Prepare for a slow and agonizing death

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
BrianFromWA said:
I don't hear a lot of people sympathize with those who say that hydroelectric dams destroy fishing runs, flood acreage and habitats that shouldn't be flooded, and in general mess with nature to make cheap energy.
Click to expand...

You need to get out more. There are plenty of people who sympathize with that point of view.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Who said anything about volunteers? That's another benefit, actually. Those that are burned will generally leave behind some wealth. That can be collected and used to pay for the construction or other costs.

This is an energy source that more than pays for itself (you don't even need to charge the users for energy, since you are charging the fuel).
It reduces demand for energy.
It's 100% renewable.

What more do you want?

barfo
Click to expand...

I'm worried about government intrusion and over-regulation of the industry.

Would the PC police object to me using only Mormons and Catholics for breeders on my fuel farm? Or charging more for the races that burned better?
 
MARIS61 said:
At least Oregon's State Government is on the ball keeping us informed.

Always a step above the Feds in protecting the individual.

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/art...l-Japan-radiation-release-not-detected-Oregon
Click to expand...

I don't have any problems with that, especially since there's so much misinformation going around. But I don't think it's a plot by DHS to keep us uninformed about bad things coming our way. It's still my opinion (subject to disagreement, obviously) that DHS sees this as not even worth their time, and not in their scope of purview.

Now, if Department of Health and Human Services came out with a report like this, I think it'd be quite appropriate. "Hey guys, we're monitoring JUST IN CASE, but like we thought there's no increase in radiation and we don't expect any."

Would that have worked in the general public's eyes (or in your case in particular)? Or does that just bring up more questions?
 
Last edited:
BrianFromWA said:
I don't have any problems with that, especially since there's so much misinformation going around. But I don't think it's a plot by DHS to keep us uniformed about bad things coming our way.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a plot, just more evidence that DHS is not what it pretends to be. It's not concerned in any way at all with protecting citizens, and exists only to control them.
 
BrianFromWA said:
I don't have any problems with that, especially since there's so much misinformation going around. But I don't think it's a plot by DHS to keep us uninformed about bad things coming our way. It's still my opinion (subject to disagreement, obviously) that DHS sees this as not even worth their time, and not in their scope of purview.

Now, if Department of Health and Human Services came out with a report like this, I think it'd be quite appropriate. "Hey guys, we're monitoring JUST IN CASE, but like we thought there's no increase in radiation and we don't expect any."

Would that have worked in the general public's eyes (or in your case in particular)? Or does that just bring up more questions?
Click to expand...

It would have been a start at least. Pretending there's no concern from the populace arouses suspicions of cover-up. Making a public statement acknowledging that they are aware there is a nuclear incident occuring would at least imply they take they job seriously, like a lazy office worker shuffling papers when the boss pops in.
 
This is the best banter I've read on S2. And Maris, it's never too late to bring in Homer.
 
I could tell the article in the OP was bullshit because it was talking about doses of radiation you get from a CT scan at a hospital killing you in 3 days.

I don't think Brian is advocating people die for power, but people do die. There were 112 people killed building the Hoover Dam.
 
Denny Crane said:
I could tell the article in the OP was bullshit because it was talking about doses of radiation you get from a CT scan at a hospital killing you in 3 days.
Click to expand...

Nowhere do I refer to CT scan doses, which fall in the 2-5 Rad range and yield a single dose of about 1/3 Rad which is what you get naturally over a year's time.

But this should clear up your confusion and misinformation about CT scans.

http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2424.html

You are correct when you say that this is all confusing. The individuals who answered these questions tried to provide answers that could be understood by the individual submitting the question. Taken individually, each answer is good. However, when comparing all the answers, it might seem, as you correctly pointed out, that the answers are different. And, they may very well be depending on the area of the body subjected to CT scanning. A CT of the head will yield a different dose to the head than what a CT of the abdomen will yield to the abdomen. It is not any different from a plain x-ray image of the head vs. a plain x-ray image of the abdomen. The radiation dose required for the head x-ray image is different from the radiation dose required to produce an image of the abdomen image.

The confusion over rad and rem or mrad and mrem is easy to solve. When talking about x-ray exposures, 1 rad is equal to 1 rem and 1 mrad is equal to 1 mrem. Similarly, 1,000 mrad or mrem equals 1 rad or rem, respectively.

A further point of confusion is that some writers provide doses in mrad, mrem, rad, or rem to the part of the body, e.g., head or abdomen, being imaged. Others average the dose over the entire body to try to give an equivalent whole-body dose that would represent the same risk as the higher dose to the specific portion of the body. The calculated dose that averages the radiation dose over the entire body is called the “effective dose equivalent.” For example, a dose of 2 rad or 2,000 mrad to the head would be equivalent, in risk, to a dose to the whole body of perhaps 110 mrad effective dose equivalent.

While doses to the part of the body being imaged in a CT procedure will be typically in the range of 2 to 5 rad, the calculated effective dose equivalent, i.e., the calculated whole-body dose that would present the same risk as a dose to the portion of the body, will be less and in the range of 0.1 to 1 rad.

It should be noted that the dose that we receive from natural background each year is approximately 300 mrem. A 2 rem dose to the head that calculates out to have a 300 mrad or 300 mrem effective dose equivalent will present the same risk as one year’s worth of natural background radiation.

The exact risk from doses of 1 to 5 rad or rem to the total body is uncertain and quite low. It is inappropriate to try to even calculate an exact risk for such low doses.

Kenneth L. Miller, CHP, CMHP
Penn State Hershey Medical Center
 
The danger builds and the cover-up continues to build:

[video=youtube;CtYq70-71RI]
 
Killer quakes more prevalent in recent years.

A seismology research fellow at the University of Melbourne, Gary Gibson, said the world averages one magnitude 8 quake a year, but the rate was inconsistent. The 1980s and 1990s had far fewer large quakes than average, for example.

''There is more variation than you would expect from a random occurrence of earthquakes, and we really don't have a mechanism to describe why that is the case,'' Dr Gibson said. ''But there is no question that the last two years have been very active and well above average.''

Dr McCue dismissed suggestions that melting glaciers due to global warming could escalate the earthquake risk.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/monster-aftershock-could-strike-within-days-20110313-1bt2p.html
 
barfo said:
Who said anything about volunteers? That's another benefit, actually. Those that are burned will generally leave behind some wealth. That can be collected and used to pay for the construction or other costs.

This is an energy source that more than pays for itself (you don't even need to charge the users for energy, since you are charging the fuel).
It reduces demand for energy.
It's 100% renewable.

What more do you want?

barfo
Click to expand...

Damn, you were almost there in this post, but you didn't take it to its obvious conclusion. It is nice to see the inspired version of barfo back, though. A very funny and relevant post.
 
I think I actually learned something from this thread, and it was MARIS who helped change my mind on nuke power. I can now see the dangers of them, especially in the NW USA.

What we need now are oil and natural gas rigs all over the USA. By far the most efficient and plentiful source of energy to fuel our economy.
 
PapaG said:
I think I actually learned something from this thread, and it was MARIS who helped change my mind on nuke power. I can now see the dangers of them, especially in the NW USA.

What we need now are oil and natural gas rigs all over the USA. By far the most efficient and plentiful source of energy to fuel our economy.
Click to expand...

We already have that, and a myriad of hydroelectric plants and coal plants. Now we need to make sure all new construction is for safer, less expensive sources, like solar and wind.

The earthquake issue alone is enough to put the brakes on geothermal sources as they usually involve purposely creating man-made earthquakes in fragile and unstable volcanic zones.
 
HAAK72 said:
Shortly after the Monday explosion, Tokyo Electric warned it had lost the ability to cool Unit 2. Takako Kitajima, a company official, said plant workers were preparing to inject seawater into the unit to cool the reactor, a move that could lead to an explosion there as well.
Click to expand...

Injecting seawater is the last resort to cool it, because it destroys the plant. The place will now have to be torn down and rebuilt. That's a billion dollar hit to Japan's deficit. (Half a billion to clean up and tear down, half a billion to build.)
 
jlprk said:
Injecting seawater is the last resort to cool it, because it destroys the plant. The place will now have to be torn down and rebuilt. That's a billion dollar hit to Japan's deficit. (Half a billion to clean up and tear down, half a billion to build.)
Click to expand...

...not to mention all of the other reactors are eventually going to melt-down +/-!
 
I thought he was saying that Portland and the rest of the west coast will remain unaffected, which I have seen other media saying. I think its obvious that if you're chillin' by a nuclear plant in melt down, its not a healthy spot to be in.

Speaking of him, does anyone know if he made it out of Japan?
 
HAAK72 said:
...but I thought our resident Nuclear Expert Navy-boy said this "crisis" was no big deal, nothing to worry about here :dunno:
Click to expand...

I think you misread his points, and what he was posting about.

I'm not surprised, though...
 
LINK to TEPCO's radiation readings.

1st column - date(m/d)
2nd column - time (h/m)
3rd column - reading location (I'm assuming various locations near the reactor. I have no idea what "MP-" means.)
4th column - radiation level (uSV/h A CT scan is about 6,900 uSv)
5th column - neutron rays (? I don't know how to translate this)
6th column - wind direction (南 = south　東 = east　西 = west　北 = north)
7th column - wind speed
 
bluefrog said:
LINK to TEPCO's radiation readings.

1st column - date(m/d)
2nd column - time (h/m)
3rd column - reading location (I'm assuming various locations near the reactor. I have no idea what "MP-" means.)
4th column - radiation level (uSV/h A CT scan is about 6,900 uSv)
5th column - neutron rays (? I don't know how to translate this)
6th column - wind direction (南 = south　東 = east　西 = west　北 = north)
7th column - wind speed
Click to expand...

neutron rays wouldn't make sense, because it is a particle. Could it be number of neutrons per a unit of time? or perhaps alpha or beta particles?
 
Notice how the nuclear companies, their lobbyists, the congressmen in their pocket, the media, and the governments always state it this way (to make it sound innocuous and safe):

The Navy's Monday statement, however, provided some perspective, noting that the maximum potential radiation dose received by ship personnel when it passed through the area was "less than the radiation exposure received from about one month of exposure to natural background radiation from sources such as rocks, soil, and the sun."

An honest person not trying to distort the facts or dismiss them as unimportant would state: the maximum potential radiation dose received by ship personnel when it passed through the area was "up to 30 times the radiation exposure received in one day of exposure to natural background radiation from sources such as rocks, soil, and the sun."
 
MARIS61 said:
radiation dose received by ship personnel when it passed through the area was "up to 30 times the radiation exposure received in one day
Click to expand...
How long was the ship there? If a half-day, radiation there is 60 times normal. Could have been as long as 2 days. Then the lucky inhabitants are only getting 15 times the normal radiation.

It says "passed through." For the sake of Japanese living there I hope the ship passed through very slowly. Sounds like an hour. 720 times normal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top