Remember, remember the Fukushima nuclear disaster on this day?
Remember the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the causes for it? The punky angle is that sufficiently large boom will kill all punks as a side effect.
From: Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org
Remember the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the causes for it?
Sure, the fools put a nuclear reactor in a location susceptible to both earthquakes and tsunamis...and then they forgot to provide for cooling the core to prevent meltdown in case they had to 'scram' the reaction. (A nuclear reactor ordinarily has a rather large population of 'radioactive daughter elements' that continue to decay and emit heat for hours and days after the neutron-absorbing control rods are put back into place. This continued heat production has the ability, for a few hours, to melt down the core unless cooling water continues to flow. In an emergency like Fukushima, they needed to provide for such continued water flow for hours, lest the core melt down. They didn't. It did.) Jim Bell
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 07:34:20AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
Sure, the fools put a nuclear reactor in a location susceptible to ..
They aren't no fools. In simple words this is business/profit at all costs. I remember the Chernobyl disaster being relatively near and its causes are quite controversial, especially for anti-russians. Is there relatively objective study about the damages Fukushima vs Chernobyl? (What I read was flamewars or propaganda).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/11/2016 03:24 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
Is there relatively objective study about the damages Fukushima vs Chernobyl?
(What I read was flamewars or propaganda).
I haven't seen such a comparison, although from my reading it appears that the Russian government may have done a better job with their evacuation - understandable, because tsunami. And, after first exhausting every wrong answer (Russian military used conventional firefighting methods, greatly exacerbating the situation), they finally listened to the engineers and stabilized the remains of the melted reactor. Not so the Japanese; last I heard they have not even /located/ the fissionable material that's still cooking merrily along. According to a National Geographic article citing Japanese govt. sources, groundwater from under the Fukushima complex was entering the Pacific at a rate of 300 tons daily. Same article said strontium 90 was 100 times more abundant than cesium isotopes in collected waste water stored on-site. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/08/130807-fukush ima-radioactive-water-leak/ Reuters article from 2012: "Small amounts of cesium-137 and cesium-134 were detected in 15 tuna caught near San Diego in August 2011, about four months after these chemicals were released into the water off Japan's east coast, scientists reported on Monday ." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-nuclear-tuna-idUSBRE84R0MF20 120528 Strotium was not tested for, as that costs way more than looking for cesium isotopes. Fun fact: Strontium 90 mimics calcium and concentrates in food chains. The Japan Current runs north to the Aleutians and east to North America. But the Pacific based seafood industries can breathe easy: USDA has increases allowable levels of hot isotopes, and if you can't prove in Court that a particular environmental source caused your cancer, nobody is liable. So, how much /worse/ is Fukushima than Chernobyl? As Gully Foyle would say, "guesses for grabs." My guess is, in terms of long term environmental and human health, way worse. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJW4x00AAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LrbkQAKYA1+IKdoXvJhbBJipWrWYy pl1plcrbOv9da82jiAtCxBpFyzzA/W5tFEpSBZsTSvzGjmipOWbmE3dMUOT/HGx/ CkiN46qMlsX+p6T6AkgOsB0Yp/HvctHPlURVFAyGuqFkQP2XMYd1fe/hOCjszb0Y nIh419uuZ2D8Ck0vSwEwgTAzhuUqQlBVaN/p7y7XRHNDrE6v6DorfzDuwqMcEnKH k+JMXkQ/ZpX0vL1E3Y4sDYlWzEe2heMOindAQRl4zDRzIGcxR1oeCA5+AC7oyrez 0zp8LRpNQTvGg/XLIRRuTBQgCrbLaHpuFr4mApdPq4NXZglRld2L5rdD/bUHN5TR 1LP85csAhHmxDGHlTAO7omJZC/k1gCqzUawP271A3dwLagZ4ehQnCDm8xJglHe1o GqkI/Rg+obhu1dJWVIJ/4zalfa1gGVUmON0u/PODycWIUREk2wuURTMcOg6FF+V/ lPA4r8s8nY8ycAWCP9iY9x3K7HQWi/AswCC2a4pJF1qk+OMmyobAugNEmwz2yJla yLoB35Djn341bJN0Cnhn17PRZtV6/rj4oGg3rOeX0NwLlXepye82H/vz4mw9Qy7a sjD7g9r542rXfc+kh368oMWCcAS5XooymcgfqLekdL/5ABIdFZVjYy4r+jy5M+dA ZVxU1IMI5uwCxaDrRH+G =/WBq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:32:05PM -0500, Steve Kinney wrote:
Aleutians and east to North America. But the Pacific based seafood industries can breathe easy: USDA has increases allowable levels of hot isotopes, and if you can't prove in Court that a particular environmental source caused your cancer, nobody is liable.
Radiation therapy kills due to software bugs: http://royal.pingdom.com/2009/03/19/10-historical-software-bugs-with-extreme...
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:32:05PM -0500, Steve Kinney wrote:
Aleutians and east to North America. But the Pacific based seafood industries can breathe easy: USDA has increases allowable levels of hot isotopes, and if you can't prove in Court that a particular environmental source caused your cancer, nobody is liable.
I can't find any evidence USDA did this, but I do recall reading that the Japanese health authorities had. But the old levels, much like FCC RF exposure limits, weren't based on any science showing harm, just on the levels they'd typically see. That doesn't mean the new levels aren't dangerous, but it also doesn't mean the old levels were safe. It's all about cost of compliance. We just need more research to know what levels are genuinely safe or dangerous. Though to some extent the Japanese are providing this by acting as a living experiment. If there isn't an increase of cancers from eating food at the higher levels, then hopefully the higher levels are fine.
Sean Lynch wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com <mailto:guninski@guninski.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:32:05PM -0500, Steve Kinney wrote: > Aleutians and east to North America. But the Pacific based > seafood industries can breathe easy: USDA has increases allowable > levels of hot isotopes, and if you can't prove in Court that a > particular environmental source caused your cancer, nobody is > liable. >
I can't find any evidence USDA did this, but I do recall reading that the Japanese health authorities had. But the old levels, much like FCC RF exposure limits, weren't based on any science showing harm, just on the levels they'd typically see. That doesn't mean the new levels aren't dangerous, but it also doesn't mean the old levels were safe. It's all about cost of compliance. We just need more research to know what levels are genuinely safe or dangerous. Though to some extent the Japanese are providing this by acting as a living experiment. If there isn't an increase of cancers from eating food at the higher levels, then hopefully the higher levels are fine.
Can always get your fish from the Gulf of Mexico "Scientists have found a 10 million gallon 'bath mat' of oil on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico" Despite the article's claim it's NOT just from the BP Deepwater/Horizon disaster. NO ONE is keeping tabs on all those thousands of abandoned capped off wells in the Gulf either. http://www.businessinsider.com/bps-deepwater-horizon-spill-has-left-tons-of-... -- RR "The earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have /names and addresses/." ~U. Utah Phillipsx
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 09:23:56AM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:
are genuinely safe or dangerous. Though to some extent the Japanese are providing this by acting as a living experiment. If there isn't an increase of cancers from eating food at the higher levels, then hopefully the higher levels are fine.
Searching the web for "fukushima anomalies newborn" shows contradicting results, some mention the west coast of the usa. The damage need not be now, it may be in the future. As a living experiment, the Japanese might be more interesting for consequences of being nuked by the usa in WWII.
Dnia poniedziałek, 14 marca 2016 08:53:36 Georgi Guninski pisze:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 09:23:56AM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:
are genuinely safe or dangerous. Though to some extent the Japanese are providing this by acting as a living experiment. If there isn't an increase of cancers from eating food at the higher levels, then hopefully the higher levels are fine.
Searching the web for "fukushima anomalies newborn" shows contradicting results, some mention the west coast of the usa.
I hear the radiation on the US west coast was so miniscule it was considered beneficial by the homeopaths. -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:34:20 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com>
To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org
Remember the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the causes for it?
Sure, the fools put a nuclear reactor in a location susceptible to both earthquakes and tsunamis...and then they forgot to provide for cooling the core to prevent meltdown in case they had to 'scram' the reaction.
"The reactors for Units 1, 2, and 6 were supplied by General Electric, those for Units 3 and 5 by Toshiba, and Unit 4 by Hitachi. All six reactors were designed by General Electric." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant
juan wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:34:20 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com>
To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org
Remember the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the causes for it?
Sure, the fools put a nuclear reactor in a location susceptible to both earthquakes and tsunamis...and then they forgot to provide for cooling the core to prevent meltdown in case they had to 'scram' the reaction.
"The reactors for Units 1, 2, and 6 were supplied by General Electric, those for Units 3 and 5 by Toshiba, and Unit 4 by Hitachi.
All six reactors were designed by General Electric."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Nuclear Radiation as a rational energy source for boiling water aside, it's a 'real estate problem' Location Location Location! Not that the design engineering is all that... Recently, within the last week or so in California a skin diver accidentally got into the cooling intake system for a nuclear power plant. I'd guess they can't really put screens on the inlets as trash would quickly clog it but you'd think, with all the millions of dollars spent on designing these things they would have come up with some way of keeping debris, and errant divers, out. It's been discussed, and has been hanging fire since 2010... So I'd guess keeping a tsunami from swamping a reactor after a major earthquake isn't water cooler talk at GE. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/01/local/la-me-cooling1-2010mar01 -- RR "Through counter-intelligence it should be possible to pinpoint potential trouble-makers ... And neutralize them, neutralize them, neutralize them"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/11/2016 05:05 PM, Rayzer wrote:
Nuclear Radiation as a rational energy source for boiling water aside, it's a 'real estate problem'
Location Location Location!
Lemme drag out my soap box... I have a three point plan for safe nuclear power: 1) Repeal the industry's blanket immunity from prosecution for civil liabilities. If it's so safe, why do the owners need to be above the law? 2) Remove the industry's public funding, which presently includes massive subsidies on many fronts. If it's such a freakin' technology miracle, it can pay for itself. 3) Open source every detail of design, construction, operation, QA and safety inspection, and decommissioning of nuclear power plants and their inputs/ouputs (fuel, waste), with publication as near to realtime as materially possible. Near-miss and slow-leak containment breaches due to noncompliance with inspection schedules need to just go away. In the United States, compliance with part 1 would end all investment in, and operation of, nuclear power plants: No investor or insurance provider will underwrite a nuclear power plant's exposure under equally applied tort law. Compliance with part 2 would disentangle the nuclear power industry from the nuclear warhead and military reactor industry, its de facto sponsor and sugar daddy - as well as removing tax incentives and "free money" awarded by Utilities Commissions. No free ride on the public's nickel means no nuclear power industry, balance-sheet wise. Part 3, which invokes "many eyeballs" to assure maybe just barely safe enough for optimists safety, would unleash a massive shitstorm/clusterfuck of commercial and military secrecy issues, and require extraordinary budgets for QA compliance and reporting. Oops, that too should be enough by itself to shut the industry down . Me no rikey nuclear electric power plants. The Obama Administration's firmly committed support of the nuclear power industry reflects an ideological and political-economy mandate to reduce global carbon emissions while /preserving/ centralized ownership, control and income from power generation. Decentralized solutions are non-starters because high-density power generation means high-density capitalization and income streams. /soap box -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJW41ScAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LugsQAJ3Vt0LwuedBIM4QS8BMefJt V5Z6xzF2wl8P6QW3Qoh0GE96tqV6ajo7imCq1wkkeI07NKjOfq+TGeKfcIh662nR vuIu9ZyY8Ei9N0MrkRsIWFarwc0E1F3FW+y1P8U6jQYa9I6O9Jr/BOdMWdDi55qE cqT/yBJNPcADy/v9lfBj7Q2uVuvWfQ7hTjn6rp7WIttzQyIiCUABuIzoO8XnPil6 sRfrXQ2G0WwYWgnW2GrfUHTgyGKiIZ82uazxLNTeHkNziH2ebHXya+o0N5rlviM6 c7ysfKulx7vBktfr+kz6cTjghLWp86WRFQgDSzT3r5WjnhBsFskxVZU33ADQdyD0 qe8em8C9DanelP78XkZHh43PJHKJ5X8QnhCbxX4itmKUtfz0sVK0VmJASJu1yXPF N/3pOLbOYvtZ6sG7HbOYnRZP4+GPr1/zmRvwoXMqnB/JY4N5j4g6Oe551svowwd9 Gm27kE2fTG7gMnkh2yvVuHvl8lCzSHv3mAscsLyZJeFLPV5x0Dtln+k+xeWE8Cy8 3M+geK+snNcW+7BAqxv0MzmM17HdmKElXE5JpvDvyHsg/GG1EScbTiOXrVZBthJN cIwQf4Isb6X8kf5/p9DCYvc8QsRdBDS5ieWEklrMWviDwCS3wUUcSMbQPvAwGb5X 4G4+u5JvVuWoxTG7dB5j =VFRs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
So after s quick search, seems that the containment of the general electric designed reactor(s) failed? Maybe americunts should be paying damages?
From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org \> So after s quick search, seems that the containment of the> general electric designed reactor(s) failed? Maybe americunts
should be paying damages? If a court were to address the issue, I think the Japanese would lose, primarily because it had been about 40 years before the earthquake/tsunami occurred. The question would be, "Could the Japanese have prevented or ameliorated the damages by modifying the equipment between 1970 and 2010?". I think the answer is obviously "yes". They should have anticipated that a tsunami would short out electrical lines outside the plant's walls, rendering them unuseable. This was a fixable problem; they simply chose to continue to operate the plant containing a known defect. Jim Bell
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 19:49:30 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org \> So after s quick search, seems that the containment of the> general electric designed reactor(s) failed? Maybe americunts
should be paying damages?
If a court were to address the issue, I think the Japanese would lose,
It, of course, dewpends on the court. It would be ridiculous to try this case in a state court, especially in a court of 'justice' owned by, say, general electric and the american state. Strictly speaking the guilty parties are the american and japanese government and the 'private' mafias that do 'engineering' for them.
primarily because it had been about 40 years before the earthquake/tsunami occurred.
And that changes the fact that the general electric's design failed?
The question would be, "Could the Japanese have prevented or ameliorated the damages by modifying the equipment between 1970 and 2010?". I think the answer is obviously "yes". They should have anticipated that a tsunami would short out electrical lines outside the plant's walls, rendering them unuseable.
And what has that got to do with the fact that the containment that is supposed to contain material in case of a meltdown, does not contain anything?
This was a fixable problem; they simply chose to continue to operate the plant containing a known defect. Jim Bell
From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org > So after s quick search, seems that the containment of the > general electric designed reactor(s) failed? Maybe americunts > should be paying damages? How so? It looks like it worked like it was designed to work. The problem is, a decision had been made about making a seawall only a certain height, and putting the switching circuitry in the basement which could be flooded. No doubt both these decisions had been approved by the Japanese involved. Now, if it had been determined later that they wanted to protect against much larger earthquakes and higher tsunamis, they could have increased the seawall height and sealed the basement of the reactor better. They chose not to do so. Jim Bell
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 06:49:30 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org > So after s quick search, seems that the containment of the > general electric designed reactor(s) failed? Maybe americunts > should be paying damages? How so?
Did you see my previous message? https://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2016-March/012590.html
It looks like it worked like it was designed to work.
The design was supposed to contain the melted suff in case of a 'melt-down' - but it didn't. So, no, I don't think it worked like it was designed to.
The problem is, a decision had been made about making a seawall only a certain height, and putting the switching circuitry in the basement which could be flooded.
Well, yes, more than a few things failed at once.
No doubt both these decisions had been approved by the Japanese involved. Now, if it had been determined later that they wanted to protect against much larger earthquakes and higher tsunamis, they could have increased the seawall height and sealed the basement of the reactor better. They chose not to do so. Jim Bell
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 06:49:30AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
How so? It looks like it worked like it was designed to work. The problem is, a decision had been made about making a seawall only a certain height, and putting the switching circuitry in the basement which could be flooded. No doubt both these decisions had been approved by the Japanese involved. Now, if it had been determined later that they wanted to protect against much larger earthquakes and higher tsunamis, they could have increased the seawall height and sealed the basement of the reactor better. They chose not to do so. Jim Bell
I heard the Fukushima reactors were not secure compared to others, they are "single contour". Whether the Japanese would have blown better reactor is not clear to me. Do reactors have guarantee? For how long? Were the Fukushima reactors in guarantee?
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:51:25 +0200 Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
I heard the Fukushima reactors were not secure compared to others, they are "single contour".
Whether the Japanese would have blown better reactor is not clear to me.
The thing is, even assuming the japanese were fully responsible for blowing the reactors, the reactors are not supposed to leak anything. Well, except for the garbage reactors designed by general electric...
Do reactors have guarantee? For how long? Were the Fukushima reactors in guarantee?
Hello, I rather read then post. Today I wish to share the Japan's Nuclear Trauma, as the leaks continue unabated, on it's Fifth Birthday. Georgi, Thank you for posting, your comment is so true... Tomorrow just after 2:00, Five Years Ago was the 9.2 Earth Quake in Japan. 1800 + people died instantly. Our world is still awash with radio active waste still out flowing toward the west coast of the United States in all water around our globe. A Journey In Disaster. This is a Warning To The World! http://www.theguardian.com/…/uk-government-new-plant-fukush… < http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/19/uk-government-new-plant-f...
I ask you not to forget how the corporation Teco lied. http://fukushimaupdate.com/ < http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffukushimaupdate.com%2F&h=8AQGlITYaAQHoY9TeQmYrNXgqAlXYeoqc55Kq5zmGj8bgHQ&enc=AZODk0JWlAbkXs3BKkevjuWK68pnyeT8RATOsDhmhvm1pRYV9iOico967DK5OI266QK6bRW2_4t-av_PKDRcqJBCrxAZYSQIqjb4LEOas0WSCH6NK0dbwtttydioRNxemQxZc0gIqg7YqsknoTIIcUxNSO4KMJQ4CfDOjvKI_--KFPFPbaqLeqFV8g11Q-VT_iY&s=1 Japan has enough bomb quality plutonium to make more than 400 hydrogen bombs over the number they already have as test examples for how to build a better killing bomb. http://www.jnfl.co.jp/english/ < http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jnfl.co.jp%2Fenglish%2F&h=vAQHcZVw6AQH3ZXgmTi0B8q8mKhg-foaClcSTz8fmtg4nnw&enc=AZOgbC5oegQ_Vm3PW7uPSBVJMXQgHQqH-DUiyMuevli2lr6d4kjFvOuGPS_pHpLKOMLTtgXDl2wLqZJ9MUyK4TqTGoVIkZNsbq2WuVcR-a9n_8mMtln_N2dtRk0gIEI6q2Z_6jho3qXX2IIcD3rnDEGMEjEznVZUyseu6OffP9nSargo-GZx3-DMEVHH6S0xR9M&s=1
This is a great example of Money over Human Values
…/japan-indicts-3-former-executives-…
Gratitude and Respect, Smile
"Don't ever get so big or important that you can not hear and listen to every other person."-John Col trane On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
Remember the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the causes for it?
The punky angle is that sufficiently large boom will kill all punks as a side effect.
participants (9)
-
dan＠geer.org -
Georgi Guninski -
ilsa -
jim bell -
juan -
Rayzer -
rysiek -
Sean Lynch -
Steve Kinney