Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu BY THE NUMBERS: Fukushima

Author Topic: BY THE NUMBERS: Fukushima  (Read 3808 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ksheed

  • Very Lite User
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com

Offline Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 17147
  • Karma: 5147
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!

Offline Rerun

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 387
  • Karma: -418
  • Gender: Male
Re: BY THE NUMBERS: Fukushima
« Reply #2 on: Mar 09, 2016, 12:10 »
Dang 1000 tanks.

Offline Bonds 25

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: 151
  • Gender: Male
  • HP Tech......Well Thats My Title Anyways.
Re: BY THE NUMBERS: Fukushima
« Reply #3 on: Mar 09, 2016, 05:10 »
Zero deaths from Fukushima's radioactive release.....cancer increases in surrounding areas wont be above study noise.

Dumping those 1000 tanks of "radioactive" water into the ocean, compared to the current natural (and atomic weapons testing) curie content would be like an infant pissing in an Olympic sized pool.

All ERO evacuation levels for radiation should be increased on a massive scale. Evacuating people based on radiophohia is dangerous.....and actually kills people. Fukushima has proven even worst case scenarios do not warrant the stresses involved with evacuations.
"But I Dont Wanna Be A Pirate" - Jerry Seinfeld

Offline Rerun

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 387
  • Karma: -418
  • Gender: Male
Re: BY THE NUMBERS: Fukushima
« Reply #4 on: Mar 09, 2016, 06:58 »
Are you Emergency Director qualified?

Offline Bonds 25

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: 151
  • Gender: Male
  • HP Tech......Well Thats My Title Anyways.
Re: BY THE NUMBERS: Fukushima
« Reply #5 on: Mar 09, 2016, 07:38 »
I wish....this horses**t would be gone. I would refuse to kill people by evacuating them from their homes because YOU can't comprehend the effects of radiation.

I'm just an HP who has the mental capacity to understand the difference between ACTUAL radiological risk and PERCEIVED radiological risk.

Just like I know your burning of dirt is destroying the environment and the health of THOUSANDS of people on a yearly basis......and has been for a long time.

Your (assumed) response with "Nuke plant emissions are greater than fossils" is FACTUALLY  false and will show just how ignorant you are......Mr. "I have forgotten more Nuclear than you will ever know" dbag.

Modified for language
« Last Edit: Mar 09, 2016, 10:42 by Nuclear NASCAR »
"But I Dont Wanna Be A Pirate" - Jerry Seinfeld

Offline OldHP

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 502
  • Karma: 276
  • Gender: Male
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: BY THE NUMBERS: Fukushima
« Reply #6 on: Mar 09, 2016, 11:12 »
Are you Emergency Director qualified? 

I was and still might be, if I went back to a plant!  The last time I ran a NPP drill (many years ago) the state regulator finally agreed with me, calling for evacuation over less dose than a banana, a can of tuna, and a chest X-Ray (all at the same time) was just showing what an ID10T you can be.

 [SadPanda] :old: [beer]
Humor is a wonderful way to prevent hardening of the attitudes! unknown
The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. Regan

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5828
  • Karma: 2646
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: BY THE NUMBERS: Fukushima
« Reply #7 on: Mar 10, 2016, 05:06 »
I was and still might be, if I went back to a plant!  The last time I ran a NPP drill (many years ago) the state regulator finally agreed with me, calling for evacuation over less dose than a banana, a can of tuna, and a chest X-Ray (all at the same time) was just showing what an ID10T you can be.

 [SadPanda] :old: [beer]
see, back in yesteryear, was that a 50 mrem chest x ray?
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

Offline Rerun

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 387
  • Karma: -418
  • Gender: Male
Re: BY THE NUMBERS: Fukushima
« Reply #8 on: Mar 10, 2016, 08:50 »
Not you. I was asking Bond who obviously isn't. There is no Arguing. The utility simply makes a recommendation, it's up to the state to follow it or not. One item I do like about the newer EPGs is for short term puffs the recommendation is to stay indoors. I was ED Qualified from 1998 to 2013. The changes they made are mostly good.

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2024 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?