Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Japanese Finally admit leak will kill people...head of plant breaks down in tears

page: 15
109
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by theghosthunter
reply to post by inthemass
 


Yes, definitely buy a counter. You're going to need it, it's now essential for everyone that lives in California.


sure...right away...chicken little. if you go to a ski resort and spend all day there, the sun will pour more radiation on you than what is coming over from japan. everybody needs to get a grip on reality.



It was just the other day we were told over and over again that it won't reach America at all.
So please don't tell people they are over reacting. Who is to know what's coming next in this disaster?
There has already been too many lies and downplaying done already to expect people to believe that things are going to be fine".
And how is wanting to buy a cheap geiger counter losing a grip on reality?

With all the nuclear plants around I think people would be foolish not to have one along with some anti radiation pills. The next big nuclear meltdown could be a lot closer to home.
We've been talking about preparations in the Survival Forums for the last few years when there was no incident at all. Does that mean we lost our grip on reality?
There is an actual event that's happened and now there are people who are telling people to buy stuff is over reacting? How weird.
edit on 19-3-2011 by Flighty because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by harrytuttle
 


You are also ranting about how you could have done better and .............................you are full of crap.

So you think it is a "good" idea to place emergency backup diesel generators BETWEEN the ocean and the nuclear power plants?

You think it's now a "crap" idea to have placed those generators in a safer place away from the zone for a direct impact from a Tsunami?


You do make a good point in that statement. The area hit by the tsunami has been hit by these waves over and over again throughout the history of Japan. The Honshu province sustains the most tsunamis on the planet followed by Hawaii. The provinance was there already and they should have considered this before putting the back up systems in harms way.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by theghosthunter
reply to post by inthemass
 


Yes, definitely buy a counter. You're going to need it, it's now essential for everyone that lives in California.


sure...right away...chicken little. if you go to a ski resort and spend all day there, the sun will pour more radiation on you than what is coming over from japan. everybody needs to get a grip on reality.



It was just the other day we were told over and over again that it won't reach America at all.
So please don't tell people they are over reacting. Who is to know what's coming next in this disaster?
There has already been too many lies and downplaying done already to expect people to believe that things are going to "fine".
They NEVER said it would not reach America but they have said over and over again that the amounts are not enough to worry about . So stop worrying. Dont spread fear and ignorance.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I'm honestly so sick and tired of the open greediness and evilness of it all.We shouldn't even have to pay for hydro.Power can be made for free.But they are so greedy and corrupted that they put lives at risk just so they can make money.It's like oil..they can make cars without needing oil but they don't,why?Money.

Then you build it in an known earth quake country near water knowing full well the risk of tsunamis.I feel bad for Japan I really do but maybe some heads should roll so that nothing like this will ever happen again.It's negligence.

"So what does this mean.."will kill people"?

Is there gonna be clouds of radiation leaking out being blown across the world through jet streams and what not because I want to know??If they are going through extremes to make sure the public doesn't know then something IS up!!

I want to know what he meant by"will kill people" and how many people are we talking here?I though everyone was evacuated??



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Flighty
 


I also have to wonder about the difference between the radiation being emitted from the reactors vs the natural radiation of the sun. I don't think the sun is hitting us with radioactive Iodine 131.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by karen61057
 


I'm talking about people in online forums telling those who were concerned that it wouldn't reach America. I'm sure most here have heard it.

The only one spreading fear and ignorance are those who are discouraging people from buying a few simple inexpensive items to make themselves feel safer.
Why do they care? Are they paying for it? No.
edit on 19-3-2011 by Flighty because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed
 


I think you should make that statement to JimmyX.
He was the one who said it.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Nothing to see here, move along.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 


Could we in fact make cars without oil or fossil fuels? I find this hard to believe when it takes seven gallons to make a tire, or all the plastic... seat belts, paints, polymers, etc. You wouldn't be typing without oil. Every facit of your life revolves around it.

Hydro is not free. I costs time and resources to construct and maintain. The only free and clean energy is that provided by animal or human labor. Hybrids typify this phenomena for me. A supposedly green alternative that does more damage just to make and I have seen no assessments of the environmental effects of disposing of used batteries.

Technology can't save us. Technology equals a net negative return. The next thing always causes more damage and uses more energy than the previous.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Flighty
 


Seems fishy doesn't it? Japanese people are dying, there's radiation headed your way, but please don't buy $20 worth of duck-tape. Oh and now apparently we should be happy because Anne Coulter tells us radiation is HEALTHY and the people of Japan are the lucky ones because they will have less cancer.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by utsaME
 


Yeah I really don't get it.
Didn't the Boy Scouts have the motto...."Be Prepared" ??
Even Cubs know it's better to be prepared than not.
And yet you have grown adults saying buying a few items is losing a grip on reality.

I think migrating to another country would come under the classification of maybe over reacting at this particular time not buying a few bucks worth of stuff.
edit on 19-3-2011 by Flighty because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Flighty
 


I want to know what happened to the Precautionary Principle. Logic would say that to save the most lives as possible we should have started with the worst case scenario exclusion zone day one. Then if the situation is resolved you move people back in as areas become safe. Why the hell do we say "this might get bad but we don't want to panic people they could get hurt." They could die! This whole world is backwards.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Flighty
 


Where's all that "Hunker-down" rhetoric now? I'm telling you this smells.
edit on 3/19/2011 by utsaME because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by utsaME
 


I think we are very much on the same page.
And you are absolutely right.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I felt so sorry for the firefighters who were trying to spray water into the spent fuel pools. They had a briefing after they did their jobs, each of them had tears of sadness in their eyes while they were post briefing.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnixFE
reply to post by nithaiah
 


Those death counts are although official more than faked. You just have to look at the Tschernobyl accident. According to official data 56 ppl died due to this accident. In reality there were thousands killed through the radioactivity and still will in the future.
If you look at the real counts (that never will be official) nuclear power is on top of the list (death per kw).



That is not quite true. The death rate declines for every year that passes since the event. The children who got sick and died did so in the first few years after the disaster. Each year that passes makes it less likely that a death due to this event will occur. For the people who were children living in the area at the time, if they are not sick already from this they very likely will never get sick from it.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


The reactor was perfectly safe. GE is not to blame. I still endorse GE and all their products. They are the best product company out there. You must blame nature, don't lay the blame just because GE is mortal, has a face, or can be sued. Lay blame where it belongs and that is nature.


So not only was the reactor "safe" it was "perfectly safe"? You should let the Japanese people know they are afraid right now for some reason. In fact the head of the company here just broke down crying in misery because he seems to think the Japanese people are in danger. You should let him know it will cheer him up.


Comprehension of reading material is absolutely necessary before responding. The reactor was perfectly safe in its operation during the 40 plus years that it stood at that site providing the people with light and power. GE did not design a fawlty facility. Sight location alone is responsible for this disaster. Not the nuclear reactor and certainly not General Electric.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by lowlowz
I just ordered my Potassium Iodide
even if only "low doses" of radiation will get to the US I think it will be helpful to have a higher blood level of this because who knows what other radiation sources we are already exposed to every day : / Potassium Iodide



www.livestrong.com...


Please anyone considering self medicating read the dangers and weigh the possibilities of "real" contamination against the real dangers of using this drug when its not necessary.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by coolottie
reply to post by esdad71
 
Everyone keeps saying they just wanted to keep face, trust me if it was the US it would be the same thing. The look on that man's face is not saving face. He had the strength to stand up to politics and power to tell the truth. Saving face is not betarying your fellow man, which governments and corperate industry does all the time. Trust me if this was the New Madrid or the Nuclear Plant on a fault in California, you would not even see someone with the courage and shame of this man stepping foreward and telling the people the truth. Remember 3 Mile Island, They killed her to keep her from telling the truth and he is lucky to be alive.


Who is her and who is he in the above post?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
Comprehension of reading material is absolutely necessary before responding. The reactor was perfectly safe in its operation during the 40 plus years that it stood at that site providing the people with light and power. GE did not design a fawlty facility. Sight location alone is responsible for this disaster. Not the nuclear reactor and certainly not General Electric.


So the reactor was perfectly safe for 40 years then it was... not safe??

Does GE recommend not installing reactors on fault lines??? Or do they endorse such installations?

NY Times


In 1972, Stephen H. Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic Energy Commission, recommended that the Mark 1 system be discontinued because it presented unacceptable safety risks. Among the concerns cited was the smaller containment design, which was more susceptible to explosion and rupture from a buildup in hydrogen — a situation that may have unfolded at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Later that same year, Joseph Hendrie, who would later become chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a successor agency to the atomic commission, said the idea of a ban on such systems was attractive. But the technology had been so widely accepted by the industry and regulatory officials, he said, that “reversal of this hallowed policy, particularly at this time, could well be the end of nuclear power.”

In an e-mail on Tuesday, David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Program at the Union for Concerned Scientists, said those words seemed ironic now, given the potential global ripples from the Japanese accident.

“Not banning them might be the end of nuclear power,” said Mr. Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer who spent 17 years working in nuclear facilities, including three that used the G.E. design.

Questions about the design escalated in the mid-1980s, when Harold Denton, an official with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, asserted that Mark 1 reactors had a 90 percent probability of bursting should the fuel rods overheat and melt in an accident.

Industry officials disputed that assessment, saying the chance of failure was only about 10 percent.

Michael Tetuan, a spokesman for G.E.’s water and power division, staunchly defended the technology this week, calling it “the industry’s workhorse with a proven track record of safety and reliability for more than 40 years.”

Mr. Tetuan said there are currently 32 Mark 1 boiling-water reactors operating safely around the globe. “There has never been a breach of a Mark 1 containment system,” he said.





new topics

top topics



 
109
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join