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 was nuked twice. At Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Unless you're also referring to the Fukushima disaster as a nuclear attack.
originally posted by: AdamuBureido
a reply to: jrod
ahemm!
I'd be more worried about dangers closer to home than attack whatever scapegoat the authorities offer up.
Fukushima anniversary: B.C. looks south to closest nuclear plant
An almost featureless long, flat stretch of highway leads to the Columbia Generating Station, near Hanford, Washington – the closest nuclear plant to B.C. and one that raises questions of how safe Canadians are in the event of a disaster to our south.
Only 550 kilometres from Vancouver, the facility – a slightly newer model than Fukushima's General Electric Mark 1 plants – rises like a cube from the fields, unlike the famed cones of the Simpsons or the ill-fated Three Mile Island plant.
Concerns raised over Washington reactor
The crisis at a Japanese nuclear plant is raising new concerns in B.C. about a similar nuclear reactor in Washington, about 400 kilometres southeast of Vancouver.
The Columbia Generating Station, near Hanford, Wash., uses the same kind of radioactive fuel rods as the Fukushima reactors, but its operators say the U.S. plant is safer.
"We're a newer reactor, by about 15 years," said Energy Northwest spokesman Mike Paoli. "We're a larger reactor."
However, when the station went into operation in 1984, the Hanford area was believed to be geologically safe.
Now, studies show geological faults that run from Vancouver Island to Hanford.
Mount St. Helens sits to the west of the reactor and seismically active Yellowstone National Park is to the east.
Also, while the Columbia reactor was built to withstand a 6.9 earthquake, geologists now believe there is a potential for tremors could hit a magnitude of 7.5.
it's become fashionable to blame the japanese lately.
as if nuking them 3 times weren't enough
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Japan was nuked twice. At Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Unless you're also referring to the Fukushima disaster as a nuclear attack.
originally posted by: AdamuBureido
a reply to: jrod
ahemm!
I'd be more worried about dangers closer to home than attack whatever scapegoat the authorities offer up.
Fukushima anniversary: B.C. looks south to closest nuclear plant
An almost featureless long, flat stretch of highway leads to the Columbia Generating Station, near Hanford, Washington – the closest nuclear plant to B.C. and one that raises questions of how safe Canadians are in the event of a disaster to our south.
Only 550 kilometres from Vancouver, the facility – a slightly newer model than Fukushima's General Electric Mark 1 plants – rises like a cube from the fields, unlike the famed cones of the Simpsons or the ill-fated Three Mile Island plant.
Concerns raised over Washington reactor
The crisis at a Japanese nuclear plant is raising new concerns in B.C. about a similar nuclear reactor in Washington, about 400 kilometres southeast of Vancouver.
The Columbia Generating Station, near Hanford, Wash., uses the same kind of radioactive fuel rods as the Fukushima reactors, but its operators say the U.S. plant is safer.
"We're a newer reactor, by about 15 years," said Energy Northwest spokesman Mike Paoli. "We're a larger reactor."
However, when the station went into operation in 1984, the Hanford area was believed to be geologically safe.
Now, studies show geological faults that run from Vancouver Island to Hanford.
Mount St. Helens sits to the west of the reactor and seismically active Yellowstone National Park is to the east.
Also, while the Columbia reactor was built to withstand a 6.9 earthquake, geologists now believe there is a potential for tremors could hit a magnitude of 7.5.
it's become fashionable to blame the japanese lately.
as if nuking them 3 times weren't enough
I thought as much, thanks for clearing that up. The fear is irrational most of the time, yes. I attribute most of that fear to the Dunning-Kruger Effect. People educate themselves about radiation only far enough to know they should be absolutely terrified of it. Is radiation terrifying? Yup. But education beyond "It's bad stuff" I think is necessary to establish exactly HOW fearful one should be. The detection of radioactive isotopes is certainly concerning, but not entirely unexpected given the gravity of Fukushima.
originally posted by: AdamuBureido
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Japan was nuked twice. At Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Unless you're also referring to the Fukushima disaster as a nuclear attack.
originally posted by: AdamuBureido
a reply to: jrod
ahemm!
I'd be more worried about dangers closer to home than attack whatever scapegoat the authorities offer up.
Fukushima anniversary: B.C. looks south to closest nuclear plant
An almost featureless long, flat stretch of highway leads to the Columbia Generating Station, near Hanford, Washington – the closest nuclear plant to B.C. and one that raises questions of how safe Canadians are in the event of a disaster to our south.
Only 550 kilometres from Vancouver, the facility – a slightly newer model than Fukushima's General Electric Mark 1 plants – rises like a cube from the fields, unlike the famed cones of the Simpsons or the ill-fated Three Mile Island plant.
Concerns raised over Washington reactor
The crisis at a Japanese nuclear plant is raising new concerns in B.C. about a similar nuclear reactor in Washington, about 400 kilometres southeast of Vancouver.
The Columbia Generating Station, near Hanford, Wash., uses the same kind of radioactive fuel rods as the Fukushima reactors, but its operators say the U.S. plant is safer.
"We're a newer reactor, by about 15 years," said Energy Northwest spokesman Mike Paoli. "We're a larger reactor."
However, when the station went into operation in 1984, the Hanford area was believed to be geologically safe.
Now, studies show geological faults that run from Vancouver Island to Hanford.
Mount St. Helens sits to the west of the reactor and seismically active Yellowstone National Park is to the east.
Also, while the Columbia reactor was built to withstand a 6.9 earthquake, geologists now believe there is a potential for tremors could hit a magnitude of 7.5.
it's become fashionable to blame the japanese lately.
as if nuking them 3 times weren't enough
sou da!
that is correct...
and there always seems to be a nuclear power plant nearby all these "radiation from fukushima" sites
heck you live in japan, you'd know by now about any large number of rad related deaths.
and as you've rightly pointed out people have an irrational fear of radiation.
A more persistent danger to people and marine life is radioactive Cesium 137, which has a half-life of 30 years, and bioaccumulates in the food chain.
Researchers developed a model based on the diet of fish-eating killer whales along with the levels of Cesium 137 detected and predicted (less than 0.5 becquerels per cubic metre, a measurement of radioactivity) by other researchers in the Pacific waters offshore of Vancouver Island.
The models suggests that in 30 years, Cesium 137 levels in the whales will exceed the Canadian guideline of 1,000 becquerels per kilogram for consumption of seafood by humans — 10 times the Japanese guideline.
originally posted by: Skid Mark
I've noticed a lot of commercials on TV for cancer stuff. Also I've noticed how a lot of drugs they push on TV have cancer listed as a side effect. I'm not sure if it all goes back to Fukushima but it's a hell of a coincidence.
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: jrod
To be honest, I'd rather live a block from a Nuclear Power Station than a Coal Power Station.
Radiation exposure immediately around a properly functioning Nuclear Power Plant is about 1% greater than the normal environmental background exposure.
The fly ash emitted by a Coal Power Plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
.. .