peterms Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Just found a news article saying the area around Chernobyl is 200 above normal, 22 years on (as an example) Here's one saying they can't quite work out how to make it safe. It's the old story. We're told you need nuclear power because fossil fuel is running out, renewables are much overrated, and nuclear is clean, cheap and safe. Until it goes wrong. And then, it's more a case of "Oh god. We didn't plan for that. Can we bury it in some deep ocean trench somewhere? Will it leak out in my lifetime?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerlad Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Radiation 1,000 times above normal around the plant, for somebody who knows nothing about how bad that is (to me it sounds really bad) how bad is it exactly? Not being a scientist, I'd say it's about a thousand times worse than normal. In fact if I lived there, I'd get the **** out. Please note that I am not a scientist, and my opinions should accordingly be treated with scorn. Won't be long before we see funny looking short people with strange coloured skin and weird eyes running about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 In fact if I lived there, I'd get the **** out. If you lived within 10 km then the Prime Minister has just asked you to. I guess when you're evacuating a 6.2 miles radius we can assume it's a pretty serious situation. Yes. I think that raises the interesting question, "If the PM's interest lies in avoiding panic by minimising collateral damage while keeping deaths at an acceptable level, while my interest lies in continuing to live, should I rely on the PM's announcements or my own judgement in deciding where to be and how long to stay there?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Dogg Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Radiation 1,000 times above normal around the plant, for somebody who knows nothing about how bad that is (to me it sounds really bad) how bad is it exactly? Not being a scientist, I'd say it's about a thousand times worse than normal. In fact if I lived there, I'd get the **** out. Please note that I am not a scientist, and my opinions should accordingly be treated with scorn. Won't be long before we see funny looking short people with strange coloured skin and weird eyes running about. Or worse. Gingers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Just found a news article saying the area around Chernobyl is 200 above normal, 22 years on (as an example) Here's one saying they can't quite work out how to make it safe. It's the old story. We're told you need nuclear power because fossil fuel is running out, renewables are much overrated, and nuclear is clean, cheap and safe. Until it goes wrong. And then, it's more a case of "Oh god. We didn't plan for that. Can we bury it in some deep ocean trench somewhere? Will it leak out in my lifetime?" Interesting article, might have to do a bit of reading. Conflicting reports on the Japan plant, some make it sound very serious but the Japanese government are playing it down, which I guess is to be expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Interesting now I have news on, they have gone from "no problem" to "minimal leak, 8 times more radiation than usual" to "possibility of radiation leak" and combined with the seperate safety report of 1,000 times more radiation than usual, I think this is a very serious problem now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolteEndRob Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 As much of a shit hole England is these days at least we don't have to suffer through or deal with the aftermath of things such as earthquakes or tsunami's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Got it, understand the radiation thing. 1,000 times over capacity inside. 8 times radiation levels than normal outside, the more that leaks the worse this can get. This the desperate need for coolants. Currently, Chernobyl in some places is around 200 times the normal level (for example, London is -200 times the amount) So although it is fairly minimal compared to a disaster area like Chernobyl, it is still something to be worried about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Don't worry folks, Aston Villa have offered sympathy. I feel a lot better about the whole situation, now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b6bloke Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Shit! Big explosion at Nuclear plant!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Footage on the news showing an explosion at the affected nuclear reactor but no info on exactly what went bang, why or whether it involved nuclear material. I'm no nuclear physicist but I expect that's not a good sign. Also now telling people to get to high ground because of fresh tsunami warnings. They're really copping it over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b6bloke Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 yeh but surely 2 metre high waves that they are talking about can't be that bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 yeh but surely 2 metre high waves that they are talking about can't be that bad Moving at 600 odd mph though, that's a lot of energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted March 12, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 12, 2011 That explosion is very very worrying. If you read the BBC live feed, it just seems like they're trying not to admit to anything - they initially said there was an explosion near to the plant - there was a journalist turned away 60 km from the plant - if this thing has gone bang in the worst way, then a fair bit of the top half of Japan is going to be uninhabitable for decades. It's still not entirely clear what's happening but it doesn't look great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted March 12, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 12, 2011 Jeepers - I hadn't realised how far South Fukushima-Daiichi is - it's in between Sendai and Tokyo not more than about 50 miles from either. Let's hope it's not as bad as it might be. *Edit - Japan is bigger than I thought, it's more like a hundred miles from either City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Earthquakes, Tsunamis, looks like count Takeshi's upped his game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 AMERICA **** YEAH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 If there were ever an argument for withdrawing the right to vote from people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Laugh it up spanners, if that reactor start leaking badly then the only place getting **** by radiation is....you guessed it..Pearl Harbour!! Observe the Jet Stream today: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I thought America detonating two atom bombs on Japan "got them back for Pearl Harbour"? clearings in the woods. **** nationality for a minute, these are human beings. Fucknuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts