NukeWorker Forum

News and Discussions => Nuke News => Topic started by: Ksheed on Mar 09, 2016, 11:07

Title: BY THE NUMBERS: Fukushima
Post by: Ksheed on Mar 09, 2016, 11:07
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/03/09/by-numbers-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-5-years-on.html (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/03/09/by-numbers-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-5-years-on.html)
Title: Re: BY THE NUMBERS: Fukushima
Post by: Marlin on Mar 09, 2016, 11:17
Quote from: ksheed12 on Mar 09, 2016, 11:07
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/03/09/by-numbers-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-5-years-on.html (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/03/09/by-numbers-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-5-years-on.html)

Thanx interesting article  +K
Title: Re: BY THE NUMBERS: Fukushima
Post by: Rerun on Mar 09, 2016, 12:10
Dang 1000 tanks.
Title: Re: BY THE NUMBERS: Fukushima
Post by: Bonds 25 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.
Title: Re: BY THE NUMBERS: Fukushima
Post by: Rerun on Mar 09, 2016, 06:58
Are you Emergency Director qualified?
Title: Re: BY THE NUMBERS: Fukushima
Post by: Bonds 25 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
Title: Re: BY THE NUMBERS: Fukushima
Post by: OldHP on Mar 09, 2016, 11:12
Quote from: Rerun on Mar 09, 2016, 06:58
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]
Title: Re: BY THE NUMBERS: Fukushima
Post by: SloGlo on Mar 10, 2016, 05:06
Quote from: OldHP on Mar 09, 2016, 11:12
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?
Title: Re: BY THE NUMBERS: Fukushima
Post by: Rerun 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.