posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:50 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Its funny (in a not so funny way) that a week or so back the radio shows were talking up nuke energy.
Is it "relatively" safe? (sorry for the pun) yes. When it goes bad, is it REAL BAD? yep.
is there any way to mitigate future issues with "worst case" scenarios? Dont know. I guess they could have a "lead coffin" onsite for if "IT"
happened. I saw this one guy from south america that had developed "tsunami" capsules that could carry 75 people. Cool idea...sort of. 100+
million folks at 75 per unit. These things are going to be at least the size of a good sized house. You will need 13,334 of these things. Minimum
Where you gonna put'em? but i digress from the main point.
I've really liked it when "experts" came on to say that Chernobyl "wasnt that bad". One guy said "yeah, 1000 people came down with leukemia but
990 were cured".
1. I dont want leukemia even if its for a short visit.
2. I dont want leukemia treatment.
3. I wonder what ther REAL numbers were.
To the point of ships reading radiation 200 miles off from Japan. That means that a general radius of 200 miles of ground zero is glowing.
How many expectant mothers are freaking out? How many people are going to die?
Twice in less than 100 years? Nope. Thats too much for the Japanese to have to bear.
Will they bounce back? I give it a 90% yes. The "upside" of when the bomb went off was there were no rods left to continue to cook off. It was
done and over. This wont be as nice.