Nuclear collapse looms? Fukushima No. 4 reactor 'leaning' (RT)

Run time: 05:42 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxbm7iJTT8U   Posted on YouTube: May 10, 2011 By YouTube Member: RussiaToday Views on YouTube: 307   Posted on DU: May 10, 2011 By DU Member: flamingdem Views on DU: 2239

 
Update on Japan's nuclear catastrope. Dr Robert Jacobs can help shed more light on this. He's a Research Associate Professor of Nuclear History and Culture at the Hiroshima Peace Institute.

Do they really believe that NOT KNOWING makes people feel safer in a crisis situation?

their silence IS deafening.

As is the silence of the pro-nuke activists here on DU. Where are all you pro-nuke folks?

Sad, how utterly depraved are we humans in our hedonistic drive for primacy 'over' our planet...

Yes, if the building for reactor 4 tips over, there will be an enormous problem.

Not sure what you were hoping for. If it falls over, unicorns will not emerge from the rubble, and bring us gold and lollipops.

You so missed the point of my post...

If you wanted a 'pro-nuke' person to 'chime in' with a dismissal or whatever, you're not going to get it. If that fuel pool dumps, this will negatively impact the efforts to contain the entire site, probably by a lot.

I missed the part where calling people out was removed from the site rules.

You should take that show on the road! You could earn millions!

Unlike the other threads, this one is pretty straightforward: if the building FALLS OVER the fuel pool will dump. Pretty basic stuff.

Nothing at all like claiming re-criticality in one of the pools, without the short-lived isotope samples and data to prove the claim, or umpteen other doomsday claims so far.

If you REALLY need a contrarian viewpoint to chuckle over: I highly doubt TEPCO will let that building get to the point where it can collapse or completely fall over. There are simple measures to prevent such an event, completely unrelated to nuclear science.

You've sunk your teeth into YOUR perception of what I originally posted, and you just can't let it go, can you?



Consider again what I posted (quoted hereinabove). The first sentence is about the TEPCO decision to cease and desist disseminating Fukushima status reports to the public. Yes, we can buy their assertion that it's to 'prevent a panic' and go blithely on our merry ways. I don't buy it, which is why I characterize their silence as deafening.

My second sentence is about the current dearth of rebuttals from the pro-nuke activists, who were quick to assert the importance of nuclear power plants, especially the exciting and sexy thorium reactors, immediately after the Fukushima disaster. I have noted the absence of such rebuttals since Fukushima was upgraded to critical, but perhaps you can share any posts that refute my assertion.

My last sentence is a blanket assessment of our species' hedonism, which is writ large by our rampant overpopulation and our limitless fouling of our fragile and LIMITED ecosystem. We (and I mean the collective WE) continue to explore energy sources that represent measurable threats to an already over-burdened ecosystem, and we do so from a "we're the supreme stewards of our planet" position. I find that disheartening. Hence, my sadness.

I hope this helps you understand my original post. While I appreciate your persistent description of the current status of Fukushima, it's not necessary. I've been monitoring the situation there from day one.

"I have noted the absence of such rebuttals since Fukushima was upgraded to critical, but perhaps you can share any posts that refute my assertion."

I'm not going to copy/paste every single post i've made in that folder since Fukushima Dai-ichi was raised to a level 7.

That middle sentence is EXACTLY what I objected to. Not sure why you needed to map out your post. It is both a call-out (against the site rules), as well as factually wrong. One only need glance into the Environment/Energy group to see both sides of the debate alive and posting quite frequently.

I do not have any trouble at all understanding your post. You appear to be having some trouble understanding mine, but since you can't find any activity in the Environment/Energy group on your own, the reason may be self-evident.

You certainly do have your wee panties in a wad.

I don't visit the 'Environment/Energy group,' so if it doesn't make it to the main page, it's not likely to be seen by me or a significant number of other DUers.

If you would share information without whinging or snarking, you'd be a much more pleasant person.

I would refer you to post 3 for early examples of snark in this thread.

Interesting that you demand pleasantries of me, after that sort of nonsense.

I went and looked at the lobby you mentioned, even though it isn't chock-a-block full of threads that have hit the big time. After a quick perusal, I was unable to find any significant posts from pro-nuke activists, about thorium reactors OR any other form of nuclear energy.

Speaking of the pro-nuke activists, I strongly encourage you to report my comment hereinabove since you think it was an infraction, and let the mods decide. I did not intend my observation to be a 'call-out.' I am genuinely interested in the remarkable dearth of pro-nuke assertions on prominent threads since Fukushima went critical. I guess I hope that pro-nuke activists might someday recognize the merit of pursuing safer forms of energy.

I can respond.

I know you can't read this, but others can at least see what sort of manners you have.

However, I am not seeing the pro-nuke rebuttals that proliferated in the days immediately following the Fukushima disaster. Those folks seem to have faded into the woodwork.

No doubt they all selflessly volunteered to go to Fukushima and are hard at work helping TEPCO to gather up the nuclear toothpaste and put it back in the tube.

:rofl:

Thanks for the great visual.

I put that pathetic pro-nuke person on my ignore list, and he still has posted something in response. I guess he doesn't understand the concept of 'ignore.'