the arguments in the comments swection are pretty funny. Unlike here, they start with an apology instead of calling the guy a douche.
Results 71 to 80 of 270
Thread: Fukishima update: Leak
Jan 2, 2014, 12:13 PM #71
ya its true, there are more problems at that site. they could be having issues with loss of water for cooling down their used/spent nuclear fuel
Jan 2, 2014, 06:19 PM #73
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Ocean County NJ
Chich, you must have skimmed through the comments because that Neutronium dude filled my reading quota for the day rather quickly. He must be a genius. I want to completely understand everything Neutronium said but, wow it's a lot to wrap my head around on the first read. Plus algebra, calculus, and me don't get along to well.
So after reading the blog and then the Neutronium/George Kamburoff comments I find myself totally head f*cked with no opinion whatsoever on the subject because I barely understand what they're talking about. If I thoroughly studied the book those two wrote over the coarse of 4 comments, I would understand those comments only and still not know how safe people in certain areas may or may not be.
How about laymen's terms? They must know most people aren't nuclear physics freaks as they are.
How about a single measurement style that can be used across the board? I'm sure there is reason to measure radiation 50 different ways, but that doesn't help non nuclear physicists understand what's happening or what's going to happen. It's like very privileged information or something.
I'm not sure what mess is worse; Fukushima itself or the multitude of explanations attempting to describe the science of what's actually happening as a result of Fukushima.
Yours truly, Lost Boy
Ps I think I'll just eat some spent fuel rods and get it over with. That way I know for sure that I'm screwed and don't have to spend any more time wondering or deciphering nuclear physicist jargon. I know that sounds stupid but wtf.
Jan 2, 2014, 10:59 PM #74
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Ocean County NJ
Brew, upon further contemplation, I feel like the blog part clarifies quite a bit actually and the Neutronium dude in the comments just blew and overloaded my mind. I think that guy could simply rattle off ten more extremely detailed pages on the subject without batting an eye. His intelligence was very impressive. I'm seriously.
I don't know anything about nuclear science and I'm learning on the fly now because Fukushima could potentially affect us.
After reading that blog, I may even re-stoke my plans of migrating to a pacific location (for now).
Another positive note is I have a substantial and interesting learning challenge ahead of me. I love science, details, and learning believe it or not.
Jan 3, 2014, 12:38 AM #75
I worked at the local Nuke plant in when it opened in the mid 70's. A class was given to new employees and contractors. info on dressing out, how a yellow and magenta rope separates contaminated from uncontaminated areas and how to tell how much radiation one can get without harm. The 1st class I took, they said take your age, subtract 21 from it and that's how many REMs one can safely get. I was 24 so 3 Rems that year. The next year, it was stated that any amount of radiation causes bodily harm.
the first time I went in I had to go into a contaminated area. I called my dad that night and told him. He was an Army chemist and did a lot of work with military grade radioactive crap. He asked me if I was being monitored, and I said yes and got a dose of 8. "RADs or MRADS?" he asked. Not knowing I said Rads. "THAT'S TOO MUCH FOR PEACETIME EXPOSURE!" he yelled.
"Oh, MRADS I guess."
I told him about what my Geiger counter read on the flight to see him recently, and he raised his eyebrows. which is very expressive for him.
Jan 3, 2014, 12:40 AM #76
Jan 3, 2014, 12:48 PM #77
Jan 3, 2014, 01:03 PM #78
Jan 3, 2014, 08:41 PM #79
how near? like Hawaii or Cali?
Jan 3, 2014, 08:47 PM #80