Magicdirt

`

`

`

They didn't waste much time preparing the PR presentation on that one. It seemed well prepared and on face value it looks quite factual, but there was one part that is quite ambiguous " In order to prevent a core meltdown, the operators started to use sea water to cool the core. I am not quite sure if they flooded our pressure cooker with it (the second containment), or if they flooded the third containment, immersing the pressure cooker. But that is not relevant for us." If they are directly cooling the core with sea water they would have to keep pumping cold water in and hot water out, what is the status of the discharge water and where is it going ?

`

`

Cheers everyone ! I've a had a great day too

`

`

Now we are seeing how dangerous this technology can be. People have said it throughout the history of the nuclear energy industry and repetitively had their concerns swept under the carpet by industry officials, governments, scientists and media "experts". They are playing Russian roulette with the health of the planet in order to make some quick easy bucks. I've worked in conventional power stations and I've seen more incompetent half arsed work done by drugged out morons than anyone would believe, why would a nuclear plant be any different ? I've even worked under illiterate supervisors on several occasions. Now we have a situation where we (citizens of the world) have been lied to many times as to the safety of nuclear power plants. Corruption and lies are now emerging to be commonplace in regards to the safety of nuclear power plants. The Russian government lied about the amount of fallout from the Chernobyl incident (at first they completely denied it even happened) TEPCO manipulated safety inspections and covered up the details in Japan. The American government spun a string of lies in the aftermath of the 3 mile reactor incident. The lies were almost the same as the ones being told now about the Fukashima reactors ie venting to relieve pressure and minimal radiation leakage etc. We also have a situation where no-one can be trusted as to the safety of reactors - corporations, governments or so called independent bodies have been shown to either sit on the fence or tell outright lies where public safety is concerned. Statistics are manipulated and evidence is not documented after such events. Saying that those issues are a thing of the past are like saying police corruption is a thing of the past - wake up and smell (or taste) the strontium - 90 And take your potassium iodide. Don't even start me on D.U. or dust clouds. Fuck with another planet leave mine alone.

`

`

Apparently the company that runs the reactor TEPCO has a scetchy past and there has been scandal with falsified safety records at the Fukishima reactor. We won't know the truth about what is really going on for ages or possibly we will never know. Falsified safety tests at Fukishima Tokyo Electric Power Company - Concealed lies

They keep increasing the evacuation radius first 3km then 10km then 20 km last I heard, and now they are saying it's not so bad. It seems a bit contradictory, they could be just playing it safe but it does seem a bit sus. The Russians tried to keep Chernobyl quiet, but I think Swedish scientists picked up high levels of radiation, thinking it was their own reactor leaking and then they traced it back to Russia. Then the Russians lied about the amount of discharge and tried to downplay the severity until satellite pics showed the full extent of the damage. I wouldn't trust any reports from anyone with a vested interest in the reactor. Liability could be a big issue in the weeks and months to come so they will be putting a positive spin on things. I bet insurance policies all around the world will get jacked to pay for this mess. @Teljkon I believe I have felt the earth move several times in the last few months too.

Mathematical calculations based purely on Richter readings can be a guide but they can't really give an accurate idea of how much energy has been released, they're just guesses really. Those sort of calculations don't factor in the type of wave coming from the fault, duration of the event or the length of the fault. For instance if 2 quakes of the same magnitude and wave type go for different durations then the quake that lasts a lot longer would obviously generate more energy. Or a fault 100 Km long as compared to a 10 Km fault with identical Richter readings. I'm not disputing it was big, but putting mathematical labels on the event is just a simplified attempt to quantify something with way too many variables.

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`