Fukushima situation
- Thread starter AltarNation
- Start date
Mickey O'Neil
Active Member
When I see that, I can't help but think, "FuK u We Shitta All Ova Youa Nations".
1Shot1Kill
Active Member
This is just what I need, wtf
cliffey501
Active Member
Scare tactics.This is WAY over hyped.
1Shot1Kill
Active Member
I love the people that dismiss every warning right up until death.
Moses Mobetta
Well-Known Member
This probably wont kill all of us whats the matter with dismissing a nuclear disaster as trivial? .....gasping for air ....as skin blisters off .....turning purple.....aaahhhhh hel.......
cliffey501
Active Member
Why didn't we die from the chernobyl or three mile island disasters?
Moses Mobetta
Well-Known Member
Many did die at Chernobyl most afterward from ARS, the cancer rate skyrocketed in areas due to the radiation from it.
cliffey501
Active Member
Well yes obviously the around around the fallout was affected.But it was no global disaster.If I lived near fukushima I might be worried.
Moses Mobetta
Well-Known Member
I think the concern is because nuclear fuel cylinders are being stored in dangerous conditions that could pose an environmental threat.
1Shot1Kill
Active Member
Because cancer kills slowly
cliffey501
Active Member
Ya I know what your saying the risks aren't over.I just don't think its much to worry about if you don't live near there.The biggest mistake was building it on or near a fault line.That being said fukushima isn't the only nuclear plant built on or near fault lines there are a few.
AltarNation
Well-Known Member
Well, it's a pretty large amount of fuel, being stored in a building that is completely unstable, on a fault line. The issue is, if it does get disrupted, we're looking at a global catastrophe. Hopefully the various other governments of the world will force help upon Japan, who up until this point has been saying "we can do it ourselves" while they dump sea water on it for 13 months straight, which hasn't done a god damn thing except pour said contaminated sea water back into the ocean and into the sky as it vaporizes. That alone is a major problem, as it has basically been dumping huge amounts of airborne radiation directly into the air currents that pull over to the western U.S. --nevermind what would happen if those fuel stores get disrupted. It will pretty much be game over if that happens. That is where the article's concerns mainly hold.
tehgenoc1de
Active Member
So one fuel rod has the potential to kill 2.9 billion people...and there's only 1500 of them..
AltarNation
Well-Known Member
WHAT COULD GO WRONG? LULZ.
We're all fucked if they don't do something about it, for serious.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Trouble is, by the same logic, one lake could kill as many people (by drowning). I could at most see a regional disaster, but not an international one from this. cn
AltarNation
Well-Known Member
Denial is not just a river in egypt. Are you really going to compare a massive pile of nuclear fuel in an unstable building directly adjacent to the ocean on a fault line to a lake of H20? Try reframing this a little bit in your head. A regional disaster is a global disaster if it affects the oceans. And if it is an explosion that causes the complications, well. That is a LOT of fuel, and it is well documented that the air currents in the area are ALREADY depositing massive amounts of radiation on the western U.S. states.
I understand that you are trying to make a point about how potentiality is not finality. However, I think that using that as an excuse to ignore the potential for a global disaster in this situation is pretty foolish. Do whatever you want, though. Honestly, the "region" is going to be the entire northern hemisphere. I'll probably be moving far south before the end of the year. Call it a tin foil hat situation if you want. I've always wanted to see South America anyway.
researchkitty
Well-Known Member
There are less than five thousand people on this *planet* that understand how nuclear reactions properly work and how to configure them for power. I would doubt that any of them had anything to do with any of those links............
We can just send the reactor rods to space, launch em and send em away. Problem solved.
We can just send the reactor rods to space, launch em and send em away. Problem solved.
AltarNation
Well-Known Member
Considering how often space rockets inadvertantly miss-fire and blow up in the atmosphere, I don't think that is quite a problem solved answer.
If you read the links you will find that there are nuclear specialists that are backing the risk factor stated, and that they are preparing to move themselves and their families to the southern hemisphere just in case. But I understand if you want to wait until more of them sign on before believing it. Skepticism is healthy to a point, but don't say I didn't warn ya if it does go down.
Similar threads
