It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
matadoor
I'm going to reply with a quote from my posts above:
"The experts tell TRN that if steam is coming out of reactor building #3 this could very well be the start of a much worse radiation release because once the spent fuel pool begins its own reactions, all of it will be uncontrolled and uncontrollable. "
As a person in the explosives field, my first thought here is, let's look at a controlled detonation, we do this crap all the time, in all soil types and weather conditions. First, completely seal off the harbor. Then, map out exactly where the debris field will be.
We do this for several reasons, BUT mostly because if we scatter the corium, it can't detonate.
desperate times call for desperate measures.
I'm just sayin'.
Hey, did they ban Human finally?
donlashway
reply to post by wishes
Wishes, Active Darwinism- If we are the ones creating a event or environment that promotes mutation, selective survival of the fittest (by opinion), mass extinction; the events Darwin said drove his evolution.
I needed a word for the idea, there have been many, some believe they can control such a thing maybe?
donlashway
reply to post by Wertwog
[snip]
Is Active Darwinism the correct term ? Do you except it ? Are you ok with it?
wishes
Exactly - is no surprise to have an earthquake in an earthquake zone. Could be considered a brilliant cover for intentional destruction. They have the technology to create and manipulate any type of weather. They have the technology to drill into the ocean bed. They have every kind of bomb you can imagine. Could it have been intentional? Yes, it 'could' have. There is no way to prove it either way.
Alekto
wishes
Exactly - is no surprise to have an earthquake in an earthquake zone. Could be considered a brilliant cover for intentional destruction. They have the technology to create and manipulate any type of weather. They have the technology to drill into the ocean bed. They have every kind of bomb you can imagine. Could it have been intentional? Yes, it 'could' have. There is no way to prove it either way.
Here is the complete list of foreshocks and aftershocks surrounding the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake. You'll do well to understand that this was not the work of some nefarious underhanded governmental agency. But an entirely natural process common to the island of Japan, not consistent with that of a nuclear device. I have no wish to discuss your bizarre ideas further.
en.wikipedia.org...ōhoku_earthquake
Based on those new maps, the NRC published in August 2010 new estimates of the earthquake risk at nuclear power reactors in the eastern and central states. Besides the proximity, severity and frequency of earthquakes, the new estimates take into account the design standards used at each plant, along with the type of rock or soil it's built on. This week, the NRC provided additional data to msnbc.com for the relatively few reactors in the Western states, allowing a ranking to be made of all 104 reactors with the latest data. The top 10 Here are the 10 nuclear power sites with the highest risk of suffering core damage from an earthquake, showing their NRC risk estimates based on 2008 and 1989 geological data. (The full list of 104 reactors is below.) 1. Indian Point 3, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 10,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 17,241. Increase in risk: 72 percent. 2. Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Mass.: 1 in 14,493. Old estimate: 1 in 125,000. Increase in risk: 763 percent. 3. Limerick 1 and 2, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 141 percent. 4. Sequoyah 1 and 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Increase in risk: 420 percent. 5. Beaver Valley 1, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 20,833. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Increase in risk: 269 percent. 6. Saint Lucie 1 and 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739. Old estimate: N/A. 7. North Anna 1 and 2, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Increase in risk: 38 percent. 8. Oconee 1, 2 and 3, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Increase in risk: 330 percent. 9. Diablo Canyon 1 and 2, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810. Old estimate: N/A. 10. Three Mile Island, Middletown, Pa.: 1 in 25,000. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 82 percent.
UnderGetty
I found this info interesting.
Why pass such a draconian law unless they have something very serious to hide?
armstrongeconomics.com...
donlashway
reply to post by wishes
Wishes, Somewhere above I said us or we are the ones who did this. I say so with the angel that all nuclear plants have been built with public money. There is no entity that finances these projects independently.
Questioning reasons for building on faults is a history lesson only.
wishes
Yes, it is a damn good question why they build on faults in the first place.
GEORGETHEGREEK
In any case the Fucusima fumes are up on us all.
George.
SubTruth
reply to post by Alekto
It sure does seem like you have a vested interest in this event...Hmm. Readers and members are pretty smart.
Alekto
GEORGETHEGREEK
In any case the Fucusima fumes are up on us all.
George.
No they aren't, George.
Alekto
wishes
Yes, it is a damn good question why they build on faults in the first place.
This has been discussed countless times, by countless people. There are mulitple threads on the topic.
The whole of Japan is on a fault line. All of it. It is *again* for emphasis, the most seismically active nation on the planet.