Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
KSMountain
Participant[quote=AN]If we’re affected by this, then ALL of Asia is in deep doodoo. All of Europe will have the fate as West coast of US (roughly 5,540 air miles between Berlin and Tokyo vs 5,433 between LA and Tokyo).[/quote]
Well, it depends on wind/jetstream, right? I believe the prevailing winds there are to the East.After following this all day, I think we’re going to be alright. OTOH, that town with 9,500 souls missing is not going to be alright for a looong time.
ParticipantAgree.
Btw, after reading further, I see now my bravenewclimate site is *extremely* pro Nuc. There is still good info there though.
ParticipantAgree.
Btw, after reading further, I see now my bravenewclimate site is *extremely* pro Nuc. There is still good info there though.
ParticipantAgree.
Btw, after reading further, I see now my bravenewclimate site is *extremely* pro Nuc. There is still good info there though.
ParticipantAgree.
Btw, after reading further, I see now my bravenewclimate site is *extremely* pro Nuc. There is still good info there though.
ParticipantAgree.
Btw, after reading further, I see now my bravenewclimate site is *extremely* pro Nuc. There is still good info there though.
Participant[quote=ILoveRegulation]Poster Common Sense from this article seems like the real deal:
So it sounds like possibly two of the reactors are in meltdown and the question is whether the meltdown will be contained in the containment facility or whether it will actually ‘melt through’ and cause some type of radioactive explosion.
Common Sense expects the meltdown to be contained in the containment facility. However, he says the entire core melted down at Three Mile Island, but wikipedia says that only part of the core melted down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Further, the Three Mile Island reactor is different than the Japanese reactors. Supposedly, the Japanese reactors are 40 years old and it’s not clear how well they can withstand a meltdown.[/quote]
The motherjones article was a lot better (can’t believe I’m saying that).
If you read your TMI wiki link you’ll see multiple studies have had trouble showing even one death as a result of Three Mile Island – which I venture to say is not what most people think.
Participant[quote=ILoveRegulation]Poster Common Sense from this article seems like the real deal:
So it sounds like possibly two of the reactors are in meltdown and the question is whether the meltdown will be contained in the containment facility or whether it will actually ‘melt through’ and cause some type of radioactive explosion.
Common Sense expects the meltdown to be contained in the containment facility. However, he says the entire core melted down at Three Mile Island, but wikipedia says that only part of the core melted down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Further, the Three Mile Island reactor is different than the Japanese reactors. Supposedly, the Japanese reactors are 40 years old and it’s not clear how well they can withstand a meltdown.[/quote]
The motherjones article was a lot better (can’t believe I’m saying that).
If you read your TMI wiki link you’ll see multiple studies have had trouble showing even one death as a result of Three Mile Island – which I venture to say is not what most people think.
Participant[quote=ILoveRegulation]Poster Common Sense from this article seems like the real deal:
So it sounds like possibly two of the reactors are in meltdown and the question is whether the meltdown will be contained in the containment facility or whether it will actually ‘melt through’ and cause some type of radioactive explosion.
Common Sense expects the meltdown to be contained in the containment facility. However, he says the entire core melted down at Three Mile Island, but wikipedia says that only part of the core melted down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Further, the Three Mile Island reactor is different than the Japanese reactors. Supposedly, the Japanese reactors are 40 years old and it’s not clear how well they can withstand a meltdown.[/quote]
The motherjones article was a lot better (can’t believe I’m saying that).
If you read your TMI wiki link you’ll see multiple studies have had trouble showing even one death as a result of Three Mile Island – which I venture to say is not what most people think.
Participant[quote=ILoveRegulation]Poster Common Sense from this article seems like the real deal:
So it sounds like possibly two of the reactors are in meltdown and the question is whether the meltdown will be contained in the containment facility or whether it will actually ‘melt through’ and cause some type of radioactive explosion.
Common Sense expects the meltdown to be contained in the containment facility. However, he says the entire core melted down at Three Mile Island, but wikipedia says that only part of the core melted down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Further, the Three Mile Island reactor is different than the Japanese reactors. Supposedly, the Japanese reactors are 40 years old and it’s not clear how well they can withstand a meltdown.[/quote]
The motherjones article was a lot better (can’t believe I’m saying that).
If you read your TMI wiki link you’ll see multiple studies have had trouble showing even one death as a result of Three Mile Island – which I venture to say is not what most people think.
Participant[quote=ILoveRegulation]Poster Common Sense from this article seems like the real deal:
So it sounds like possibly two of the reactors are in meltdown and the question is whether the meltdown will be contained in the containment facility or whether it will actually ‘melt through’ and cause some type of radioactive explosion.
Common Sense expects the meltdown to be contained in the containment facility. However, he says the entire core melted down at Three Mile Island, but wikipedia says that only part of the core melted down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Further, the Three Mile Island reactor is different than the Japanese reactors. Supposedly, the Japanese reactors are 40 years old and it’s not clear how well they can withstand a meltdown.[/quote]
The motherjones article was a lot better (can’t believe I’m saying that).
If you read your TMI wiki link you’ll see multiple studies have had trouble showing even one death as a result of Three Mile Island – which I venture to say is not what most people think.
ParticipantThis seems to be a site that “Brings Data”:
Discussion Thread – Japanese nuclear reactors and the 11 March 2011 earthquake
There seems to be some good info in the comments.
The site overall appears to have a pro-Nuc slant, but that may be because folks in the biz are hanging out there.
ParticipantThis seems to be a site that “Brings Data”:
Discussion Thread – Japanese nuclear reactors and the 11 March 2011 earthquake
There seems to be some good info in the comments.
The site overall appears to have a pro-Nuc slant, but that may be because folks in the biz are hanging out there.
ParticipantThis seems to be a site that “Brings Data”:
Discussion Thread – Japanese nuclear reactors and the 11 March 2011 earthquake
There seems to be some good info in the comments.
The site overall appears to have a pro-Nuc slant, but that may be because folks in the biz are hanging out there.
-
AuthorPosts
