# Nuclear meltdown! Holy Godzilla NOOOO!!! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 12, 2011, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389 "2011-03-12T08:19:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 73
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1441 "2011-04-08T02:09:15Z")
XT, I am well aware that coal is going to be around for awhile. I regret that, because it is such a dirty energy producer that we may not be able to recover from the damage it is causing to the planet. I also know that alternative energy is not ready now. it may have been if we had financed and stressed it a decade or so ago. But we did not and we are not doing it now. But nuclear is not the answer. It takes too damn long to get on line. It costs too damn much to build the plants. It is inherently dangerous. It creates a radioactive waste problem that nobody can solve. We are in limbo with no good way out. We can just hope we survive the damage. But as the ozone numbers clearly demonstrate, we are in trouble. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1442 "2011-04-08T02:13:14Z")
good fricking grief gonzo. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1443 "2011-04-08T02:18:19Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > The Gonz isn’t just stupid, he is the gold standard of SDMB stupidity. > Other posters may hope to plumb the depths o’ dumb, but no matter how far down they get, they’ll just see the face of Gonz, serene and undisturbed, smiling up at them. I think you will have to admit that Gonzo is way smarter than the other two though, right? And lev apparently thinks that when comparing the dangers of nuclear and coal you need to add in the good that coal’s electricity has done for all time vs nuclear’s smaller amount of good, due to shorter existence and smaller market share. That’s way stupider than anything Gonzo said. Gonz just believes some dodgy statistics. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1444 "2011-04-08T15:22:23Z")
How many milion times above the safe level of what are we today? Calcium 67? Helium 7? Rutherfordium 666? Zinc 41.6? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1445 "2011-04-08T15:31:21Z")
From the IAEA update web site: > [@](#): > > 1. Current Situation > > Overall, the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi plant remains very serious although there are early signs of recovery in some functions such as electrical power and instrumentation. > > On 6 April it was reported that the leakage of water from the sidewall of the pit closest to the sea has stopped after coagulation agents (liquid glass) were injected into the holes drilled around the pits. Work continues to prevent further releases to the sea. > > According to the TEPCO Press Release of 4 April, approximately 10 000 T of water from the radioactive waste treatment plant and 1 500 T of subsurface waters stored in the sub drain pits of Unit 5 and 6 are being discharged to the sea to provide room to store water with higher levels of radioactivity in a safer manner. TEPCO has estimated that these discharges would increase the effective dose to a member of the public by 0.6 mSv, if he/she were to eat seaweed and seafood from 1 km from the discharge point every day for a year. It should be noted however that the movements of all ships, including fishing boats, are restricted within a 30km zone from the NPP. > > In Unit 1 fresh water is being continuously injected into the reactor pressure vessel through the feed-water line at an indicated flow rate of 6 m3/h using a temporary electric pump with off-site power. Fresh water is being injected continuously into the RPVs through the fire extinguisher lines in Units 2 and 3 at indicated rates of 8 m3/h and 7 m3/h respectively using a temporary electric pump with off-site power. > > As of 6 April, TEPCO started injecting nitrogen gas to Unit 1 containment vessel to provide an inerted atmosphere to reduce the possibility of hydrogen combustion within the containment vessel. > > On Unit 1 the indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV is 224 °C and at the bottom of RPV it is 117 °C. Instrumentation “B” for Reactor Pressure indicates that the pressure in the RPV is increasing and instrumentation “A” indicates that it has stabilized. NISA has indicated that some instruments in the reactor vessel may not be working properly. Drywell pressure has increased slightly due to the injection of nitrogen. In Unit 2 the indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV is stable at 143 °C. The temperature at the bottom of the RPV was not reported. Indicated Drywell pressure remains at atmospheric pressure. The indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV in Unit 3 is 88 °C and at the bottom of the RPV is about 115 °C. > > Additional water was injected via the Spent Fuel Cooling System line to the spent fuel pool by a temporary pump on 4 April. > > There has been no change in status on Units 4, 5, 6 and the Common Spent Fuel Storage Facility. > [@](#): > > 1. Radiation Monitoring > > On 6 April, low levels of deposition of both I-131 and Cs-137 were detected in 4 and 6 prefectures respectively. The values reported for I-131 ranged from 3.4 to 10 becquerels per square metre, for Cs-137 from 4.9 to 19 becquerels per square metre. Gamma dose rates continue decreasing. There is no significant change in gamma dose rates reported for 6 April compared to yesterday. > > As of 5 April, I-131 and Cs-134/137 was detectable in drinking water in a small number of prefectures. All values were well below levels that would initiate recommendations for restrictions of drinking water. As of 6 April, one restriction for infants related to I-131 (100 Bq/l) is in place as a precautionary measure in only one village of the Fukushima prefecture. > > TEPCO is responsible for near-shore sampling, taking samples of surface seawater. Samples near discharge areas are collected daily. Until 3 April a general decreasing trend was observed. However, after the discharge of contaminated water at 4 April, an increase from about 11 kBq/l as measured at 09:00 UTC to 41 kBq/l at 14:00 UTC for I-131; from 5.1 kBq/l at 09:00 UTC to 19 kBq/l for both, Cs-134 and Cs-137 at 14:00 UTC was recorded. On 5 April a decrease was observed as compared to the previous day, with seawater concentration of 5 kBq/l for Cs-137 and 11 kBq/l for I-131. > > Since 4 April TEPCO added 3 new sampling points 15 km offshore, in addition to the already established 3 sampling points at the same distance, this resulting in a total of 6 sampling points situated along a north-south transect at a distance of 15 km from the coast. > > Levels of radionuclides reported at these locations for 5 April are in the range 57 - 200 Bq/l for I-131, 18 - 310 Bq/l for Cs-134 and 18 - 320 Bq/l for Cs-137. > > There were no new data for 30 km off-shore monitoring, carried out under the responsibility of MEXT, compared to yesterday’s briefing. > > On 6h April the marine expert from the IAEA Environment Laboratories Monaco completed his mission in Japan. From 2 to 4 April he embarked on the research vessel MIRAI to observe the sampling conducted 30 km offshore. He visited the JAEA laboratory in Tokai where the gamma spectrometric analyses are performed. He briefed representatives of the Japanese Government. > > Since our written briefing of yesterday, data related to food contamination were reported on 6 April by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. These reported analytical results covered a total of 78 samples taken on 3 April (2 samples), 4 April (39 samples), 5 April (35 samples) and 6 April (2 samples). Analytical results for 52 of the 78 samples for various vegetables, spinach and other leafy vegetables, fruit (strawberries) and unprocessed raw milk in eight prefectures (Fukushima, Gunma, Hyogo, Ibaraki, Kanagawa, Niigata, Saitama and Yamagata) indicated that I-131, Cs-134 and/or Cs-137 were either not detected or were below the regulation values set by the Japanese authorities. However, it was reported that analytical results for 26 of the total 41 samples taken in Fukushima prefecture for various vegetables, spinach and other leafy vegetables indicated that I-131 and/or Cs-134/Cs-137 exceeded the regulation values set by the Japanese authorities. > > On 5 April, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare issued a press release indicating that a new provisional regulation value was set for I-131 at a limit of 2000 Bq/kg in fishery products. > > As of 4 April, food restrictions (distribution and/or consumption) are in place in four prefectures (Fukushima, Ibaraki, Tochigi, and Gunma) and in certain locations in Chiba prefecture (Katori City, Tako Town and Asahi City). > > In Fukushima, there are restrictions on the consumption of leafy vegetables, headed and non-headed leafy vegetables (e.g. spinach, komatsuna, cabbage), and flower-headed brassicas (broccoli, cauliflower). There are also restrictions on the distribution of headed and non-headed leafy vegetables, flower-headed brassicas (including turnips), spinach, kakina and unprocessed raw milk produced in the prefecture. > > In Ibaraki, there are restrictions on the distribution of unprocessed raw milk, parsley, spinach and kakina produced in the prefecture. > > In Chiba, there are restrictions on the distribution of spinach produced in Katori City and Tako Town. There are also restrictions on the distribution of spinach, chingensai, shungiku, sanchu, celery and parsley produced in Asahi City. > > In Gunma and Tochigi, there are restrictions on the distribution of spinach and kakina produced in these prefectures. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1446 "2011-04-08T16:17:14Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12985410](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12985410) > > Latest on wind power from the Beeb, stating that there is a lot of down time. In fairness and all. This report pains me, as I am a big fan of the John Muir trust and a lot of the work they do (funnily enough for a keen hiker who lives in scotland). However, they are extremely biased against windfarms, and the report is a hatchet job. It’s going to be a lot more interesting when the offshore windfarms get going - as we know a fair bit about building offshore installations, and by fuck our coast line gets enough wind. Anyone who’s ever been on an oil rig during a storm will have no problem believing there’s a lot of power to be tapped there. But Scotland is a pretty rare case. We’ve got a tiny population, a large amount of coastline, and all of it in the famously windy north sea. There’s also the capacity to use that to pump water into storage reservoirs up hill to help sort the peak power v peak demand problem. Just in the interest of fairness and all. I’m no more anti-wind than I am anti-nuclear. I think we’re going to need a mix of different techs to meet our upcoming requirements. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1447 "2011-04-08T16:27:15Z")
In a sense this argument distills down to a comparison of bad numbers. When someone states the radioactive water is 5 million times over safe standards, a reply will be no, its only 3 million times over. As XT showed above, the radiation is escaping into the food supply, both land and sea. When the food supply is poisoned, it is bad and will continue for a long time. I read yesterday, the big fear at the reactors is more explosions. This mess will continue for a long time. But I believe radioactive food is a bad thing. Ann Colter thinks it is beneficial. Perhaps we should put small amounts in everybody’s food until it is gone. Problem solved. ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1448 "2011-04-08T16:56:01Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > I also know that alternative energy is not ready now. it may have been if we had financed and stressed it a decade or so ago. But we did not and we are not doing it now. Jimmy Carter had solar collectors on the White House roof (removed by the next occupant) and wore a sweater on TV saying we all should conserve energy. How different things might have been if those policies had continued. Heard on the radio recently that regarding global warming: Every dollar spent on energy conservation produced 7 times the greenhouse gas reduction than would be produced by that dollar funding nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuel energy. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1449 "2011-04-08T17:26:03Z")
Which is a lie. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1450 "2011-04-09T05:21:06Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > This report pains me, as I am a big fan of the John Muir trust and a lot of the work they do (funnily enough for a keen hiker who lives in scotland). > > However, they are extremely biased against windfarms, and the report is a hatchet job. It’s going to be a lot more interesting when the offshore windfarms get going - as we know a fair bit about building offshore installations, and by fuck our coast line gets enough wind. Anyone who’s ever been on an oil rig during a storm will have no problem believing there’s a lot of power to be tapped there. > > But Scotland is a pretty rare case. We’ve got a tiny population, a large amount of coastline, and all of it in the famously windy north sea. There’s also the capacity to use that to pump water into storage reservoirs up hill to help sort the peak power v peak demand problem. > > Just in the interest of fairness and all. I’m no more anti-wind than I am anti-nuclear. I think we’re going to need a mix of different techs to meet our upcoming requirements. I actually once rented a house in Martinez, California that was built by John Muir for his daughter. Muir also lived in Martinez. I think the rule of thumb in the wind industry is that you can expect about 25% of the nameplate capacity in good areas, so you need to spread out four times the needed capacity across a continent. And I can certainly see how people might think that wind farms are ugly. I don’t personally agree that they are ugly. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1451 "2011-04-09T08:52:18Z")
[http://ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/nwJWG.html](http://ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/nwJWG.html) The nuclear industry does not care who dies 30 years from now. Nor how many. Nor how much it costs future generations to clean up. Their profits are now. Nor do the imbeciles who post pro nuke. > [@](#): > > “Someone from the AEC came to my house last weekend,” he said. "He lives near me. And he said, `We need you to help destroy Gofman and Tamplin.' And I told him you'd sent me a copy of your paper, and I didn't necessarily agree with every number you'd put in, but I didn't have any major difficulties with it either. It looked like sound science. And--you won't believe this--but do you know what he said to me? He said, `I don’t care whether Gofman and Tamplin are right or not, scientifically. It’s necessary to destroy them. The reason is,’ he said, `by the time those people get the cancer and the leukemia, you’ll be retired and I’ll be retired, so what the hell difference does it make right now? We need our nuclear power program, and unless we destroy Gofman and Tamplin, the nuclear power program is in real hazard from what they say.'. . . . . . in 1972 the National Academy of Sciences published a report called the BEIR Report–Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation–a long, thick report, in which they walked around the problem as best they could, and finally concluded that we were too high between four and ten times. But if you read the fine print, they were admitting that we might just be right.[22] ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1452 "2011-04-09T12:54:55Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > The nuclear industry does not care who dies 30 years from now. Nor how many. Nor how much it costs future generations to clean up. Their profits are now. Nor do the imbeciles who post pro nuke. Seeing nuclear power has been around for over 30 years, please point to the hordes of people who have died because of it. Please compare it to the safety record of other sources of power over the same time period that have equivalent power output. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1453 "2011-04-09T15:48:29Z")
Pointing out the people who died from radioactive fall out is like trying to show the people who died from radioactive coal ash. You know it must have happened, but nobody can actually prove it. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1454 "2011-04-09T16:13:08Z")
I know it must have happened? How do I know this? How do you know this? What proof do you have? You believe it must be so, but that doesn’t make it so. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1455 "2011-04-09T16:14:57Z")
People arguing against coal claim it kills all these people. Every year. But you can’t point to all the bodies and say, “coal killed them!” Same for nuclear fall out around the world. Statistics say people must have died from it, but nobody can point to the bodies and say “radiation killed them!” It’s a problem. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1456 "2011-04-09T16:16:00Z")
Well, actually not for the people running coal and nuclear power plants. The extreme difficulty in proving causation is a great protection for all kinds of pollutants, not just a leaking reactor or a coal plant. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1457 "2011-04-09T16:36:21Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Seeing nuclear power has been around for over 30 years, please point to the hordes of people who have died because of it. Please compare it to the safety record of other sources of power over the same time period that have equivalent power output. This argument again? Nuke has been around for close to 70 years now, and the only thing it’s proven is that it’s expensive and dangerous and always will be expensive and dangerous. How long are you going to keep falling for the exact same scam? All the renewable technologies have proven what they can do right now and the technologies regularly experience breakthroughs and improvements. They are doing it right now. The only improvement nuke is capable of is going from 70-year-old technology to “newer” 65-year-old technology. What the hell?? France sells its heavily subsidized “cheap” baseload nuke power to other countries, and then turns around and imports expensive fossil fuel peak load power from other countries, as well as all it’s transportation fuel. They are anything but energy independent and they pollute just as much as any other country, except the CO2 emissions count against the fossil fuel exporting countries, which makes France look good in headlines, but not so good when you actually start reading about it. France has reprocessing! Ooh! How’s that working out for them? Have they gobbled up and rendered safe all the world’s nuclear fuel? Not a chance. I read they can get 60 times more power from their reprocessed even more highly refined plutonium. That’s nice. You can’t ramp a 1000MW nuke plant up to 60,000MW nuke plant. That’s silly. You’d have to run your 1KMW plant 60 times as long. So, if a nuke plant has a design life of 50 years, now we have to design plants that will run for 3,000 years? Riiight! Or, maybe we’ll build 60 times more plants. Ha, ha! G’luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1458 "2011-04-09T16:47:16Z")
Nuke has murdered land. Places where nuke plants are unusable . Chernobyl radiated a huge part of land that will not be usable again. Nuke has destroyed coastal land in Japan, where land is very precious. They eventually will have a radioactive scar along their coast. We are creating pockets of useless land all over the world. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1459 "2011-04-09T16:53:20Z")
It’s funny on a huge scale, that even after **exactly what the people against nuclear power said they were worried about has happened** , the supporters still think that nuclear power is ‘safe’. No matter what happens, no matter how many reactors fail, leak, burn or explode, a true nuclear believer will not change their mind. No matter how bad an accident, they actually will still believe. This is how religions are born. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1460 "2011-04-09T16:54:35Z")
Oops. Sorry. I should go to the rant room now. Please go back to your calm rational discussion of anything nuclear. (except the crisis in Japan). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389.md?page=72) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389.md?page=74)