Next up, TEPCO will explain how fuel rods stored in what used to be building 3 “may be” damaged.
They “can’t tell” because there is 20 tons of concrete and metal in the pool, and it’s got too much steam pouring out of it to see anything, and they can’t get a sample of the water from it, due to the radiation, but it “might be” a little damaged.
For anyone who is interested in the scientific/engineering aspects of the plant and what happened.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/Fukushima-Tragedy.pdf
I’m sorry, I’ll stick with the already excellent IAEA summaries already linked in the thread multiple times. No one should bother reading any link that FXMastermind posts–it’s obvious he isn’t, either, so it works out even.
Actually, i think the Union of Concerned Scientists is a pretty good source on this incident. They are dubious about the benefits of an expanded nuclear power capacity, and are also concerned about safety and storage issues at current plants, but are also scientists who are interested in questions of fact and evidence.
The main problem i have is that FXTroll paid no attention earlier in the thread when i posted links to the UCS website showing that the daily UCS briefings contradicted his lies and exaggerations. Apparently, according to FXTroll, the UCS can conveniently be ignored if they are not fearmongering to his liking, but should be paid close heed if they make some general observations that coincide with his “thinking.”
What’s even dumber is that the file he linked to doesn’t in any way contradict the main points that i and others have been making in this thread, and in no way provides evidence that FXTroll’s own half-assed assertions have any truth or validity. No-one had denied that Fukushima is incredibly serious, and the UCS presentation in FXTroll’s link is basically a fairly straightforward outline of the way that the crisis proceeded due to loss of power and lack of backup power after the earthquake and tsunami.
In fact, as the file makes clear, and as UCS scientist David Lochbaum said in his testimony before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on March 29, the whole disaster at Fukushima probably could have been relatively easily avoided had there been more and better backup power generators at the plant. A key part of UCS’s platform is that nuclear reactors need better backup power supplies to enable continued cooling and water cycling in case of blackouts. I think this is good policy, and i can’t recall a single person in this thread arguing that it’s not. Here’s what Lochbaum said to the Senate Committee:
Bolding mine.
Lochbaum also recommended new strategies to deal with spent fuel rod storage, arguing that reducing the spent fuel rods stored in the pools at the sites would have the benefit of both reducing the heat load (hence giving more time before overheating) in case of a power outage, and reducing the amount of fuel available to melt in case of a loss of cooling. This is another set of policies that i haven’t seen anyone in this thread say is a bad idea.
But Lochbaum was very clear that an adequate power supply, with backups, was the key issue, and that it might well have prevented the Fukushima problems completely.
You can read his full statement here (PDF).
His statement was made before the full scope of what happened was made public. (the current understanding of what happened is by no means complete)
I was talking about you, not to you. Go away and let the adults discuss this, troll.
Go start your own topic then. This one is for rants about stupid nuclear reporting … wait.
Continue.
Some how this Lochbomb is the expert to be accepted and all other experts are to be rejected. Why? Endless stories from nuclear experts telling what happened and saying it would just get worse and worse.
The IAEA works for the nuclear industry and promotes nuclear energy. They are their lobbyists.
The IAEA Mission Statement | IAEA Note their mission statement. They are not a regulatory agency.
This interview with a nuclear expert should be perfect for this topic.
An interview with a nuclear expert who has written papers commissioned by anti-nuclear groups…and, surprisingly, he’s full of gloom and doom concerning Fukushima! :eek: Shocking!
Using the same standards of evidence used by the anti-nuclear crowd, just looking at the linked article I see a large prominent picture of some people dressed up in gas masks to protest nuclear energy (in Barcelona, which is, after all very close to Japan and highly relevant). Sort of sets the theme.
To go a step beyond what the anti-nuke folks are capable (their main tactic seems to involve simply saying that the IAEA and other such groups are shills for the nuclear power industry so why bother reading what they say or addressing any of it??), let’s take a look at the article and, well, see what it says. I mean, Arnold Gundersen might be biased, and has certainly worked in anti-nuclear circles in the past, writing papers commissioned by them and all, but that doesn’t necessarily make what he’s got to say wrong…only points out that one should take what he’s saying with a grain of salt.
So…he just knew it was worse than the provisional rating that had been given to it while the crisis was on going and still being evaluated. He later admits that in such crisis situations that usually the real rating comes out after things are under control and there is time and ability to fully measure what’s happened…but, of course, he doesn’t admit that HERE. It’s more sensational and makes him look like more of a guy with all the answers to do it this way.
Perhaps his definition of ‘catastrophic levels of radiation’ is different than…well, anyone else who isn’t an anti-nuker with an agenda? Comparing, even by omission and obvious deception, the blast at Chernobyl to what happened at Fukushima is, well, a weasely trick that would make even lev proud, since it’s totally apples to amoeba.
Again…lies (or at least deception) of omission. What’s happening at Fukushima is no where near as bad as what happened at Chernobyl. The fact that 4 reactors were involved in one and only 1 reactor is involved in the other SOUNDS scary (I mean, 4 is a bigger number than 1! OMG…it’s 4 times as bad!! :rolleyes:), but only one of the reactors at Fukushima is in really serious condition. They are lumping all of the reactor problems together to arrive at the level 7 rating, because they are considering it all part of one problem. When they rated the severity of each individual reactor the problems ranged from 2 to 5 on the severity rating system. It’s when you combine them together and look at what’s going on as a whole that they bump things up to 7…which, presumably this deceptive asshole knows, but chooses not to speak too, instead buildings inferences that people will draw for the obvious conclusion that 1 reactor problem is going to be less than 4 reactor problems.
Lev could take instruction from this guy on how to REALLY be a deceptive little weaselet.
Notice the weasel words, yet always getting back to inferences of scariness? The key thing I wanted to underscore here is how he dropped this part almost casually into the discussion (emphasis mine). Of course, he was trying to make a different point about how scientists and engineers with ‘skin in the game’ are going to distort the data to make things look better than they were, or something, but I find it pretty funny that he’d say this after boldly discussing how his own predictions were correct (weeks ago) and that the government and nuclear agencies in Japan are just now willing to admit it. 
Total horseshit. He’s comparing what’s happened in Fukushima to Bhopal (which killed thousands INITIALLY, with hundreds of thousands with sever problems who’s lives are going to be cut short) and Chernobyl (hundreds died initially, thousands or 10’s of thousands who have sever problems that will again cut short their lives…4000 dead so far according to the IAEA, millions according to the whacky web sites gonzomax favors) to an event that, so far, has killed…2. In a blast, not due to radiation. How can anyone take this guy seriously? What does he base his projections on 200k dead on? Over what time frame? What numbers are he using for Bhopal or Chernobyl? Over what time frames? Just wild out of the ass guessing? Deliberate deception? Sensationalism? All of the above?
Just tossed this in as a bone for lev, gonzo and FXM. He does no more than they have to actually demonstrate that the IAEA has been inaccurate or ‘behind in its analysis since the very first week’. Not that it would be surprising since, you know, the crisis is ongoing and doing detailed analysis takes that time stuff.
Here was my very favorite question and answer though (there are 2 more pages of this guru gassing off if anyone is interested in looking over FXM’s wonderful cite though)
So…how is he getting the data to make his pronouncements and assertions? He’s talking with ‘independent university professors around the world’ (which begs the question…how are THEY getting the information? :p), and, of course, from the internet.
Anyway, I had a few minutes and it’s always fun to go through cites from people like FXM to see what they are really saying…and who is saying them, and what their associations are. It’s kind of telling that FXM et al play up the bias of places like the IAEA (while not bothering to actually address any of what they are saying, simply handwaving it away because of the supposed bias), but they will take assertions by guys like this as if they were gospel truth…even though they also have a stake in portraying things with a certain spin (you don’t get new commissions to write papers from anti-nuclear groups if you write stuff that doesn’t put nuclear energy in a dis favorable light after all).
-XT
Needs more words in all caps, and should end on a high note.
If you were my target audiance, FXM, I’d have writting it in Dr. Seuss-esque type prose, and tossed in some funny pictures.
-XT
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/16/501364/main20054572.shtml
Radiation rises again. God damn it.
While that report again only gives amounts as “times the legal limit”, a common method of avoiding any scientific data, it does have a photo of the reactor top from Building 4
Much better and bigger photos here.
http://cryptome.org/eyeball/daiichi-npp9/daiichi-photos9.htm
(thanks to the online group of scientists and engineers working day and night on this)
This type of post is precisely what makes FXM a troll on this issue.
It’s not specifically that he rants about the whole nuclear crisis in Japan or about media coverage of it. Everyone likes to rant every now and again, and to get frustration off their chest, and that’s partly what the Pit is for.
What makes him a troll is that he offers arguments and links and evidence that purport to be serious, but whenever anyone makes a serious argument in rebuttal, or calls him on his lies and obfuscation, he slips back into sarcastic outrage mode and pretends that this thread is for ranting alone.
That is the very definition of trolling, IMO. Seeking a response, and then pretending that it doesn’t exist.
No, because you couldn’t. But if you did at least try to be entertaining, it would be much better than the boring and repetitive nonsense you consider worth posting.
Which nobody reads.
It’s almost like he just wants to treat the SDMB like his own personal blog.
Best response is to not engage, that much is clear. He’s not interested in a conversation.
If that is how you try engage somebody in ‘conversation’, it’s not surprising when you don’t get one.
Yep.
To the extent that i’m responding to this thread, it’s only for the people who might actually be interested in participating in rational discussion on the issue. That’s why i’m ignoring FXTroll’s posts.