcroft#Cockcroft's_Folly
Do statements to the effect that all life on earth will cease in ten years not meet this standard?
 
Do statements to the effect that all life on earth will cease in ten years not meet this standard?
I think we have far more to fear in the event of a mass extinction of insects. That would kill us all in 2 years.
 
..So design so that even stupid acts cannot cause an accident ..

A certain Mr Murphy will be rolling around on the floor over that one.

INT21;)
 
next up: SUPERGROVER will singlehandedly ban the Tokyo 2020 radi-olympic games!
2.jpg

[redirecting some people to this thread via e-mail, the global nuclear headache, ego growing out of realistic proportions like a tumor, aged 46]:
I am a born cage-rattler ! in the future I will pop up someplace, sometime to rattle the 'Global Atomic Cage' some more! it was set up by previous generations of pseudo-scientific, amoral idiots, who did their exact utmost to provide nuclear safety, because governments would only grant them their chances to exist, if they would accept strict regulations.
through the Dai Ichi-incident reality shows these governments are failures, as well as atomic industries. now, about the 'liability clause', before I leave for some other endeavours, I have a rotten example: if I would drive a rotten car down a rotten highway, only to cause a rotten accident, because the brakes on the car were rotting, I can be presumed 'liable' if I KNEW (was consciously aware) the brakes were bad, right?! just sue Tepco and GE for the damage caused by their gross negligence, but not now, this time isn't right: I already spat my soul out last summer on the Forteana-floor, only to leave it for others to pick up whatever was left of it's inductive capacities, through the 'great dai ichi-massacre'.. of course, everybody already knows, slowly we get killed-off collectively by a handful of sociopaths! Fukushima fall-out is not exactly the 'type of dust you can sweep under the carpet', TOO TOXIC!
[don't retaliate, don't revolt, don't overthrow your government or cause more chaos, because these 'poor ol' NATO-molochs' were totally helpless to NOT legalise/implement 'nuclear power'! I think 'somebody' blackmailed/framed/bribed/set them up a long time ago]
 
Last edited:
...only to cause a rotten accident, because the breaks on the car were rotting, I can be presumed 'liable' if I KNEW (was consciously aware) the breaks were bad, right?! ..

But wouldn't your transport laws require a yearly mechanical examination. The failure of which would have prevented the legal use of your crappy car ?

So if you were driving the car in defiance of local law then the responsibility for any accident caused by mechanical failure would be yours; would it not ?

INT21
 
If properly managed and engineered, nuclear power can be a very safe, green means of power production.

While agreeing with pretty much everything else you have written here, I must take issue with this point Mythopoeika. Let us entirely rule out the possibility of nuclear accidents and how it provides fissionable material for weapons for a moment, and just consider the green credentials of the nucelar industry for a moment in terms of the technology alone. I can't be fairer than that.

The simple fact is, that the fossil fuels that go into the building of a nuclear plant. plus the decade of lead time before it comes online and starts producing power are of an order of 10 times the total energy we will ever get out of a nuclear plant before it must be decomissioned for health and safety. That includes thorium plants, that are the safest. The summary is, nuclear energy can be made safe (with difficulty), but it will never be anything remotely close to environmentally sustainable. That is just nuclear industry propaganda, by which I mean lies.

I understand that there are fresh possibilities presenting themselves to do with nuclear fusion (not fission), that are realistically coming online in the next decade, but I haven't been able to reviw the tech specs. I might have to make an exception for these in my unilateral condemnation of this "technology tree".

I was exposed to radiation when I was a kid (had a watch, a compass and an alarm clock with radioactive paint). I'm still alive.

Radiation affects people quite differently. Generally it affects children the worst, but older people who have soaked up more rads over their lifetime have a better ability to cope. Hence the old people moving back into the Chernobyl area and being none the worse for it. The truth is, anyone who grew up during the Cold War and atmospheric nuclear testing will have been under threat.
 
...only to cause a rotten accident, because the breaks on the car were rotting, I can be presumed 'liable' if I KNEW (was consciously aware) the breaks were bad, right?! ..

But wouldn't your transport laws require a yearly mechanical examination. The failure of which would have prevented the legal use of your crappy car ?

So if you were driving the car in defiance of local law then the responsibility for any accident caused by mechanical failure would be yours; would it not ?

INT21

that! is a very corrupting argument, int21! once you start thinking like that you don't assume any responsibility, unless it's not lawful! imo, it should be flipped in reverse: only drive a crappy car, cause accidents, whilst being consciously aware the brakes are rotting, but never mind, I'm only liable if law-enforcement detects me being aware of my negligence. I will leave it to them to prove in court, I MUST HAVE KNOWN SOMEHOW the brakes were bad, and so on, indefinitely! in reality, luckily, I don't drive a car and started to turn more anarchist/radikalising, just because in general lawgiving will not provide 'watertight' security or safety, some will always escape detection and trick legality leaving others in the mess, like this entire generation is forced, whether amoral or not, to live in the radio-active fall-out!
 
Last edited:
...that! is a very corrupting argument, int21! once you start thinking like that you don't assume any responsibility, unless it's not lawful! ..

No, you are not following my logic.

In the UK my car has to be tested for mechanical safety every year. But it is specified on the certificate that the vehicle is pronounced good AT THE TIME OF THE TEST.
If the brakes fail the following day (which they shouldn't) then it would be down to an investigating engineer, probably from my insurance company, to work out what went wrong. And thus to apportion blame and culpability.

...I MUST HAVE KNOWN SOMEHOW the brakes were bad ..

You should have at least noticed something wasn't right.

It is highly unusual for a major mechanical failure (timing belts excepted) to happen on a vehicle the has been recently tested. And one should get an indication of any new problems that will get you to seek further investigation. I.e soft brake pedal, car pulling to one side etc. Brakes do not generally have a total catastrophic failure with no warning.

The Citroen BX was a notable exception to this.

I have had three brake failure problems over the years. Two of which could have been catastrophic.

In one case, in the aforementioned BX, the hydraulic pump suddenly failed. On these cars the pump works the suspension and the brakes. So no brakes. But the hand brake was good.

The second was during a very long drive across Germany. after hours on hardly touching the brakes I suddenly had to stop behind a line of traffic. And the pedal went soft. Hardly any brake. Almost ran into the car in front. Brake seal cylinder leak. Not there at the start of the journey.

And in the third case I noticed the pedal was betting soft and also a small patch of brake fluid on the flood by a rear wheel. Again, brake seal. Fitted new cylinder.

But in all cases it was toward the end of the last test year.

Remember, the pilot is always ultimately responsible for his plane; or car in this case.

If you don't drive, then you don't have these problems.

I wouldn't worry too much about kicking up radioactive dust. You are more likely to be killed by a cyclist riding at night with no lights than you are to die of radiation poisoning.

INT21.
 
whatever, I completely don't adore cars or legality in general. some people out here are even now still trying to mention 'the benefits' of splitting an atom! I think the element FIRE is good to help you boil water to help cure an infection, or to cook a meal, but massive bushfires burning down the state of california are considered not so good! before, again, I enter into any moral, ethical or religious discussion with you, let me remind you: next week is Valentine's day! let's all send Japan some flowers!
 
whatever, I completely don't adore cars or legality in general. some people out here are even now still trying to mention 'the benefits' of splitting an atom! I think the element FIRE is good to help you boil water to help cure an infection, or to cook a meal, but massive bushfires burning down the state of california are considered not so good! before, again, I enter into any moral, ethical or religious discussion with you, let me remind you: next week is Valentine's day! let's all send Japan some flowers!

BTW I believe in Japan you are supposed to send pornographic chocolate treats on St. Valentines Day, or people won't quite understand what the gift is for. (0.5 jk)
 
okay, we'll do that, hahaHAHAha! really Dai Ichi is the worst 'fire-dragon' they ever launched!

5.png
 
Last edited:
While agreeing with pretty much everything else you have written here, I must take issue with this point Mythopoeika. Let us entirely rule out the possibility of nuclear accidents and how it provides fissionable material for weapons for a moment, and just consider the green credentials of the nucelar industry for a moment in terms of the technology alone. I can't be fairer than that.

.

While Brother AlchoPwn is not available to comment (for a while), it is only fair to point out that Thorium Reactors get around this problem as the products aren't fissionable. And they fail-safe.

INT21.
 
'they also said that about all their atom-splitting activities before, but how will they find the time to prove sceptics wrong, after this ecocidal century?' (just get space-x involved and rather do your petty research on Mars! that planet is already completely destroyed with american radiation anyway).
 
well, I would never admit they stole it somewhere, but as dr. Brandenburg's story has it some 'alien race' (foreign to Mars) used 2 airburst hydrogen-nukes, causing an absurd local amount of Xenon-129 in the previous episode of The Cold War. I think dr. John Brandenburg was NOT implying USSR did that, so.. later on they mapped the fall-out and NASA sent over some robotic vehicles to the exact same area on Mars (near cydonia-valley)
 
Guess I must have missed that.
 
Last edited:
how about this, at least it has a sense of humour! (just like dr. John Brandenburg)


next: I'll be in the Troll's Head trying to fundraise for 'The Real Mars-terraforming Project'.. (initially, we're going to need about 385 trillion bucks to start up our independent theme-park on Mars, including a huge roller-coaster-ride, that will help explain to 'alien visitors' what happened to the Earth and her sister-planet Mars, before space-x does).
sayanara
 
Last edited:
Back
Top