You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
neat, thanks. i;ve read quite a few comments of 'why did they build these right on the shoreline?' the word tsunami is japanese, thats how many they've had!
-
CBC Reports On Possible Radioactive Fallout Hitting BC Canada!
Well, be scared that this will set nuclear power back ten years
maybe it should be? i mean coal power plants don't do this.
and all the 'greenness' of nuclear power (what a oxymoron) is totally negated by the 100fold damage it can do when things go wrong..
that land will be radioactive & uninhabitable for 10,000+ years, coal don't do that..
Another Reactor has Exploded!!!!
Quote:
If the Same Magnitude Quake Had Hit California, We Could Have Been Nuked
An 8.9 Richter-scale earthquake could have ripped apart at least four coastal reactors and sent a lethal cloud of radiation across the entire United States.
March 11, 2011 |
The fallout of Chernobyl radioactivity in Central Ontario, Canada
Purchase $ 31.50
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.
S. R. Joshi
Environmental Contaminants Division, National Water Research Institute, Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Environment Canada, P.O. Box 5050, Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6, Canada
Received 29 January 1987; accepted 8 July 1987. ; Available online 10 April 2003.
Abstract
The levels of Chernobyl-derived 103Ru, 106Ru, 134Cs and 137Cs were measured in Algoma, Ontario rain samples collected as weekly composites until September 30, 1986. The radionuclides were consistently measurable until about mid-June. The data, when analyzed in conjunction with 7Be measurements, yield a mean tropospheric residence time of about 14 days for the four radionuclides. This value is significantly lower than the previous estimates based on nuclear explosion-derived radionuclides but is within the range of values reported using radon daughters.
On the transport of chernobyl radioactivity to eastern Canada
Purchase$ 31.50
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.
J. -C. Roy, J. -E. Côté, A. Mahfoud, S. Villeneuve and J. Turcotte
Department of Chemistry, Université Laval, Québec, Canada G1K 7P4
Received 5 February 1987; accepted 27 April 1987. ; Available online 10 April 2003.
Abstract
A large number of radionuclides released by the Chernobyl nuclear reactor were detected in air and river water samples collected in the Quebec region of eastern Canada. Analysis of the data supports the view that three waves of airborne radioactivity entered eastern Canada between 6 May 1986 and the end of June 1986. The first two waves would have followed an Arctic route and arrived over Quebec on 6 May and around 14 May respectively. The third wave would have been carried by the prevailing westerly winds across the Pacific Ocean and arrived over Quebec around 25–26 May. On 25 June and thereafter, Chernobyl radioactivity was undetectable in our airfilters but was still being detected in the St Lawrence river in March 1987.
Encyclopedia of environmental science By David E. Alexander, Rhodes Whitmore Fairbridge
cali crops needed to be destroyed after fallout from russian nuke test, 50's http://books.google.com/books?id=Y0i...201986&f=false
maybe it should be? i mean coal power plants don't do this.
and all the 'greenness' of nuclear power (what a oxymoron) is totally negated by the 100fold damage it can do when things go wrong..
that land will be radioactive & uninhabitable for 10,000+ years, coal don't do that..
Ugh, I wish people would know what they were talking about before spewing off uneducated bullshit like this. It's people like you that are the cause of a ridiculous energy plan with no basis in reality and rooted solely in gut feelings and water-cooler science.
Coal burning is more radioactive than a nuclear ACCIDENT.
Japan's reactors will be fine.
The explosions are hydrogen being released to reduce pressure. The explosions will not compromise the reactor's containment structure. Causing these explosions is PROTECTING the reactor not a sign everything is going pear shaped.
There is almost no comparison between Chernobyl and this.
Currently, there is Boric Acid (Boron) being pumped into the reactor, as well as seawater. Both of those things essentially scuttle the reactors irreparably but are the appropriate measures to take. Also, the reactors in question have been shut down, they are simply dealing with residue heat now which is approximately 3% of the normal heat load when in use.
Finally, even if there were to be a actual meltdown the facilities are designed to be able to contain and disperse the material inside of a hermetically sealed chamber designed for exactly that scenario. No one wants a meltdown, but the engineers obviously planned for it. Japan's nuclear facilities, although old, have proven to be incredibly resilient, dealing with an earthquake far greater than they were rated to.
Also, as to the question why would they put it by the shoreline? Perhaps these "stupid" engineers foresaw a scenario with complete power failure and fresh water shortage and having an "unlimited" supply of seawater would be a nice contingency. Oh, that's exactly what is happening and if there were no seawater readily available the fuel rods would have remained exposed? It's almost like the engineers who designed and are now dealing with this know more about it than some guy who watched 10 minutes of CNN and is now a nuclear physicist.
I'm just sad that people like you make up the majority and have held us back from having a proper nuclear power system and think of nuclear energy as this evil thing. It's pathetic.
Cheers.
Last edited by johanthegood; 03-14-2011 at 04:11 AM.
as for asking the Q's of why does an earth quake prone country that invented the word tsunami have reactors on the shore..again MSM. I could post 2 more vids asking, besides the one below.
And now multiple reactors at other nuclear facilities are Critical!
nuclear power is awesome power. coal is terribad. natural gas is okay though.. but natural gas you need alot of fuel and power output is not so good.
i learned this from sim city. you can build a coal plant and cover the city in sout, or build a natural gas and produce clean energy. but when you get nuclear power, then you usualy win the game because it puts you on track for developing fusion reactors.
is everyone else loving bmdbley getting owned in every thread by people with actual knowledge on the subjects at hand instead of wikipedia, fox news, msnbc, etc as much as I am?
West coast member alert.. japan nuclear reactor meltdown
I almost spit beer on my screen
Linear Mode
