Breaking: explosion at the Marcoule French Nuclear plant

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Michio Kaku claims that Fukushima meltdowns are "The grand daddy of all industrial accidents!" Why would one of the smartest physicists on Earth call Fukushima a "Industrial accident"? Oh because all nuclear accidents can be classified as 'industrial' since nuclear power is part of 'industry'. Isn't that quaint?

Probably because it was a steam explosion, not a nuclear one. Exactly zero people died as a result of it.

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Michio Kaku claims that Fukushima meltdowns are "The grand daddy of all industrial accidents!" Why would one of the smartest physicists on Earth call Fukushima a "Industrial accident"? Oh because all nuclear accidents can be classified as 'industrial' since nuclear power is part of 'industry'. Isn't that quaint?

Probably because it was a steam explosion, not a nuclear one. Exactly zero people died as a result of it.

Two TEPCO workers died on March11th at Fukushima

And since you can say that anyone falling off a roof while installing a solar panel = solar panel caused death.

Than I will say that 2 dead bodies in the basement of a nuclear reactor building = nuclear power plant caused death.

Ain't that funny how I took your own medicine and gave it right back to you?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
You cannot convince me things are safe by withholding all of the relevant specifics.

Examples of information we don't know for sure, but the EDF would know because they have records and are on site to take measurements.

1) What was in the furnace when it exploded?

That's been answered already, low-grade metal waste such as tools, wiring, etc.

2) How large was the explosion and how far were materials ejected?

Large enough to kill one person and injure several others.

3) Were the containment seals breached in any way ? (Hole in the roof , etc)

No.

4) What are the radiation readings throughout the facility zone? Having a set of at least a few dozen measurements would be good. Also a few measurements of the epicenter of the blast would be very helpful (the furnace).

Probably not very high as the waste in question was barely radioactive.

Without explaining in ultimate detail the specifics of the situation, I have no choice but to assume the worst because there has to be a reason they are not open and frank about all of this information.

You have absolutely no reason to assume the worst, several qualified specialists have told you that besides the actual explosion that killed the one person, this isn't a problem. Overreacting and assuming the worst and then bringing it to the internet with no actual evidence to support your claim is called "Fear mongering".

By the time we find out what is really going on it will probably become apparent the incident was indeed a level 3 like I originally assumed. Pity...how long will it take to find out what really happened? 6 months?

It was not a level 3, due to the location the accident occurred it is literally impossible for it to go anywhere beyond level 1 (possibly level 2 though, as I don't claim to be an expert, but that's still unlikely). You're overreacting, just like you did with the Fort Calhoun "disaster".

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Michio Kaku claims that Fukushima meltdowns are "The grand daddy of all industrial accidents!" Why would one of the smartest physicists on Earth call Fukushima a "Industrial accident"? Oh because all nuclear accidents can be classified as 'industrial' since nuclear power is part of 'industry'. Isn't that quaint?

Probably because it was a steam explosion, not a nuclear one. Exactly zero people died as a result of it.

Two TEPCO workers died on March11th at Fukushima

And since you can say that anyone falling off a roof while installing a solar panel = solar panel caused death.

Than I will say that 2 dead bodies in the basement of a nuclear reactor building = nuclear power plant caused death.

Ain't that funny how I took your own medicine and gave it right back to you?

They were killed by the tsunami, not the power plant. I already mentioned them earlier in this thread. You're really struggling now aren't you?

Edit: And yes, as I posted before, getting killed while installing a solar panel is just as much a solar-related death as getting killed mining coal is a coal-related death. Trying to say otherwise is just ignorant.

Originally posted by Nosred

They were killed by the tsunami, not the power plant. I already mentioned them earlier in this thread. You're really struggling now aren't you?

Edit: And yes, as I posted before, getting killed while installing a solar panel is just as much a solar-related death as getting killed mining coal is a coal-related death. Trying to say otherwise is just ignorant.

edit on 13-9-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)

Being killed in a nuclear power plant while working on nuclear power related jobs, is a nuclear power death.

According to your logic, of course.


Back to Reality:::
People falling off a roof are killed by gravity - not solar panels.
People killed in a coal mine are killed by either a collapsing roof or suffocation - not coal.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Being killed in a nuclear power plant while working on nuclear power related jobs, is a nuclear power death.

No, it was a tsunami-related death and provides no indication of the safety of working at nuclear power plants. Had they been working in a dentist's office during the tsunami they probably still would have met the same fate. Being killed in a natural disaster is not comparable to a job that is dangerous by definition.

Back to Reality:::
People falling off a roof are killed by gravity - not solar panels.
People killed in a coal mine are killed by either a collapsing roof or suffocation - not coal.

But they are killed as a result of using solar and coal technology, if we were not using solar and coal technology they would not have died. Coal mining and solar panel installation are dangerous by definition, and you have a very good chance of getting hurt or killed while doing either.




Edit: By your logic someone who is killed in a car crash, did not die as a result of driving in a car.

Originally posted by Nosred

But they are killed as a result of using solar and coal technology, if we were not using solar and coal technology they would not have died. Coal mining and solar panel installation are dangerous by definition, and you have a very good chance of getting hurt or killed while doing either.

edit on 13-9-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-9-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)

Wrong. They were not using coal technology down in the tunnels...
They were digging it up SO we could use it later.

There were not using solar tech when they fell off the roof, they were trying to install it so they could use it later.

Just like the 2 men who died at Fukushima I reactor 4, they were not using nuclear power tech when they died in the basement as it filled with water, they were trying to fix the nuclear plant so that we could use it later...

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Wrong. They were not using coal technology down in the tunnels...
They were digging it up SO we could use it later.

Exactly, their death was a byproduct of using coal technology. If we weren't using coal, they wouldn't have been down in those mines mining coal and putting themselves in danger every day, and they wouldn't have died. See how this works?

There were not using solar tech when they fell off the roof, they were trying to install it so they could use it later.

Exactly, and if they hadn't been installing solar panels and had been getting electricity from elsewhere, they wouldn't die.

Just like the 2 men who died at Fukushima I reactor 4, they were not using nuclear power tech when they died in the basement as it filled with water, they were trying to fix the nuclear plant so that we could use it later...

No, it is not comparable. They were killed as a result of a natural catastrophe, their job was not dangerous, they were not killed either directly or indirectly as a result of using nuclear power, they were killed as a result of being stuck in a tsunami. They could have worked at a freaking carnival and got hit with a tsunami, that does not make it a "carnival related death" since the carnival is neither directly nor indirectly responsible for the tsunami.

Edit: Just because they happened to be located at a nuclear power plant when a tsunami struck, does not make it a nuclear power related death. It makes it a tsunami related death that took place at a nuclear power plant. Coal miners and solar panel installers on the other hand are killed as a direct result of their jobs being dangerous and risky, their dangerous and risky jobs would not exist without coal and solar power ergo they would not have died without coal and solar power.


Edit: Had you given the coal miners and solar panel installers any other job in the world in the same general location as the coal mine or solar-powered-roof that they worked at, they would not have died. Had you given the two people at the NPP any other job in the world in the same general location as the NPP they worked at, they still probably would have been killed by the tsunami.

reply to post by Nosred


I gotta hand it to you Nosred, you are a fighter and you don't give up.

I have had a lot of fun and laughed a lot while posting back and forth with you. It has been a good day, thanks for the good times. You are persistent and I suppose our energies just mix and explode.

I have been fearing that our fun little debate may be starting to 'hijack' the thread sort of since we are just going back and forth over mere semantics and philosophy. But hey I enjoyed it I hope you had fun too.

I really got a ton of work to get finished tonight and a lot of other threads to keep up with. I don't really want to have the mods come and get onto both of us for having a good little chat. (It happens).

So let's save this until the next nuclear related accident thread, say sometime next week? Same bat place same bat time? Cya there buddy.

If they are trying to have a repeat of Japan catastrophy it would just simply be too childish. Anyone have a good point as to why this is happening?

Did they run out of ideas? or Is this a plan for something bigger?

I'm going to south France soon, what's the situation?

reply to post by Jonas86


mutated zombies are eating people alive, all over the place in France
good luck

Nuclear alarmists blowing things out of proportion in an attempt at scare-mongering... again. I told you guys this was not a problem, one of these days you're going to have to start listening to me.

Originally posted by Jonas86
I'm going to south France soon, what's the situation?

Don't know if you have already left.... but it is sunny and beautiful! The event at Marcoule did not involve any radiation outside the plant or anything.
If you're here or coming soon, you will get absolutely perfect weather though! (at least in this area, I am not sure of all areas of France. We're near Montelimar)