1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

"Fukushima reactor No. 4 vulnerable to catastrophic collapse"

Discussion in 'General Nonsense' started by The_Ish, May 6, 2012.

  1. D007

    D007

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,360 (1.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    488
    Location:
    Pompano beach, Florida
    Of course not but you don't build a fireworks warehouse, next to a match stick warehouse..
    Loosing some houses for a few years, or loosing a continent for hundreds of years, is a bit different..lol
    You can rebuild after a tsunami.
     
  2. Solaris17

    Solaris17 Creator Solaris Utility DVD

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    17,603 (4.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,881
    Location:
    Florida
    im just saying you build for what the environment throws at you. they expected earthquakes it was built in the 70's they didn't expect this.

    [​IMG] <----- くそおお
     
  3. D007

    D007

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,360 (1.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    488
    Location:
    Pompano beach, Florida
    It just really bugs me, to think all of these people, could be in this much danger. I don't think any of them, ever realized, how much danger they could be in..
    I also don't think, nuclear commissions, ever tried to tell them, the real story, if there was a failure. They likely candy coated it, with statements like "Oh yea, but we have security measures" and led them to believe, something like this, could never happen..

    I know, I'm captain hindsight right? I so am.. I just have a strong human preservation bug in me and it urkes me, to think of innocent people, dieing in the millions. I just hope it turns out ok..

    I totally hear ya on the building codes but Japan has had horrible tsunamis, that have been cataloged, for ages. Was this the worst one ever cataloged?
     
  4. Steevo

    Steevo

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,854 (2.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,539
    France makes over 70% of their energy from nuclear, and have had how many issues?
     
    10 Million points folded for TPU
  5. Solaris17

    Solaris17 Creator Solaris Utility DVD

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    17,603 (4.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,881
    Location:
    Florida
    yes it was.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami

    the daiichi plant was on sea level and directly on the coast.
     
  6. D007

    D007

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,360 (1.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    488
    Location:
    Pompano beach, Florida
    OOh the question with a question game..lol..
    How many horrific tsunamis and earthquakes does France have again?


    I didn't realize it was the worst cataloged.. That really does make it a lot harder to circumvent..
    I hope this is nonsense.. Rational wiki sure sounds sensationalist, when I read that article..
    Like a man standing on a corner, screaming "it's the end of the world!!"

    PS: lol moved to general nonsense.. That may be very fitting..
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2012
  7. Solaris17

    Solaris17 Creator Solaris Utility DVD

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    17,603 (4.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,881
    Location:
    Florida
    i really think it is. but it stands to reason still. no one expected to be greeted by a 113ft tidle wave doing like 60mph while they were out lighting their morning cigarette. that would probably ruin my whole day.
     
  8. Inceptor

    Inceptor

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    497 (0.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    119
    Natural news...
    This is what happens when otherwise intelligent people are not able to be systematically logical, they create websites that plaster this kind of sensational crap on their pages.

    Here's what I see right away:
    Spent fuel rods in their storage pools of heavy water.
    NOT inside a reactor going critical with the chance for explosion, hence NOT like Chernobyl, where the reactor essentially exploded and threw core material over the area now called the Zone of Exclusion.
    Spent fuel rods that lose their heavy water containment, might melt their zinc casings and then melt, themselves, but they're not going to explode and throw radioactive cesium around the world. It certainly wouldn't be good for the surrounding area though.

    :shadedshu
     
  9. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    15,371 (3.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    12,567
    it is physically impossible for any nuclear reactor to go supercritical (= nuclear bomb)

    to reach a critical mass you need a certain percentage of u-235 which is simply not there on a nuclear reactor.

    reactor grade is 3-4% u-235, weapons grade is 90%, the rest is u-238 which is useless for a bomb. countries spend billions on enriching uranium to make weapons, it's not possible in a reactor.

    no, chernobyl did not explode in a nuclear blast either.
     
  10. ShiBDiB

    ShiBDiB

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,192 (1.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    827
    Location:
    Clifton Park, NY
    Ignoring the fact that your source sucks..

    Whats wrong with cali being wiped off the map?
     
  11. 1freedude

    1freedude

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    Messages:
    557 (0.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    118
    I haven't been to Yosemite yet.
     
  12. Soylent Joe

    Soylent Joe New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,408 (1.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    680
    Location:
    Brunswick, GA
    [​IMG]
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page