OT – Nuclear Fallout Map

[KSMountain]

@ILoveRegulation –
Are you able to discuss issues and ideas dispassionately? Can you debate without going ad hominem almost immediately?

For the record (replying to an earlier allegation), I love facts. I like to go to actual source references rather than rely on *anyone* else’s (of any political persuasion) regurgitated hyperbolic pablum.

Now, can we get back to the OT?

I think it is interesting that currently evidently the Japanese are concerned most about reactor 3 while the Americans are most concerned about the spent fuel pool of reactor 4. There is going to be power there soon. Maybe they will be able to cool 4’s pool once they have power. But If that pool has a leak then it will be interesting times.

Still there is a lot of ingenuity in the world cadre of engineers and I have faith the situation will ultimately be resolved. That may not be as thrilling or fun to wax cataclysmic about, but folks aren’t going to just give up. Watch and see.

[CA renter]

[quote=KSMountain]@ILoveRegulation –
Are you able to discuss issues and ideas dispassionately? Can you debate without going ad hominem almost immediately?

For the record (replying to an earlier allegation), I love facts. I like to go to actual source references rather than rely on *anyone* else’s (of any political persuasion) regurgitated hyperbolic pablum.

Now, can we get back to the OT?

I think it is interesting that currently evidently the Japanese are concerned most about reactor 3 while the Americans are most concerned about the spent fuel pool of reactor 4. There is going to be power there soon. Maybe they will be able to cool 4’s pool once they have power. But If that pool has a leak then it will be interesting times.

Still there is a lot of ingenuity in the world cadre of engineers and I have faith the situation will ultimately be resolved. That may not be as thrilling or fun to wax cataclysmic about, but folks aren’t going to just give up. Watch and see.[/quote]

Their concern about the #3 reactor might be due to this:

“We can never say never,” Lyman said. “My judgment is that there will probably be measurable radiation, but except for a few hot spots it is not something we should really worry about.”

Key federal officials involved in the Radnet monitoring program have so far not disclosed their predictions for U.S. radioactive exposure. The projections are being developed by the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center operated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Northern California. The center, part of the Energy Department, uses sophisticated models on supercomputers to project the movement of radioactive particles and other toxic substances through the atmosphere.

However, a computer model of atmospheric movements developed by the Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy shows that the Fukushima plumes could travel across the Pacific, though the levels of radioactivity that could reach the West Coast of the U.S. remain unclear.

It appears that all of the models, however, are not based on measurements of radioactivity at the source and a projection of actual radioactive fallout in the U.S., but rather project a relative scale of radioactivity. Since Japanese authorities have said little about the amount of the releases at Fukushima, nobody can say how much radioactivity will hit California.

Of particular concern, however, is radiation emanating from Fukushima’s No. 3 reactor. That reactor uses plutonium fuel, which poses a special health risk even in small quantities if the fallout were to reach U.S. shores.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-japan-nuclear-usa-20110317,0,1431467.story

This is a horrible, horrible tragedy. 🙁

[CA renter]

[quote=KSMountain]@ILoveRegulation –
Are you able to discuss issues and ideas dispassionately? Can you debate without going ad hominem almost immediately?

For the record (replying to an earlier allegation), I love facts. I like to go to actual source references rather than rely on *anyone* else’s (of any political persuasion) regurgitated hyperbolic pablum.

Now, can we get back to the OT?

I think it is interesting that currently evidently the Japanese are concerned most about reactor 3 while the Americans are most concerned about the spent fuel pool of reactor 4. There is going to be power there soon. Maybe they will be able to cool 4’s pool once they have power. But If that pool has a leak then it will be interesting times.

Still there is a lot of ingenuity in the world cadre of engineers and I have faith the situation will ultimately be resolved. That may not be as thrilling or fun to wax cataclysmic about, but folks aren’t going to just give up. Watch and see.[/quote]

Their concern about the #3 reactor might be due to this:

“We can never say never,” Lyman said. “My judgment is that there will probably be measurable radiation, but except for a few hot spots it is not something we should really worry about.”

Key federal officials involved in the Radnet monitoring program have so far not disclosed their predictions for U.S. radioactive exposure. The projections are being developed by the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center operated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Northern California. The center, part of the Energy Department, uses sophisticated models on supercomputers to project the movement of radioactive particles and other toxic substances through the atmosphere.

However, a computer model of atmospheric movements developed by the Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy shows that the Fukushima plumes could travel across the Pacific, though the levels of radioactivity that could reach the West Coast of the U.S. remain unclear.

It appears that all of the models, however, are not based on measurements of radioactivity at the source and a projection of actual radioactive fallout in the U.S., but rather project a relative scale of radioactivity. Since Japanese authorities have said little about the amount of the releases at Fukushima, nobody can say how much radioactivity will hit California.

Of particular concern, however, is radiation emanating from Fukushima’s No. 3 reactor. That reactor uses plutonium fuel, which poses a special health risk even in small quantities if the fallout were to reach U.S. shores.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-japan-nuclear-usa-20110317,0,1431467.story

This is a horrible, horrible tragedy. 🙁

[CA renter]

[quote=KSMountain]@ILoveRegulation –
Are you able to discuss issues and ideas dispassionately? Can you debate without going ad hominem almost immediately?

For the record (replying to an earlier allegation), I love facts. I like to go to actual source references rather than rely on *anyone* else’s (of any political persuasion) regurgitated hyperbolic pablum.

Now, can we get back to the OT?

I think it is interesting that currently evidently the Japanese are concerned most about reactor 3 while the Americans are most concerned about the spent fuel pool of reactor 4. There is going to be power there soon. Maybe they will be able to cool 4’s pool once they have power. But If that pool has a leak then it will be interesting times.

Still there is a lot of ingenuity in the world cadre of engineers and I have faith the situation will ultimately be resolved. That may not be as thrilling or fun to wax cataclysmic about, but folks aren’t going to just give up. Watch and see.[/quote]

Their concern about the #3 reactor might be due to this:

“We can never say never,” Lyman said. “My judgment is that there will probably be measurable radiation, but except for a few hot spots it is not something we should really worry about.”

Key federal officials involved in the Radnet monitoring program have so far not disclosed their predictions for U.S. radioactive exposure. The projections are being developed by the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center operated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Northern California. The center, part of the Energy Department, uses sophisticated models on supercomputers to project the movement of radioactive particles and other toxic substances through the atmosphere.

However, a computer model of atmospheric movements developed by the Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy shows that the Fukushima plumes could travel across the Pacific, though the levels of radioactivity that could reach the West Coast of the U.S. remain unclear.

It appears that all of the models, however, are not based on measurements of radioactivity at the source and a projection of actual radioactive fallout in the U.S., but rather project a relative scale of radioactivity. Since Japanese authorities have said little about the amount of the releases at Fukushima, nobody can say how much radioactivity will hit California.

Of particular concern, however, is radiation emanating from Fukushima’s No. 3 reactor. That reactor uses plutonium fuel, which poses a special health risk even in small quantities if the fallout were to reach U.S. shores.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-japan-nuclear-usa-20110317,0,1431467.story

This is a horrible, horrible tragedy. 🙁

[CA renter]

[quote=KSMountain]@ILoveRegulation –
Are you able to discuss issues and ideas dispassionately? Can you debate without going ad hominem almost immediately?

For the record (replying to an earlier allegation), I love facts. I like to go to actual source references rather than rely on *anyone* else’s (of any political persuasion) regurgitated hyperbolic pablum.

Now, can we get back to the OT?

I think it is interesting that currently evidently the Japanese are concerned most about reactor 3 while the Americans are most concerned about the spent fuel pool of reactor 4. There is going to be power there soon. Maybe they will be able to cool 4’s pool once they have power. But If that pool has a leak then it will be interesting times.

Still there is a lot of ingenuity in the world cadre of engineers and I have faith the situation will ultimately be resolved. That may not be as thrilling or fun to wax cataclysmic about, but folks aren’t going to just give up. Watch and see.[/quote]

Their concern about the #3 reactor might be due to this:

“We can never say never,” Lyman said. “My judgment is that there will probably be measurable radiation, but except for a few hot spots it is not something we should really worry about.”

Key federal officials involved in the Radnet monitoring program have so far not disclosed their predictions for U.S. radioactive exposure. The projections are being developed by the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center operated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Northern California. The center, part of the Energy Department, uses sophisticated models on supercomputers to project the movement of radioactive particles and other toxic substances through the atmosphere.

However, a computer model of atmospheric movements developed by the Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy shows that the Fukushima plumes could travel across the Pacific, though the levels of radioactivity that could reach the West Coast of the U.S. remain unclear.

It appears that all of the models, however, are not based on measurements of radioactivity at the source and a projection of actual radioactive fallout in the U.S., but rather project a relative scale of radioactivity. Since Japanese authorities have said little about the amount of the releases at Fukushima, nobody can say how much radioactivity will hit California.

Of particular concern, however, is radiation emanating from Fukushima’s No. 3 reactor. That reactor uses plutonium fuel, which poses a special health risk even in small quantities if the fallout were to reach U.S. shores.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-japan-nuclear-usa-20110317,0,1431467.story

This is a horrible, horrible tragedy. 🙁

[CA renter]

[quote=KSMountain]@ILoveRegulation –
Are you able to discuss issues and ideas dispassionately? Can you debate without going ad hominem almost immediately?

For the record (replying to an earlier allegation), I love facts. I like to go to actual source references rather than rely on *anyone* else’s (of any political persuasion) regurgitated hyperbolic pablum.

Now, can we get back to the OT?

I think it is interesting that currently evidently the Japanese are concerned most about reactor 3 while the Americans are most concerned about the spent fuel pool of reactor 4. There is going to be power there soon. Maybe they will be able to cool 4’s pool once they have power. But If that pool has a leak then it will be interesting times.

Still there is a lot of ingenuity in the world cadre of engineers and I have faith the situation will ultimately be resolved. That may not be as thrilling or fun to wax cataclysmic about, but folks aren’t going to just give up. Watch and see.[/quote]

Their concern about the #3 reactor might be due to this:

“We can never say never,” Lyman said. “My judgment is that there will probably be measurable radiation, but except for a few hot spots it is not something we should really worry about.”

Key federal officials involved in the Radnet monitoring program have so far not disclosed their predictions for U.S. radioactive exposure. The projections are being developed by the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center operated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Northern California. The center, part of the Energy Department, uses sophisticated models on supercomputers to project the movement of radioactive particles and other toxic substances through the atmosphere.

However, a computer model of atmospheric movements developed by the Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy shows that the Fukushima plumes could travel across the Pacific, though the levels of radioactivity that could reach the West Coast of the U.S. remain unclear.

It appears that all of the models, however, are not based on measurements of radioactivity at the source and a projection of actual radioactive fallout in the U.S., but rather project a relative scale of radioactivity. Since Japanese authorities have said little about the amount of the releases at Fukushima, nobody can say how much radioactivity will hit California.

Of particular concern, however, is radiation emanating from Fukushima’s No. 3 reactor. That reactor uses plutonium fuel, which poses a special health risk even in small quantities if the fallout were to reach U.S. shores.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-japan-nuclear-usa-20110317,0,1431467.story

This is a horrible, horrible tragedy. 🙁

[zk]

[quote=CA renter][quote=zk][quote=CA renter]Anyone here considered “taking a vacation” back east as a result of the nuclear problems?[/quote]

If you fly, you’ll get more extra radiation from being at altitude for 8 hours (round trip) than you would from staying here on the west coast.[/quote]

Yes, I’ve thought about this. Was planning to drive, but not sure if we could get far enough ahead of the radioactive plume. I do have my iodine pills, though. ;)[/quote]

I guess you’re kidding around here, I can’t really tell. But 5,000 miles in a car is more dangerous than the radiation you’d get in Tokyo, let alone San Diego.

[zk]

[quote=CA renter][quote=zk][quote=CA renter]Anyone here considered “taking a vacation” back east as a result of the nuclear problems?[/quote]

If you fly, you’ll get more extra radiation from being at altitude for 8 hours (round trip) than you would from staying here on the west coast.[/quote]

Yes, I’ve thought about this. Was planning to drive, but not sure if we could get far enough ahead of the radioactive plume. I do have my iodine pills, though. ;)[/quote]

I guess you’re kidding around here, I can’t really tell. But 5,000 miles in a car is more dangerous than the radiation you’d get in Tokyo, let alone San Diego.

[zk]

[quote=CA renter][quote=zk][quote=CA renter]Anyone here considered “taking a vacation” back east as a result of the nuclear problems?[/quote]

If you fly, you’ll get more extra radiation from being at altitude for 8 hours (round trip) than you would from staying here on the west coast.[/quote]

Yes, I’ve thought about this. Was planning to drive, but not sure if we could get far enough ahead of the radioactive plume. I do have my iodine pills, though. ;)[/quote]

I guess you’re kidding around here, I can’t really tell. But 5,000 miles in a car is more dangerous than the radiation you’d get in Tokyo, let alone San Diego.

[zk]

[quote=CA renter][quote=zk][quote=CA renter]Anyone here considered “taking a vacation” back east as a result of the nuclear problems?[/quote]

If you fly, you’ll get more extra radiation from being at altitude for 8 hours (round trip) than you would from staying here on the west coast.[/quote]

Yes, I’ve thought about this. Was planning to drive, but not sure if we could get far enough ahead of the radioactive plume. I do have my iodine pills, though. ;)[/quote]

I guess you’re kidding around here, I can’t really tell. But 5,000 miles in a car is more dangerous than the radiation you’d get in Tokyo, let alone San Diego.

[zk]

[quote=CA renter][quote=zk][quote=CA renter]Anyone here considered “taking a vacation” back east as a result of the nuclear problems?[/quote]

If you fly, you’ll get more extra radiation from being at altitude for 8 hours (round trip) than you would from staying here on the west coast.[/quote]

Yes, I’ve thought about this. Was planning to drive, but not sure if we could get far enough ahead of the radioactive plume. I do have my iodine pills, though. ;)[/quote]

I guess you’re kidding around here, I can’t really tell. But 5,000 miles in a car is more dangerous than the radiation you’d get in Tokyo, let alone San Diego.

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=zk]
I’d agree with all of that except for the part about the extreme vilification of Bush being for the same policies and programs as Obama’s. Bush was extremely vilified, but I think he deserved it. He got us into a war of choice apparently without significant reflection on the matter. Thousands of Americans are dead in vain and trillions of dollars are wasted. To me, that’s an extreme villain.

Obama dithers and has made some bad calls. But he hasn’t done nearly the damage to this country that Bush did. Whole different league.

I’m curious about your opinions on Libya. What would you have us do there? What long-term strategy would you have?[/quote]

Zk: Except that Obama is continuing the very same policies as Bush: Gitmo remains open, extraordinary rendition continues (a policy instituted under Clinton), drone strikes continue, and the war in Afghanistan actually enlarged significantly under Obama. I don’t necessarily see how one can drop the hammer on Bush without doing the same to Obama.

As far as Libya goes: Obama could have easily removed Gaddafi’s air force from the conflict, and that air force (both fixed wing and helicopter) has been the difference thus far. He wouldn’t have needed to even involve US air power, but used SLBMs and cruise missiles deployed from US subs in the Med. All of Libya’s military airfields are pre-programmed into targeting computers and it would’ve taken about three days total to completely blind (missile strikes against radar and communications facilities) and then ground (missile and SLBM strikes against runways, revetments and fuel facilities) Gaddafi’s air power. This bullshit about involving the UN in a no-fly zone was a complete and total waste of time (we don’t have sufficient air power or resources to enforce a no-fly over Libya as it is, since USAF and USN resources are stretched thin supporting two wars), and Obama knew it. Under the guise of “multi-lateralism”, he essentially consigned the rebellion to destruction and aided and abetted a total fucking lunatic in the bargain.

Like I said, how do you think those Libyan rebels feel about that touchy-feely Cairo speech now?[/quote]

You don’t see how one can drop the hammer on Bush without doing the same to Obama? Really? It’s pretty simple. Bush got us into a war that wasn’t necessary, cost us massively, and got us nothing.

I don’t see your long-term strategy for Libya. How is the outcome better for us if the rebels win than if gadhafi stays? What’s in it for us and why would we fight for that?

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=zk]
I’d agree with all of that except for the part about the extreme vilification of Bush being for the same policies and programs as Obama’s. Bush was extremely vilified, but I think he deserved it. He got us into a war of choice apparently without significant reflection on the matter. Thousands of Americans are dead in vain and trillions of dollars are wasted. To me, that’s an extreme villain.

Obama dithers and has made some bad calls. But he hasn’t done nearly the damage to this country that Bush did. Whole different league.

I’m curious about your opinions on Libya. What would you have us do there? What long-term strategy would you have?[/quote]

Zk: Except that Obama is continuing the very same policies as Bush: Gitmo remains open, extraordinary rendition continues (a policy instituted under Clinton), drone strikes continue, and the war in Afghanistan actually enlarged significantly under Obama. I don’t necessarily see how one can drop the hammer on Bush without doing the same to Obama.

As far as Libya goes: Obama could have easily removed Gaddafi’s air force from the conflict, and that air force (both fixed wing and helicopter) has been the difference thus far. He wouldn’t have needed to even involve US air power, but used SLBMs and cruise missiles deployed from US subs in the Med. All of Libya’s military airfields are pre-programmed into targeting computers and it would’ve taken about three days total to completely blind (missile strikes against radar and communications facilities) and then ground (missile and SLBM strikes against runways, revetments and fuel facilities) Gaddafi’s air power. This bullshit about involving the UN in a no-fly zone was a complete and total waste of time (we don’t have sufficient air power or resources to enforce a no-fly over Libya as it is, since USAF and USN resources are stretched thin supporting two wars), and Obama knew it. Under the guise of “multi-lateralism”, he essentially consigned the rebellion to destruction and aided and abetted a total fucking lunatic in the bargain.

Like I said, how do you think those Libyan rebels feel about that touchy-feely Cairo speech now?[/quote]

You don’t see how one can drop the hammer on Bush without doing the same to Obama? Really? It’s pretty simple. Bush got us into a war that wasn’t necessary, cost us massively, and got us nothing.

I don’t see your long-term strategy for Libya. How is the outcome better for us if the rebels win than if gadhafi stays? What’s in it for us and why would we fight for that?

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=zk]
I’d agree with all of that except for the part about the extreme vilification of Bush being for the same policies and programs as Obama’s. Bush was extremely vilified, but I think he deserved it. He got us into a war of choice apparently without significant reflection on the matter. Thousands of Americans are dead in vain and trillions of dollars are wasted. To me, that’s an extreme villain.

Obama dithers and has made some bad calls. But he hasn’t done nearly the damage to this country that Bush did. Whole different league.

I’m curious about your opinions on Libya. What would you have us do there? What long-term strategy would you have?[/quote]

Zk: Except that Obama is continuing the very same policies as Bush: Gitmo remains open, extraordinary rendition continues (a policy instituted under Clinton), drone strikes continue, and the war in Afghanistan actually enlarged significantly under Obama. I don’t necessarily see how one can drop the hammer on Bush without doing the same to Obama.

As far as Libya goes: Obama could have easily removed Gaddafi’s air force from the conflict, and that air force (both fixed wing and helicopter) has been the difference thus far. He wouldn’t have needed to even involve US air power, but used SLBMs and cruise missiles deployed from US subs in the Med. All of Libya’s military airfields are pre-programmed into targeting computers and it would’ve taken about three days total to completely blind (missile strikes against radar and communications facilities) and then ground (missile and SLBM strikes against runways, revetments and fuel facilities) Gaddafi’s air power. This bullshit about involving the UN in a no-fly zone was a complete and total waste of time (we don’t have sufficient air power or resources to enforce a no-fly over Libya as it is, since USAF and USN resources are stretched thin supporting two wars), and Obama knew it. Under the guise of “multi-lateralism”, he essentially consigned the rebellion to destruction and aided and abetted a total fucking lunatic in the bargain.

Like I said, how do you think those Libyan rebels feel about that touchy-feely Cairo speech now?[/quote]

You don’t see how one can drop the hammer on Bush without doing the same to Obama? Really? It’s pretty simple. Bush got us into a war that wasn’t necessary, cost us massively, and got us nothing.

I don’t see your long-term strategy for Libya. How is the outcome better for us if the rebels win than if gadhafi stays? What’s in it for us and why would we fight for that?

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=zk]
I’d agree with all of that except for the part about the extreme vilification of Bush being for the same policies and programs as Obama’s. Bush was extremely vilified, but I think he deserved it. He got us into a war of choice apparently without significant reflection on the matter. Thousands of Americans are dead in vain and trillions of dollars are wasted. To me, that’s an extreme villain.

Obama dithers and has made some bad calls. But he hasn’t done nearly the damage to this country that Bush did. Whole different league.

I’m curious about your opinions on Libya. What would you have us do there? What long-term strategy would you have?[/quote]

Zk: Except that Obama is continuing the very same policies as Bush: Gitmo remains open, extraordinary rendition continues (a policy instituted under Clinton), drone strikes continue, and the war in Afghanistan actually enlarged significantly under Obama. I don’t necessarily see how one can drop the hammer on Bush without doing the same to Obama.

As far as Libya goes: Obama could have easily removed Gaddafi’s air force from the conflict, and that air force (both fixed wing and helicopter) has been the difference thus far. He wouldn’t have needed to even involve US air power, but used SLBMs and cruise missiles deployed from US subs in the Med. All of Libya’s military airfields are pre-programmed into targeting computers and it would’ve taken about three days total to completely blind (missile strikes against radar and communications facilities) and then ground (missile and SLBM strikes against runways, revetments and fuel facilities) Gaddafi’s air power. This bullshit about involving the UN in a no-fly zone was a complete and total waste of time (we don’t have sufficient air power or resources to enforce a no-fly over Libya as it is, since USAF and USN resources are stretched thin supporting two wars), and Obama knew it. Under the guise of “multi-lateralism”, he essentially consigned the rebellion to destruction and aided and abetted a total fucking lunatic in the bargain.

Like I said, how do you think those Libyan rebels feel about that touchy-feely Cairo speech now?[/quote]

You don’t see how one can drop the hammer on Bush without doing the same to Obama? Really? It’s pretty simple. Bush got us into a war that wasn’t necessary, cost us massively, and got us nothing.

I don’t see your long-term strategy for Libya. How is the outcome better for us if the rebels win than if gadhafi stays? What’s in it for us and why would we fight for that?

[Author]

Posts