Fukushima

More importantly, how many giant mutant creatures and superheroes/villains has nuclear power created? Reason enough to continue with it until we get results :p

There should be a death/Watt comparison made between the different forms of energy generation.

Mutant creatures? plenty in the Zone at Chernobyl, though only at the time it was very radioactive.

Double-headed cows being them most obvious.
 
Knee jerk reactions to the Fukushima accident are amazing really. It doesn't help that the world nuclear has a negative stigma attached to it.

I still remember the question time which covered nuclear expansion in the UK, some kid commented about the UK will never have a tsunami of Japans size and behind him a woman's face scrunched up as if she thought one was coming right now :D
 
The accident will kill hundreds if not thousands of people indirectly (by causing illness).

The figures haven't been conclusively proven for Chernobyl let alone anything else. Although it is a given that the death rate would have been increased, but by how much is the question.

Radiation is essentially the probability of the DNA being damaged.

Personally I would love to see more nuclear power. Fukushima/Chernobyl fascinates me.
 
Why do you say that?
It doesn't look like it will kill anyone from the reports out there. You can't compare it to any previous nuclear disaster, massive safety precautions were taken that limited exposure to workers and the locals didn't get much dosage.

[TW]Fox;22222737 said:
You seem very certain?

I was going off the most conservative estimate from people well placed to know better than I do (ie not the headline-grabbers): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll#cite_note-8
 
I was going off the most conservative estimate from people well placed to know better than I do (ie not the headline-grabbers): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll#cite_note-8

lol

Article said:
Frank N. von Hippel, a U.S. scientist, has suggested, as "a very preliminary order-of-magnitude guesstimate," that "one might expect around 1,000 extra cancer deaths related to the Fukushima Daiichi accident."[9]

ie, nobody really knows yet.
 
I was going off the most conservative estimate from people well placed to know better than I do (ie not the headline-grabbers): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll#cite_note-8

The max dosage was 25msv to the residences, you get 5% added risk per sv so that's 0.125% added risk so with 500,000 people at 0.125 % you get 625 cases, but remember that the exposure decreases with distance!

96% of people got <5msv, which reduces it by a fifth to 125, so his estimate is quite ott.
 
Something like this has come up before and I think the general consensus was that it's a load of rubbish.

On the issue of earthquakes here is a list of all the earthquakes in Japan in the last week http://www.jma.go.jp/en/quake/quake_local_index.html You can see how many list Fukushima as the epicentre. Likewise any that say Miyagi are close enough to be felt in Fukushima and 6 months ago they were much stronger.

If it really was that close to falling apart I think these constant tremors would have had a pretty devastating affect!
 
From what I've read from a number of scientific papers, that actual amount leaked seems to be inconsistent pending on who did the study.

Which implies that at least one of the groups (pro or anti-nuclear) may be playing down, or exaggerating the figures.

Who is true, well - give it 50 years we can compare death rates to see.
 
Pure alarmist drivel, Fukushima was a great example of how safe nuclear power is, this guy is just exploiting the media sensationalism surrounding it to increase the revenue of his sites ads, either that or he genuinely is a retard.

We have had worse disasters than Fukushima in the UK, he only reason it has a rating so high on the nuclear accident level is because they tallied up the ratings for the four reactors on the site.
 
Last edited:
I liked this comment, matches the tone of the article nicely :)
More “fear porn”? IF this is really going to happen, then you had BETTER get right with Jesus Christ, NOW, WHO IS the ONLY Hope you have in this world or in the life (death) to come. Read the following Scriptures, and pray from your heart for salvation through Jesus’ perfect atonement for your sins, so you can ESCAPE the just wrath of GOD on a rebellious, sinful, and lost humanity. It’s as easy as A.B.C.:

ADMIT you are a sinner who has offended the ONLY perfect, holy, righteous, Almighty, Eternal GOD Who created you. He cannot and will not allow UNREDEEMED sinners into heaven. Your only destination apart from being declared forgiven by Him through faith in Jesus Christ is the same as Satan’s: HELL

BELIEVE Jesus Christ lived a perfect sinless life – the only Man or woman who ever has – and DIED on the cross in YOUR place to take the rightful punishment for your sins that you deserve. He died for the sins of all who put their faith in HIM and in HIM alone; BELIEVE He rose from the dead just as He said He would, to give YOU the promise of eternal life, and that He ascended into heaven, AND that He IS coming back for all people who have been born again by His Holy Spirit.

CONFESS with your mouth that “Jesus is LORD” and share the marvelous Good News that JESUS ALONE SAVES with everyone you meet. This is a COMMANDMENT (the Great Commission), NOT a choice.

John 3:3, John 3:16, John 14:6, Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23, Revelation 20:11-15
 
Based on what? What background do you have in the area to assess whether it's a reasonable estimate or not?
A physics interest. The paper isn't complicated and seems to me to form a reasonably logical conclusion based on what it uses. I also have established a level of trust of the author and the bulletin's peers.

P.S. If you have to call whatever you're telling people as fact a "guesstimate" there's a pretty clear sign you have no solid reasoning behind it.
You're right. Silly me. I'm not a thermonuclear physicist or a medical physician so I can't possibly judge a fairly simple bulletin paper on whether or not it seems logical, or discuss it with similar plebs on a forum. I will never consider anything ever again unless it is something I have decades of expertise in and several degrees to my name.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom