Grim reading - Fukushima
I had no idea it was this precarious. Scary stuff for a Tuesday morn.
( , Tue 24 Sep 2013, 9:45, Share, Reply)
I had no idea it was this precarious. Scary stuff for a Tuesday morn.
( , Tue 24 Sep 2013, 9:45, Share, Reply)
Initially alarming but then i looked up the author
www.harveywasserman.com/harvey_wasserman/Home.html
I think his range of T shirts kind of destroys his credibility as a scientific author.
( , Tue 24 Sep 2013, 10:03, Share, Reply)
www.harveywasserman.com/harvey_wasserman/Home.html
I think his range of T shirts kind of destroys his credibility as a scientific author.
( , Tue 24 Sep 2013, 10:03, Share, Reply)
What a T-shirt designer!
The flash bastard obviously has clipart CS6...
( , Tue 24 Sep 2013, 10:07, Share, Reply)
The flash bastard obviously has clipart CS6...
( , Tue 24 Sep 2013, 10:07, Share, Reply)
Doesn't necessarily mean the author's full of shit
The story is being told elsewhere - although not quite as hysterically. There's no doubt it's a fucking huge problem - especially if there's another quake.
www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/19/future-japan-fukushima-leaks-pm
abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-nuke-regulator-japan-slow-fukushima-leak-20353283
www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23779560
( , Tue 24 Sep 2013, 11:51, Share, Reply)
The story is being told elsewhere - although not quite as hysterically. There's no doubt it's a fucking huge problem - especially if there's another quake.
www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/19/future-japan-fukushima-leaks-pm
abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-nuke-regulator-japan-slow-fukushima-leak-20353283
www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23779560
( , Tue 24 Sep 2013, 11:51, Share, Reply)
I don't think it is
There are lots of "coulds" and "possiblys" in this article by a green agenda website who benefit from painting a worst-case scenario picture.
It's not a good situation sure, but I don't think its anywhere near as bad as this. There have been major and minor leaks from the site but there is a lot of money and time being invested in containing this.
( , Tue 24 Sep 2013, 10:05, Share, Reply)
There are lots of "coulds" and "possiblys" in this article by a green agenda website who benefit from painting a worst-case scenario picture.
It's not a good situation sure, but I don't think its anywhere near as bad as this. There have been major and minor leaks from the site but there is a lot of money and time being invested in containing this.
( , Tue 24 Sep 2013, 10:05, Share, Reply)
the plan to freeze everything from below is very impressive
( , Tue 24 Sep 2013, 10:07, Share, Reply)
( , Tue 24 Sep 2013, 10:07, Share, Reply)
I hope you're right
Just to go off at a tangent, what do you mean by "green agenda"?
( , Tue 24 Sep 2013, 10:32, Share, Reply)
Just to go off at a tangent, what do you mean by "green agenda"?
( , Tue 24 Sep 2013, 10:32, Share, Reply)
I'm referencing conspiracy theorists who leverage environmental issues
and psuedo-science to press home largely unfounded and panic inducing stories.
Rather than "people who would like to make the world a less messy place by reducing pollution and long-term human environmental impact" (which is sensible).
( , Tue 24 Sep 2013, 11:27, Share, Reply)
and psuedo-science to press home largely unfounded and panic inducing stories.
Rather than "people who would like to make the world a less messy place by reducing pollution and long-term human environmental impact" (which is sensible).
( , Tue 24 Sep 2013, 11:27, Share, Reply)
written by a man who
"edits www.nukefree.org"
that's like asking Peta to review your new burgers.
Fair and balanced my arse.
( , Tue 24 Sep 2013, 10:30, Share, Reply)
"edits www.nukefree.org"
that's like asking Peta to review your new burgers.
Fair and balanced my arse.
( , Tue 24 Sep 2013, 10:30, Share, Reply)
Ha! Indeed.
Trouble is, only nuclear can sustain the energy levels we now demand. The green brigade who want 100% renewables tend to ignore this, and also ignore that Thorium nukes have potential to be very green and safe indeed, unlike Uranium nukes which we've always preferred because they let us create plutonium for bombs.
( , Tue 24 Sep 2013, 10:44, Share, Reply)
Trouble is, only nuclear can sustain the energy levels we now demand. The green brigade who want 100% renewables tend to ignore this, and also ignore that Thorium nukes have potential to be very green and safe indeed, unlike Uranium nukes which we've always preferred because they let us create plutonium for bombs.
( , Tue 24 Sep 2013, 10:44, Share, Reply)