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.

 

Japan declares 'nuclear emergency' after quake - PART 2

page: 79
113
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 06:41 AM
link   

pheonix358
By the way, where are the contents of those reactors because I for one believe that some of it has left the building via the broken reactor that did not explode.



I'm glad you agree it didn't explode now. Thanks.




posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 06:42 AM
link   

scoobyrob
Coal,Gas and other fossil fuels are by no means the solution to our power providing needs but it is the lesser of the two evils.



No. They aren't. Not by a long chalk, buddy.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Alekto

scoobyrob
Coal,Gas and other fossil fuels are by no means the solution to our power providing needs but it is the lesser of the two evils.



No. They aren't. Not by a long chalk, buddy.


explain...



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 06:54 AM
link   
It's not so tricky. No combustion, no Co, CO2 or SO2 released. Creates high paying, high skilled jobs. High temperature reactors could produce Hydrogen as well as electricity.

They have an excellent safety record really, if you factor in there have been only 3 major accidents in over 14,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 33 countries.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Fossil fuels like coal cause asthma and other health problems and release chemicals like toxic mercury into communities. Because of its high carbon content, coal emits more CO2 than any other fossil fuel when its burns.

Still, it's better than nuclear energy, right?



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Unit 3 Spent Fuel Pool Temp Rise

In one month the temp has risen 13.5 Celsius (24.30 Fahrenheit).

Feb. 18, 2014 == 8.6 Celsius (47.48 Fahrenheit):

www.tepco.co.jp...

March 18, 2014 == 22.1 Celsius (71.78 Fahrenheit):

www.tepco.co.jp...

This is a rather significant temp rise for something that had been stable.

If anyone comes across an explanation...sure would appreciate you sharing.

- Purple Chive

edit on 18-3-2014 by Purplechive because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Alekto
 


In my opinion ya it is, if it were me i would rather have asthma over cancer, not to say coal does not cause cancer but not as much as radioactivity. but hey, thats just my opinion, I have no info to back it up,I'm not going digging for info on this.
I agree Nuclear has a low incident rate but when things go bad they go catastrophic! Fukushima Daiichi as an example.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 07:11 AM
link   
How does acid rain (caused by the emission of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide) suit you, then?



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   

scoobyrob
In my opinion ya it is, if it were me i would rather have asthma over cancer, not to say coal does not cause cancer but not as much as radioactivity.


Interesting you say that.
Coal contains uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

It's as much as a cancer risk as an asthma one.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Alekto
It's not so tricky. No combustion, no Co, CO2 or SO2 released. Creates high paying, high skilled jobs. High temperature reactors could produce Hydrogen as well as electricity.

They have an excellent safety record really, if you factor in there have been only 3 major accidents in over 14,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 33 countries.


Wow.. sounds like everything from you on this page came right out of the pro nuke manuals. I've heard there are actually paid shills by the nuclear companies to go onto websites to nay say and spread the nuke industry's 'good word' (*sarcasm).... think I'm a believer now ;-)

I've said this before and bears repeating again because it obviously went over your head about 'how could we ever power our computers, etc.' without nuclear energy - Tesla created free energy but TPTB will not allow its use (but they use it for HAARP). It doesn't cause one iota of pollution and is ridiculously easy and cheap to build. There is wind, solar and water to produce energy. Nuclear reactors were shoved on this planet and people 'told' it's good for them. Why is that when there are FAR better alternatives to that AND coal?

Believing and promoting that the entire world should exist on nuclear energy is ridiculous. Maybe people in cities that can be seen from space should cut back on the amount of power they use and give up some of the appliances or turn their heat down, etc. etc. It's all a scam to get people to buy into a 'belief' that they 'have' to have nuclear power - first they create the need then they provide the solution. If you or anyone believes we can't live without nuclear power, I say we can't live "with" nuclear power because of its perpetual toxicity during and after life. Add to that their little mixtures of things like MOX fuel and the only clear conclusion is they're insane with greed and insidiousness and I wouldn't be on THAT team for ANY amount of money!!!

Yeah, how about go and explain to all those thousands of displaced and uncompensated families from Fukushima and area how great and necessary nuke plants are, I'm sure they'll be a captive audience. And just to be clear, any nuke built anywhere on this planet is a major risk to the environment - the Fukushima catastrophe gets the prize for being the worst disaster in history and is in our/my backyard and what this thread is about so trying to point fingers at other countries and problems is trying to deflect the topic. My power comes from water like most of the rest of Canada. Nuclear power is a scam, everyone that falls for 'it's necessary' propaganda is brainwashed. The world has and does fine without it, except for being the recipient of all it's 'residue' unleashed into the environment.




posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Alekto
 



The Fukushima plant survived a whole gamut of events just to be done in by stupidly placed backup generators that aren't even necessary in newer designs. Seriously, the plant exceeded it's design spec in many ways.



Earthquake main reason for failures?

Meanwhile, evidence is growing that Unit 1’s meltdown was initiated by the earthquake and only exacerbated by the ensuing tsunami. Bloomberg reports that a radiation alarm inside Unit 1 went off before the tsunami even arrived, indicating coolant already had been lost and fuel melting had begun. If true, this could also require a reassessment of how quickly reactors can melt down. Tepco said May 16, that radiation levels inside Unit 1 were measured at 300 MilliSieverts/hour within hours of the earthquake - meaning that fuel melting already had begun. For melting to have begun that early, coolant must have been lost almost immediately. It’s now believed that fuel melted and dropped to the bottom of the containment - melting a hole into it, within 16 hours. Most likely, a major pipe carrying cooling water to the core was damaged by the earthquake, which should lead to a new evaluation of the ability of key reactor components to withstand seismic events.

...

Radiation leak before Tsunami?

Only a few days after the revelations about the failure of the cooling before the tsunami hit the plant, another revelation, with possible grave consequences, hit the media. A radiation monitoring post on the perimeter of the Daiichi plant about 1.5 kilometers from the No. 1 reactor went off at 3:29 p.m., minutes before the station was overwhelmed by the tsunami that knocked out backup power that kept reactor cooling systems running, according to documents supplied by the company. The monitor was set to go off at high levels of radiation, an official said.

...

“We are still investigating whether the Until recently Tepco said the plant stood up to the magnitude-9 quake and was crippled by the tsunami that followed. This early radiation alarm has implications for other reactors in Japan, one of the most earthquake prone countries in the world, because safety upgrades ordered by the government since March 11 have focused on the threat from tsunamis, rather than earthquakes.

So it's becoming more and more clear that, contrary to earlier assumptions, the reactors were already severely damaged by the earthquake before the tsunami hit the reactors. And that is despite the fact that the earthquake "did not exceed design base values significantly", according to an important Dutch nuclear lobbyist of the Technical University Delft Jan Leen Kloosterman, before news of damage before the tsunami even hit the reactors became public. He put it this way in a meeting on May 13: "If seismic data can be confirmed, practically all damage at Fukushima-Daiichi would have to be contributed to the tsunami." That would suit them well. Gunderson: "This wasn't, at Fukushima, that big an earthquake. It was, out at sea a nine, but by the time it got to Fukushima, they should have been able to ride out that storm, at least the seizmic issues of it. But what that says is that what we have been relying on in analyzing these plants may not be working. Two out of the four plants developed cracks from an earthquake and they should have been able to get through this."

On May 24, Tepco confirmed finally what everybody except Tepco and the international pro-nuclear community already knew: that fresh data from Units 2 and 3 indicate that fuel rods in those reactors are “in a similar state as that in reactor number 1”. That is: fallen into a lump at the bottom of the pressure vessel. Three melt downs confirmed.
all emphases mine.

THREE MELTDOWNS AT FUKUSHIMA; EVIDENCE OF SEVERE DAMAGE BEFORE TSUNAMI HIT REACTORS

So, would you like to reexamine your position in light of this factual data?



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Those who chose to promote nuclear energy over coal really need to do a little research.

Nuclear fuel doesn't magically appear out of thin air, it is mined, same as coal. Uranium miners have way above normal instances of lung cancer, usually attributed to the radon released while mining uranium.

The tailings from uranium mines are radioactive and pollute the surrounding environment, seeping into local water supplies.

There is no clean energy, only in terms of what is considered less bad than the other,,,, they both kill people.

If I had to take my chances, I would mine coal over uranium any day.


edit on R012014-03-19T02:01:14-05:00k013Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Alekto
It's not so tricky. No combustion, no Co, CO2 or SO2 released. Creates high paying, high skilled jobs. High temperature reactors could produce Hydrogen as well as electricity.

They have an excellent safety record really, if you factor in there have been only 3 major accidents in over 14,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 33 countries.


Yeah but the point all these people who try and convince people nuclear is better than coal is that if you blow up a coal plant it dose not have the ability to cause entire contents of to become uninhabitable. I'm not saying coal it good, it isn't but its not mutagenic and teratogenic. If we really wanted to and people where willing to not be so wasteful with energy we could supply our needs with renewables solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal. With a little bit of ingenuity we could make it happen but people get rich off of coal and nuclear so its probably not going away.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Purplechive
Unit 3 Spent Fuel Pool Temp Rise

In one month the temp has risen 13.5 Celsius (24.30 Fahrenheit).

Feb. 18, 2014 == 8.6 Celsius (47.48 Fahrenheit):

www.tepco.co.jp...

March 18, 2014 == 22.1 Celsius (71.78 Fahrenheit):

www.tepco.co.jp...

This is a rather significant temp rise for something that had been stable.

If anyone comes across an explanation...sure would appreciate you sharing.

- Purple Chive

edit on 18-3-2014 by Purplechive because: (no reason given)


From Moch:


Debris removal from reactor3 pool is in 4 months delay, Tepco reported to NRA (Nuclear Regulation Authority) this February.

Tepco is in the process to remove debris from around the spent fuel pool of reactor3.

However due to the extremely high level of radiation, it is being behind the schedule.

In the press conference of 3/17/2014, Tepco stated it may be because they suspended the removal when they found the workers severely contaminated possibly due to the emission from reactor3, where is over 500m away from the workers. They also stopped removing when they observed the “steam” coming up from the top of the building last summer. They also had to stop operation when the crane was significantly damaged, which the reason has not been identified yet.


fukushima-diary.com...

And Unit 3 SFP temp suddenly drops a dramatic 3.3 degrees from 22.1 to 19.8....

www.tepco.co.jp...

- Purple Chive



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   

wishes


Believing and promoting that the entire world should exist on nuclear energy is ridiculous.



Not as ridiculous as claiming that the Tohoku earthquake was actually a man made catastrophe brought about by undersea nukes :-)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   

wishes
Yeah, how about go and explain to all those thousands of displaced and uncompensated families from Fukushima and area how great and necessary nuke plants are, I'm sure they'll be a captive audience.


I think you should go and tell them how much you care :-) They'd love you to drop by.

Maybe you could throw in a few choice remarks about the Nanking massacre. Just to make them feel special.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Alekto
 


So you are just going to totally ignore the fact that I stated that totally disproves your nuclear is safer than coal theory? That's fine, I realize that there is no real way to refute that other than pretending that scenario doesn't exist.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   

BGTM90
reply to post by Alekto
 


So you are just going to totally ignore the fact that I stated that totally disproves your nuclear is safer than coal theory?


clclt.com...

Just two hours ago. Coal pollution. Hot off the press, grab it while you can.

Always happy to help :-)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   

BGTM90
If we really wanted to and people where willing to not be so wasteful with energy we could supply our needs with renewables solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal. With a little bit of ingenuity we could make it happen but people get rich off of coal and nuclear so its probably not going away.


Actually, if you're interested, here's a full list of hydroelectric plants located in Japan. Im sure you aren't interested really, but I thought it would be nice to balance things out a bit.

Akiba Dam 127.1 34°58′20″N 137°49′42″E Operational
Amagase Dam 92 34°52′51″N 135°49′41″E Operational
Arimine Dam 53.4 36°29′22″N 137°26′55″E Operational
Dashidaira Dam 124 Operational
Funagira Dam 32 34°53′26″N 137°48′54″E Operational
Hatanagi-I Hydroelectric Dam 137 35°19′17″N 138°10′59″E Operational
Hatanagi-II Hydroelectric Dam 85 35°18′29″N 138°12′11″E Operational
Hiraoka Dam 101 Operational
Honkawa[4] 600
Ikawa Dam 62 35°12′38″N 138°13′22″E Operational
Ikehara Pumped Storage Plant 350 Operational
Imaichi Pumped Storage Plant 1,050 36°49′31″N 139°39′58″E Operational
Kadonogawa Power Station 800 Operational
Kannagawa Hydropower Plant U/C 2,820 36°00′18″N 138°39′09″E Operational
Kazunogawa Pumped Storage Plant 1,600 35°43′07″N 138°55′47″E Operational
Kinugawa-Kurobe Dam 127 Operational
Kisen'yama Pumped Storage Plant 466 34°53′30″N 135°51′34″E Operational
Konoyama Dam 126 Operational
Kurobe Dam 335 36°33′30″N 137°40′00″E Operational
Kuroda Dam 315 35°11′14″N 137°28′34″E Operational
Maruyama Dam 185 35°28′08″N 137°10′20″E Operational
Masegawa Dam[4] 288 Operational
Matanoagawa Pumped Storage Plant 1,500 35°14′44″N 133°29′30″E Operational
Miboro Dam 215 36°08′17.7″N 136°54′38.9″E Operational
Midono Pumped Storage Plant[4] 122 Operational
Miho Dam 7.4 35°24′37″N 139°02′30″E Operational
Misakubo Dam 50 35°11′05″N 137°55′54″E Operational
Miyagase Dam 24 35°32′26″N 139°15′09″E Operational
Miyanaka Dam 449 Operational
Nagano Pumped Storage Plant 220 Operational
Niikappu Pumped Storage Plant 200 Operational
Nishiotaki Dam 234 Operational
Numappara Pumped Storage Plant 675 Operational
Ohashi Dam 615 33°46′13″N 133°20′12″E Operational
Ōigawa Dam 68.2 35°09′53″N 138°08′34″E Operational
Okawachi Pumped Storage Plant[5] 1,280 Operational
Okikuyotsu Pumped Storage Plant 1,000 Operational
Okikuyotsu II Pumped Storage Plant 600 Operational
Okinawa Yanbaru Seawater Pumped Storage Power Station[6] 30 26°40′25″N 128°15′56″E Operational
Okutadami Dam 560 37°09′12″N 139°15′00″E Operational
Okutataragi Pumped Storage Plant 1,932 35°14′12″N 134°51′23″E Operational
Okuyoshino Pumped Storage Plant 1,206 Totsukawa 34°7′4″N 135°49′16″E Operational
Okuyahagi[4] 865
Otori Dam 182 37°12′53″N 139°12′50″E Operational
Sagami Dam 31 35°36′56″N 139°11′43″E Operational
Sakuma Dam 350 Sakuma 35°05′58″N 137°47′39″E Operational
Sasamagawa Dam 58 34°58′17″N 138°05′38″E Operational
Senzu Dam 22.2 35°13′00″N 138°05′25″E Operational
Shimogo Pumped Storage Plant 1,000 Operational
Shin-Takasegawa Pumped Storage Plant 1,280 36°28′26″N 137°41′23″E Operational
Shinanogawa Pumped Storage Plant 234 Operational
Shintoyone Pumped Storage Plant 1,120 35°07′33″N 137°45′38″E Operational
Shiobara Pumped Storage Plant 900 Operational
Shiogō Dam 58 35°00′05″N 138°05′15″E Operational
Shiroyama Dam 275 35°35′09″N 139°17′22″E Operational
Tagokura Dam 390 37°18′38″N 139°17′13″E Operational
Takami Pumped Storage Plant 200 Operational
Taki Dam 92 37°23′13″N 139°32′02″E Operational
Tamahara Pumped Storage Plant 1,200 36°46′56″N 139°03′23″E Operational
Tashiro Dam 40.1 35°29′55″N 138°14′47″E Operational
Tedorigawa I Dam 250 Operational
Tokuyama Dam 153 35°39′55″N 136°30′08″E Operational
Tominaga Dam 1,095 35°11′59″N 137°27′31″E Operational
Yagisawa Pumped Storage Plant 240 Operational
Yomihaki Power Station



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Alekto

BGTM90
reply to post by Alekto
 


So you are just going to totally ignore the fact that I stated that totally disproves your nuclear is safer than coal theory?


clclt.com...

Just two hours ago. Coal pollution. Hot off the press, grab it while you can.

Always happy to help :-)


That article in no way refutes what I stated. I already said coal is not a good power source. What I did say was coal does not have the potential to make entire contents uninhabitable. If you can give me a way that could happened with a coal fired (Or any other for that matter) I might have a change of mind but if your going to keep ignoring and side stepping the fact because it doesn't find into your nuclear power is great image that I have nothing els to say.



new topics

top topics



 
113
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join