Japanese N-Plant Explosion

When the Gov controls the press, that's possible.

Not so here.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Elaborate.
You must be very fortunate to be in a country where the Government does not try to control the Press.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Trying to control the press and being able to are not the same thing and Japan today and the prevalence of social media/internet make the situation far different than 1/4 century ago in the Soviet Union.

This is already under international scrutiny and GE engineers (it's a GE reactor) are working with TEPCO to control these reactors, hence the idea of keeping what's going on secret seems far fetched. Indeed the stream of information released seems to have been consistant with what independent experts have said one would expect in this situation, and they appear to have been candid about their efforts, for instance they warned of the chance of a second hydrogen explosion a day before it happened at the #3 plant.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for the answer.
Certainly, complete truthfulness would be in their own interest given the gravity of the disaster, but the company who own the plant have been caught out lying before. There will be a huge enquiry.

The Government seems to be doing a very good job considering that they have another, even greater disaster, occurring at the same time.

 

Tone of voice - you slanted the facts, to make it appear as if serious concern or worry about the explosion, pointing to it as a sign of loss of control, were signs of panic or ignorance.

As you say - just stating the facts.

Uh, when you want to know how to refer to my home river and lifelong place of residence, when speaking English, just ask, OK?

Their uncertainty is fairly large when dealing with large midcontinent quakes. They are rare, of unclear mechanism, and seem to come in flurries.

The question at hand is: what odds does a sane person accept for the loss of the upper Mississippi River? Or "Mississippi", whatever New Zealand dudes want to call it?

If you are going to keep on making insulting and silly presumptions about what I have and haven't read, do and do not know, etc, the least you could do is simply accept correction when I say, for the dozenth time in dealing with you and your jerk behavior, that I read that stuff, all of it, and followed the news involved, and so forth. . All the links, all the stuff.

Just to point to one that's in front of your face, the reference I made to CNN's attempt to deflect Nye into "bomb" irrelevancies (above) was a reference to their expert Nye's admirably succinct and unpanicked TV summary of meltdowns and the dealing with them, including specifically the role of boron. If you would just assume that kind of context from now on, it would save me and the thread the trouble of defensively correcting your inaccurate and insulting presumptions over and over and over.

Unless they are tactical?

Arthur is claiming that a meltdown is impossible.

My entire point here is that the apologists and proponents in favor of nuclear power are handling long odds against large disaster negligently, even dishonestly. They are on one hand improperly and imprudently estimating the odds (Challenger Logic abounds), and on the other obliviously and unethically minimizing the potential harm (Chernobyl only killed 70 people etc). The differences between impossible and various degrees of very unlikely is a key, critical issue.

It's possible right now that this nuke plant side effect of the tsunami will do more harm, in the long run, than the wave itself with its hundreds or thousands dead. This possibility needs to be remembered as a reality, in the future, if it turns out that the odds broke in our favor once again.

 

No its not, its is impossible for these nuclear reactors to do more harm then the earthquake did, not in the short term or long term. That is the fundamental problem here: unfounded fear.

 

Something that seems relevant to me:

"7 Lessons from TMI" an IAEA media specialist offers his take on the media coverage of Three Mile Island and its implications:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull472/htmls/tmi2.html

 

Well, this disaster certainly is a problem, huge death tolls, and lingering potenial problems of nuclear accidents.
It appears to be a problem this reactor or reactors as bussiness is not completed, this is the fifth day. Certainly the Nuclear Power Plant has to be completely dismantled. Its hard to believe that their was ideas of saving or using the plant, it should have been destroyed from the start, and as it stands it should be completely demolished, its seems that the encasement design plan entailed sealling the reactor at the location where it would go disfuntional, 3 disfunctional sealed reactors is a continual on going danger.
As such reactors using uranium,plutonium ectra... atomic elements can achieve very high tempitures at any time, tempitures that excceed the tempiture of the surface of the SUN, For example a tempiture of 413,000 degrees Celsius can stablize, most atomic elements are exsplosive at such tempitures.
So the Nuclear Plant should be destroyed, being cryogenic frozen and the detonated.

Dwayne D.L.Rabon

 

Typical Rabon nonsense.

 

Shhhhh! Don't respond to the troll!

 

Has it occurred to you that insisting on telling the local residents who speak the local language what their name really is for the local river, is kind of - how does one put it without getting banned - damaging to your overall credibility?

While you're at it, you could try correcting the official maps, Wikipedia, the major dictionaries, and the rest of the world.

You keep telling yourself that - and banning people who point out the increasingly obvious: you're not behaving well, and you get especially belligerent when you don't know what you're talking about or have made an embarrassing mistake (which is what your explosion comment was, as originally posted - I didn't bother with it, because it was no big deal and not central to anything I wanted to say, and I assumed a momentary slip of the tongue).

Yep. Not that it's relevant, much. Do you actually have any idea how to answer the question you pretended to be responding to?

The whole world isn't making silly and insulting presumptions. You are.

I have corrected your goofy (and sometimes already invalidated on the very thread) presumptions about what I have and haven't read, know, seen, etc, several times. You don't seem to have learned to quit making them. Now you are telling me what the name of the Mississippi River is. Christ almighty.

I showed you a post where you agreed with Arthur that a meltdown is impossible once sea water flooding has begun. If that was unintentional and accidental, so be it - we all make mistakes, especially when agreeing with adoucette. More to the actual point, it was in the context of you minimizing the hazard of this nuke plant situation - that's why I bothered at all. I was contrasting the claims of panic mongering with the actual situation on this thread and in general, which is dominance by invalid reassurances and persistent attempts to downplay the critical factor of risk.

It was the statisticians who blew the call - the engineers were more worried.

And what is the crucial difference in the reasoning? It looks quite similar to the arguments here and all over - that repeated surprising close calls and unexpected emergency situations that do not end in disaster are evidence of safety.

According to the professional there, it was still true in 2004. And it's what we see here on this thread. And it's what I see on the limited major media I catch - a big hoorah about "panic mongering", and the media filled with false reassurances (that actually abet panic, of course, so maybe there's a sort of reverse case or conspiracy argument to be made if anyone's interested).

 

iceaura,

What is there to panic about, tell us, hum? I won't to hear a detail concern from you, not appeals to unknown fear.

Also I live in Minnesota, and don't care what name or how people define the Mississippi, honestly when threads go off topic!

 

Well, your assumed "translation" is probably wrong, for starters. The original Ojibwe is not usually identified as the direct source of the English word, but rather the French mangling of it, in which the meaning was already lost. Further, "Big River" would be more accurately from "Gichi - ziibi" - you want "Great River", at least if the standard sources around here have it laid out right.

The repetition of "river" in the root remains, but two languages back, and no longer in the content.

The official band name of the local Ojibwe, in English, is "The Mississippi River Band of Chippewa", btw. The name in their own language is " Gichi-ziibiwininiwag ", according to Wiki, with the "Gichi" part referring to the specific river. I've never heard them call themselves either one of those - Ojibwe is more common, and the rest in English - but "Mississippi River" is standard, as with all English speaking people.

Life's complicated, eh?

 

Well, what would you propose?

Solar is non-viable for large-scale energy production without utilizing massive swaths of landscape OR high-pressure boiler vessels (power towers)... both of which are vulnerable to simply cloudy days.

Wind requires, again, vast tracts of land, moving parts which are exposed to the elements, and (supposedly) interrupts birds and other such critters, plus the volume to energy ratio is terrible.

Coal/Oil/LP/Natural Gas/et al - we know what's wrong here

GeoThermal - a possibility, but largely unexplored AFAIK

Cold Fusion/Fission - yeah...

M/AM Reactions - supercharged nuclear reactions that are currently non-viable due to the immense issue of GENERATING antimatter.

BioFuel - right, we've seen how well THIS little gem worked with the Ethenol Debacle (and face it, Ethenol is a joke atm).

What's really left?