On 3/17/2011 1:38 AM, DGDevin wrote:


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...


Like many other people, I'm all for safety but the owners have to
consider what the stockholders wish to spend on it.

Screw the stockholders! Hundreds of thousands of people have been
evacuated, and if this situation gets worse that will seem like a minor
inconvenience especially as the wind shifts to the south. The mentality
that corporate profits should come ahead of the safety of an entire
nation (and of the entire world) is insane.


Exactly. There is a reason for regulation and why market forces should
not decide such things.

You have too much faith in the corporation and too little in doing
things for the greater good. When the consequences are this dire, and
they are, to be so cavalier...

I'd like to make one more point, and that is that the safety of this
plant is based on complexity. There are no expensive cooling towers,
there is a cheap suppression pool that requires everything else to
function to prevent the catastrophe that is at hand. Emergency cooling
should not be done with firetrucks and helicopters and men facing death
from radiation.

The reason such has to be done is unconscionable.

When I first heard of this I thought a mighty technology nation with
many resources at hand will manage this. It might take a few hours or
days. I was wrong.

Onsite fuel storage must change, particularly for any Mark 1 reactors
left licensed, but the rest need to be decommissioned. Screw the
corporate cost when the public good is at such risk.

Note that the Browns Ferry reactor #1 had already been disabled once by
fire and has had other problems. It is a GE Mark 1.

Jeff

In article ,
Jeff Thies wrote:




Exactly. There is a reason for regulation and why market forces should
not decide such things.

Yet it has been shown over and over again that market forces end up
deciding the regulations, too.


When I first heard of this I thought a mighty technology nation with
many resources at hand will manage this. It might take a few hours or
days. I was wrong.

So far they have for the most part. However, I will admit to
stressing the so far part.

Onsite fuel storage must change, particularly for any Mark 1 reactors
left licensed, but the rest need to be decommissioned. Screw the
corporate cost when the public good is at such risk.
HOw about the public cost? You don't just shut down reactors without
replacing them with something else.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On 3/17/2011 9:38 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
Jeff wrote:




Exactly. There is a reason for regulation and why market forces should
not decide such things.

Yet it has been shown over and over again that market forces end up
deciding the regulations, too.

I don't disagree.

But, better regulatory rather than none as the Tea Party wants is the
answer. If your objective is to break government than broken government
is what you get.


When I first heard of this I thought a mighty technology nation with
many resources at hand will manage this. It might take a few hours or
days. I was wrong.

So far they have for the most part. However, I will admit to
stressing the so far part.


So far? So far it is a cluster ****. The situation is largely out of
control. The complex is a total writeoff and will cost billions to clean
up. And that is the best case.


Onsite fuel storage must change, particularly for any Mark 1 reactors
left licensed, but the rest need to be decommissioned. Screw the
corporate cost when the public good is at such risk.
HOw about the public cost? You don't just shut down reactors without
replacing them with something else.

They can stop extending the licenses on Mark 1s. One was just renewed in
Vermont, despite local regulatory refusal. Just because it takes a long
time to do something doesn't mean the only option is the status quo. The
faults previously identified and the likely outcome of their failures is
exactly the situation that is in Fukuyama.

To reiterate, if you think things are going well there, you need to take
another look.

Jeff

On Mar 17, 10:38*am, Jeff Thies wrote:
On 3/17/2011 9:38 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In ,
* Jeff *wrote:

Exactly. There is a reason for regulation and why market forces should
not decide such things.

* * Yet it has been shown over and over again that market forces end up
deciding the regulations, too.

I don't disagree.

But, better regulatory rather than none as the Tea Party wants is the
answer. If your objective is to break government than broken government
is what you get.



When I first heard of this I thought a mighty technology nation with
many resources at hand will manage this. It might take a few hours or
days. I was wrong.

* * *So far they have for the most part. However, I will admit to
stressing the so far part.

* *So far? So far it is a cluster ****. The situation is largely out of
control. The complex is a total writeoff and will cost billions to clean
up. And that is the best case.



And that affects you exactly how? Did they ask you to pay for the
clean up?





Onsite fuel storage must change, particularly for any Mark 1 reactors
left licensed, but the rest need to be decommissioned. Screw the
corporate cost when the public good is at such risk.
* * HOw about the public cost? You don't just shut down reactors without
replacing them with something else.

They can stop extending the licenses on Mark 1s. One was just renewed in
Vermont, despite local regulatory refusal. Just because it takes a long
time to do something doesn't mean the only option is the status quo. The
faults previously identified and the likely outcome of their failures is
exactly the situation that is in Fukuyama.

To reiterate, if you think things are going well there, you need to take
another look.

* *Jeff



I think you need to take not another look, but a FIRST look. That
will come
when we have the investigation into exactly what happened and what
went
wrong. Right now, we don't know. And so far, the reactor
situation
appears worse than Three Mile Island, but nowhere near as serious as
Chernobyl. At the end of it all, I'll wager right now that when the
death
toll is summed up, you'll have tens of thousands dead from the
earthquake
and sunami and two orders of magnitude less from the nuclear incident.

Following your logic, we should immediately halt all contruction of
buildings, roads, etc because of the earthquake. Unless you think
tthey all
performed exactly as designed and intended. It could turn out that a
simple change like having the diesel generators located 25 feet higher
would have prevented the whole thing. And that change could be
implemented without closing anything. But we won't know until we
have an investigation and learn all the facts.

Jeff Thies wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
Jeff wrote

Exactly. There is a reason for regulation and why market forces should not decide such things.

Yet it has been shown over and over again that market forces end up deciding the regulations, too.

I don't disagree.

I do, it doesnt happen like that.

Not one of the Canadian or Australian retail banks imploded spectacularly
or even needed to be bailed out by govt in the most recent complete implosion
of the entire world financial system. The regulations in those countrys that
produced that result clearly had not been decided by market forces.

But, better regulatory rather than none as the Tea Party wants is the answer. If your objective is to break government
than broken government is what you get.

Nope, its just another fad, it wont have any real long term effect.

When I first heard of this I thought a mighty technology nation with many resources at hand will manage this. It
might take a few hours or days. I was wrong.

So far they have for the most part. However, I will admit to
stressing the so far part.

So far? So far it is a cluster ****. The situation is largely out of control.

No its not.

The complex is a total writeoff

Yes, but then it was going to be decomissioned anyway.

And should be given that its in an area prone to very severe earthquakes.

They should be using reactors that cant melt down like the Canadian CANDUs etc.

and will cost billions to clean up.

Nope. Even if they do melt down, they can just be entombed in concrete.

And that is the best case.

Nope, the best case is that there is no meltdown
and they are just permanently shut down now.

Onsite fuel storage must change, particularly for any Mark 1
reactors left licensed, but the rest need to be decommissioned.
Screw the corporate cost when the public good is at such risk.

HOw about the public cost? You don't just shut down reactors without replacing them with something else.

They can stop extending the licenses on Mark 1s.

Not practical. There are something like 100 of them in use.

One was just renewed in Vermont, despite local regulatory refusal.

Local regulatory is just posturing clowns.

Just because it takes a long time to do something doesn't mean the only option is the status quo.

Yes. The Japanese Mark 1s should be shut down and replaced
with reactors that cant meltdown like the Canadian CANDUs,
because Japan is a very well know severe earthquake region.

The faults previously identified and the likely outcome of their failures is exactly the situation that is in
Fukuyama.

Yes.

To reiterate, if you think things are going well there,

He didnt say that.

you need to take another look.

On 3/17/2011 7:47 PM, wrote:
On Mar 17, 10:38 am, Jeff wrote:
On 3/17/2011 9:38 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

snip

Following your logic, we should immediately halt all contruction of
buildings, roads, etc because of the earthquake.

You make a lot of straw man arguments about what other people think.

Unless you think
tthey all
performed exactly as designed and intended. It could turn out that a
simple change like having the diesel generators located 25 feet higher
would have prevented the whole thing.

This plant has been dodging bullets. Just another "if only" in a bad
design. What did happen is more important than what could have. Early in
the accident, even with the generators working, there was trouble:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...lear_accidents


And that change could be
implemented without closing anything. But we won't know until we
have an investigation and learn all the facts.

The GE Mark 1 should not be allowed unmodified in any danger zone. Out
of 6 reactors, 4 are history. What cost that? The flaws in the design
were well known, among them an insufficient wet well and spent fuel
storage located where it could be damaged and is essentially uncontained.

I have never been anti nuclear. I previously had no opinion on any
reactor. But, whatever it takes to make sure this model reactor never
does what four of them are currently doing, is what has to be done. That
takes no investigation to figure out.

Jeff

Jeff Thies wrote:
On 3/17/2011 7:47 PM, wrote:
On Mar 17, 10:38 am, Jeff wrote:
On 3/17/2011 9:38 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

snip

Following your logic, we should immediately halt all contruction of
buildings, roads, etc because of the earthquake.

You make a lot of straw man arguments about what other people think.

Unless you think
tthey all
performed exactly as designed and intended. It could turn out
that a simple change like having the diesel generators located 25
feet higher would have prevented the whole thing.

This plant has been dodging bullets. Just another "if only" in a bad
design. What did happen is more important than what could have. Early
in the accident, even with the generators working, there was trouble:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...lear_accidents


And that change could be
implemented without closing anything. But we won't know until we
have an investigation and learn all the facts.

The GE Mark 1 should not be allowed unmodified in any danger zone. Out
of 6 reactors, 4 are history. What cost that? The flaws in the design
were well known, among them an insufficient wet well and spent fuel
storage located where it could be damaged and is essentially uncontained.

The most important flaw is that they can melt down.

Canadian CANDU nukes cant and nukes like that should be used in earthquake prone areas.

I have never been anti nuclear. I previously had no opinion on any
reactor. But, whatever it takes to make sure this model reactor never
does what four of them are currently doing, is what has to be done.
That takes no investigation to figure out.

On Mar 17, 11:15*pm, Jeff Thies wrote:
On 3/17/2011 7:47 PM, wrote: On Mar 17, 10:38 am, Jeff *wrote:
On 3/17/2011 9:38 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

snip

Following your logic, we should immediately halt all contruction of
buildings, *roads, etc because of the earthquake.

You make a lot of straw man arguments about what other people think.

* *Unless you think

tthey all
* performed exactly as designed and intended. *It could turn out that a
simple change like having the diesel generators located 25 feet higher
would have prevented the whole thing.

This plant has been dodging bullets. Just another "if only" in a bad
design. What did happen is more important than what could have. Early in
the accident, even with the generators working, there was trouble:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...lear_accidents

* *And that change could be

implemented without closing anything. * But we won't know until we
have an investigation and learn all the facts.

The GE Mark 1 should not be allowed unmodified in any danger zone. Out
of 6 reactors, 4 are history. What cost that? The flaws in the design
were well known, among them an insufficient wet well and spent fuel
storage located where it could be damaged and is essentially uncontained.

* *I have never been anti nuclear. I previously had no opinion on any
reactor. But, whatever it takes to make sure this model reactor never
does what four of them are currently doing, is what has to be done. That
takes no investigation to figure out.

* *Jeff

Yeah, why bother with an investigation where we'll learn exactly what
happened and can then figure out what to do. We should just listen
to arm chair experts like you. The one thing virtually everyone
agrees on is that right now we don't know very much about what is
going on, let alone the root causes. Except you, who already has
the answer.

wrote in message
...


So far? So far it is a cluster ****. The situation is largely out of
control. The complex is a total writeoff and will cost billions to clean
up. And that is the best case.

And that affects you exactly how? Did they ask you to pay for the
clean up?

Who do you think is paying for the U.S. military's efforts to offer aid in
Japan if not the American taxpayer? U.S. auto plants are shutting down
because they can't get parts from Japan, do you imagine that won't have a
serious impact in the U.S.? Japan is America's most important ally in Asia,
but for years to come they're going to be focused inward, rebuilding from
this horrible disaster, is that unlikely to effect U.S. foreign policy in
that part of the world?

Following your logic, we should immediately halt all contruction of
buildings, roads, etc because of the earthquake. Unless you think
tthey all
performed exactly as designed and intended.

That is an odd interpretation of what he posted.

It could turn out that a
simple change like having the diesel generators located 25 feet higher
would have prevented the whole thing. And that change could be
implemented without closing anything. But we won't know until we
have an investigation and learn all the facts.

While I agree that a rush to judgment should be avoided, it is hard to
ignore that these particular reactors have caused trouble before. Warnings
about the vulnerability of the design were first raised in the 1970s, and
the reactors at this plant are already well past their intended design life
yet they were kept in service because corporate profits were put ahead of
public safety. Nuclear power generation is profitable only after the huge
capital costs have been paid, but not putting public safety into that
formula amounts to reckless greed.

On 3/18/2011 2:45 PM, DGDevin wrote:


wrote in message
...


So far? So far it is a cluster ****. The situation is largely out of
control. The complex is a total writeoff and will cost billions to clean
up. And that is the best case.

And that affects you exactly how? Did they ask you to pay for the
clean up?

Who do you think is paying for the U.S. military's efforts to offer aid
in Japan if not the American taxpayer? U.S. auto plants are shutting
down because they can't get parts from Japan, do you imagine that won't
have a serious impact in the U.S.? Japan is America's most important
ally in Asia, but for years to come they're going to be focused inward,
rebuilding from this horrible disaster, is that unlikely to effect U.S.
foreign policy in that part of the world?

Following your logic, we should immediately halt all contruction of
buildings, roads, etc because of the earthquake. Unless you think
tthey all
performed exactly as designed and intended.

That is an odd interpretation of what he posted.

It could turn out that a
simple change like having the diesel generators located 25 feet higher
would have prevented the whole thing. And that change could be
implemented without closing anything. But we won't know until we
have an investigation and learn all the facts.

While I agree that a rush to judgment should be avoided, it is hard to
ignore that these particular reactors have caused trouble before.
Warnings about the vulnerability of the design were first raised in the
1970s, and the reactors at this plant are already well past their
intended design life yet they were kept in service because corporate
profits were put ahead of public safety. Nuclear power generation is
profitable only after the huge capital costs have been paid, but not
putting public safety into that formula amounts to reckless greed.

I could not agree more.

Jeff

DGDevin wrote

So far? So far it is a cluster ****. The situation is largely
out of control. The complex is a total writeoff and will cost
billions to clean up. And that is the best case.

And that affects you exactly how? Did they ask you to pay for the clean up?

Who do you think is paying for the U.S. military's efforts to offer aid in Japan if not the American taxpayer?

Thats peanuts as part of the US budget.

U.S. auto plants are shutting down because they can't get parts from Japan, do you imagine that won't have a serious
impact in the U.S.?

Corse it wont, they will just get them from china and korea etc instead.

Japan is America's most important ally in Asia, but for years to come they're going to be focused inward, rebuilding
from this horrible disaster,

And that is likely to be good for their economy, because otherwise their lost
decade could very well have ended up as a lost quarter century instead.

is that unlikely to effect U.S. foreign policy in that part of the world?

Yep. It wont have any effect on that.

What might well happen is that Japan stops buying so much US govt
debt, but china etc will be able to do that instead and china may very well
profit from what Japan wont be able to produce due to the power cuts.

Following your logic, we should immediately halt all contruction of buildings, roads, etc because of the earthquake.
Unless you think tthey all performed exactly as designed and intended.

That is an odd interpretation of what he posted.

It could turn out that a
simple change like having the diesel generators located 25 feet
higher would have prevented the whole thing. And that change could
be implemented without closing anything. But we won't know until we
have an investigation and learn all the facts.

While I agree that a rush to judgment should be avoided, it is hard to ignore that these particular reactors have
caused trouble before.

And the terminal stupidity of building nukes that can melt down
in a very earthquake prone zone when there are nukes that
cant melt down like the Canadian CANDUs in spades.

Warnings about the vulnerability of the design were first raised in
the 1970s, and the reactors at this plant are already well past their
intended design life yet they were kept in service because corporate
profits were put ahead of public safety.

Nope, because there is nothing special about the intended life.

The germans were planning to do the same thing until the **** hit the fan in Japan.

Nuclear power generation is profitable only after the huge capital costs have been paid,

Thats not true in china.

but not putting public safety into that formula amounts to reckless greed.

Corse public safety is considered. Its not a black and white issue tho.

The other VERY fundamental point is that even if those particular reactors
do melt down, the total radiation put in the atmosphere will be MUCH lower
than would have been emitted from coal fired power stations used instead
of Japan having any nukes at all.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message ...

Who do you think is paying for the U.S. military's efforts to offer aid
in Japan if not the American taxpayer?

Thats peanuts as part of the US budget.

So is taxpayer support for public broadcasting, and yet the Republicans in
Congress figure its essential to end it as part of saving the budget.

U.S. auto plants are shutting down because they can't get parts from
Japan, do you imagine that won't have a serious impact in the U.S.?

Corse it wont, they will just get them from china and korea etc instead.

Then why are plants closing if it's just a matter of ordering the parts from
someone else?

Japan is America's most important ally in Asia, but for years to come
they're going to be focused inward, rebuilding from this horrible
disaster,

And that is likely to be good for their economy, because otherwise their
lost
decade could very well have ended up as a lost quarter century instead.

It's only a few years short of being that now, which is why the Japanese
have largely changed the name to The Lost Years, it isn't over yet.

is that unlikely to effect U.S. foreign policy in that part of the world?

Yep. It wont have any effect on that.

So all those efforts to sign up Asian nations to resist China's efforts to
increasingly throw its weight around won't be impacted by the most powerful
economy in that group of nations being unable to participate? Check the
battery in your crystal ball.

While I agree that a rush to judgment should be avoided, it is hard to
ignore that these particular reactors have caused trouble before.

And the terminal stupidity of building nukes that can melt down
in a very earthquake prone zone when there are nukes that
cant melt down like the Canadian CANDUs in spades.

If AECL was a publically traded company I'd suspect you of holding a lot of
stock.

Warnings about the vulnerability of the design were first raised in
the 1970s, and the reactors at this plant are already well past their
intended design life yet they were kept in service because corporate
profits were put ahead of public safety.

Nope, because there is nothing special about the intended life.

If you ignore that the Mark I design had safety flaws addressed in later
designs, flaws which have been revealed as brutally real in the past week.
But other than that, no big deal.

Nuclear power generation is profitable only after the huge capital costs
have been paid,

Thats not true in china.

Lots of things aren't true in China, like representative democracy--doesn't
mean we want to emulate their approach.

but not putting public safety into that formula amounts to reckless
greed.

Corse public safety is considered. Its not a black and white issue tho.

Building a nuclear power plant near a known fault that can produce three
times as much seismic energy as the plant is capable of handling is actually
quite black and white, so is concealing hundreds of accidents and falsified
repairs over decades.

The other VERY fundamental point is that even if those particular reactors
do melt down, the total radiation put in the atmosphere will be MUCH lower
than would have been emitted from coal fired power stations used instead
of Japan having any nukes at all.

You can drown in a river with an average depth of six inches. The impact on
people living on the other side of the globe isn't the issue, it's what
happens to people immediately downwind if a bad situation gets even worse.
Would you care to volunteer to move to a hundred miles south of this power
plant? Thirteen million people in and around Tokyo; if this situation gets
worse I bet they won't find your views on the relative amounts of radiation
released to be too comforting.

DGDevin wrote
Rod Speed wrote
DGDevin wrote

So far? So far it is a cluster ****. The situation is largely
out of control. The complex is a total writeoff and will cost
billions to clean up. And that is the best case.

And that affects you exactly how? Did they ask you to pay for the clean up?

Who do you think is paying for the U.S. military's efforts to offer aid in Japan if not the American taxpayer?

Thats peanuts as part of the US budget.

So is taxpayer support for public broadcasting, and yet the Republicans in Congress figure its essential to end it as
part of saving the budget.

Your problem.

U.S. auto plants are shutting down because they can't get parts from
Japan, do you imagine that won't have a serious impact in the U.S.?

Corse it wont, they will just get them from china and korea etc instead.

Then why are plants closing if it's just a matter of ordering the parts from someone else?

Because it takes a bit of time to organise a change of supplier like that.

Japan is America's most important ally in Asia, but for years to
come they're going to be focused inward, rebuilding from this
horrible disaster,

And that is likely to be good for their economy, because otherwise their lost
decade could very well have ended up as a lost quarter century instead.

It's only a few years short of being that now, which is why the Japanese have largely changed the name to The Lost
Years, it isn't over yet.

Time will tell if this beings an end to it.

is that unlikely to effect U.S. foreign policy in that part of the world?

Yep. It wont have any effect on that.

So all those efforts to sign up Asian nations to resist China's efforts to increasingly throw its weight around

Pure fantasy.

won't be impacted by the most powerful economy in that group of nations being unable to participate?

You aint established that Japan wont be able to
continue to do what it has already been doing.

Check the battery in your crystal ball.

Dont have one.

While I agree that a rush to judgment should be avoided, it is hard
to ignore that these particular reactors have caused trouble before.

And the terminal stupidity of building nukes that can melt down in a very earthquake prone zone when there are nukes
that cant melt down like the Canadian CANDUs in spades.

If AECL was a publically traded company I'd suspect you of holding a lot of stock.

More fool you.

Warnings about the vulnerability of the design were first raised in the 1970s, and the reactors at this plant are
already well past
their intended design life yet they were kept in service because
corporate profits were put ahead of public safety.

Nope, because there is nothing special about the intended life.

If you ignore that the Mark I design had safety flaws addressed in later designs,

All nukes and anything else that major have done too.

flaws which have been revealed as brutally real in the past week. But other than that, no big deal.

Irrelevant to that silly **** of yours about corporate profits.

Nuclear power generation is profitable only after the huge capital costs have been paid,

Thats not true in china.

Lots of things aren't true in China, like representative
democracy--doesn't mean we want to emulate their approach.

Never said a word about emulating anything.

but not putting public safety into that formula amounts to reckless greed.

Corse public safety is considered. Its not a black and white issue tho.

Building a nuclear power plant near a known fault that can produce
three times as much seismic energy as the plant is capable of handling

That isnt what the problem at those reactors is about.

is actually quite black and white,

Nope. You have no idea what that particular fault can produce seismic energy wise.

so is concealing hundreds of accidents and falsified repairs over decades.

Nope.

The other VERY fundamental point is that even if those particular
reactors do melt down, the total radiation put in the atmosphere
will be MUCH lower than would have been emitted from coal fired
power stations used instead of Japan having any nukes at all.

You can drown in a river with an average depth of six inches.

The rolling stone gathers no moss.

The impact on people living on the other side of the globe isn't the issue, it's what happens to people immediately
downwind if a bad situation gets even worse.

What I said about even if they all melt down covers that.

Would you care to volunteer to move to a hundred miles south of this power plant?

Irrelevant to what Japan uses to generate power.

Thirteen million people in and around Tokyo; if this situation gets worse I bet they won't find your views on the
relative amounts of radiation released to be too comforting.

Irrelevant to what Japan uses to generate power.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message ...


flaws which have been revealed as brutally real in the past week. But
other than that, no big deal.

Irrelevant to that silly **** of yours about corporate profits.

News flash, Einstein, it isn't my silly ****, it's admissions from the
Japanese nuclear industry that they concealed hundreds of accidents and
falsified safety inspections and repairs going back decades, the top men at
the company that operates the Fukushima plant had to resign over it. Then
later they admitted they still hadn't told the govt. everything, the
Fukushima plant had a series of incidents including a critical fault in one
reactor that lasted seven hours. And why did they do that? Lower costs =
higher profits, nothing more complicated than that.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've realized I mistook you for one of the
grownups, no point wasting any more time on a conversation with someone who
thinks in bumper stickers.

DGDevin wrote
Rod Speed wrote
DGDevin wrote
Rod Speed wrote
DGDevin wrote

Warnings about the vulnerability of the design were first raised in the 1970s, and the reactors at this plant are
already well past
their intended design life yet they were kept in service because
corporate profits were put ahead of public safety.

Nope, because there is nothing special about the intended life.

If you ignore that the Mark I design had safety flaws addressed in later designs,

All nukes and anything else that major have done too.

flaws which have been revealed as brutally real in the past week. But other than that, no big deal.

Irrelevant to that silly **** of yours about corporate profits.

News flash, Einstein,

Flashing is illegal, ****wit child.

it isn't my silly ****, it's admissions from the Japanese nuclear industry that they concealed hundreds of accidents
and falsified safety inspections and repairs going back decades, the top men at the company that operates the
Fukushima plant had to resign over it.

Irrelevant to that silly **** of yours about corporate profits.

Then later they admitted they still hadn't told the govt. everything, the Fukushima plant had a series of incidents
including a critical fault in one reactor that lasted seven hours.

Irrelevant to that silly **** of yours about corporate profits.

And why did they do that?

Because thats how Japs operate, ****wit child.

reams of your juvenile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

On Mar 18, 10:02*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
DGDevin wrote

Rod Speed *wrote
DGDevin wrote
* *So far? So far it is a cluster ****. The situation is largely
out of control. The complex is a total writeoff and will cost
billions to clean up. And that is the best case.
And that affects you exactly how? * Did they ask you to pay for the clean up?
Who do you think is paying for the U.S. military's efforts to offer aid in Japan if not the American taxpayer?
Thats peanuts as part of the US budget.
So is taxpayer support for public broadcasting, and yet the Republicans in Congress figure its essential to end it as
part of saving the budget.

Your problem.

Last time I checked, the US assistance to Japan is focused on the
direct
effects of the earthquake and tsuanmi, which are far greater than any
effect the nuclear accident has had. Of course some would like to
make
it sound like the nuclear part is the worst part, but anyone paying
attention
to the news would know that we have 10,000+ dead from the direct
effects of the earthquake and tsunami. So far, what's the nuclear
death
toll? Zero.




U.S. auto plants are shutting down because they can't get parts from
Japan, do you imagine that won't have a serious impact in the U.S.?
Corse it wont, they will just get them from china and korea etc instead.
Then why are plants closing if it's just a matter of ordering the parts from someone else?

Because it takes a bit of time to organise a change of supplier like that..

Any plant closings due to parts shortages are attributable to the
earthquake,
not the nuclear power issue. Bottom line, they lost part of their
generating
capacity. Show us a credible study that says if the power came from
other
sources, say coal or even solar, that the power situation as of now
would be
radically different. Or do you believe solar panels on the roofs of
collapsed
buildings just keep on sending power through transmission towers that
have toppled over.




Japan is America's most important ally in Asia, but for years to
come they're going to be focused inward, rebuilding from this
horrible disaster,
And that is likely to be good for their economy, because otherwise their lost
decade could very well have ended up as a lost quarter century instead..
It's only a few years short of being that now, which is why the Japanese have largely changed the name to The Lost
Years, it isn't over yet.

Time will tell if this beings an end to it.

It's quite amazing how some of the anti-nukes can drag all kinds of
absurd
side issues into the discussion, isn't it?



is that unlikely to effect U.S. foreign policy in that part of the world?
Yep. It wont have any effect on that.
So all those efforts to sign up Asian nations to resist China's efforts to increasingly throw its weight around

Pure fantasy.

won't be impacted by the most powerful economy in that group of nations being unable to participate?

Pure fantasy X2. Another lame attempt to try to link all kinds of
crap
by the anti-nuke nuts.



You aint established that Japan wont be able to
continue to do what it has already been doing.

Check the battery in your crystal ball.

Dont have one.

While I agree that a rush to judgment should be avoided, it is hard
to ignore that these particular reactors have caused trouble before.
And the terminal stupidity of building nukes that can melt down in a very earthquake prone zone when there are nukes
that cant melt down like the Canadian CANDUs in spades.
If AECL was a publically traded company I'd suspect you of holding a lot of stock.

More fool you.

Warnings about the vulnerability of the design were first raised in the 1970s, and the reactors at this plant are
already well past
their intended design life yet they were kept in service because
corporate profits were put ahead of public safety.
Nope, because there is nothing special about the intended life.
If you ignore that the Mark I design had safety flaws addressed in later designs,

All nukes and anything else that major have done too.

flaws which have been revealed as brutally real in the past week. But other than that, no big deal.

Irrelevant to that silly **** of yours about corporate profits.

And irrelevant to the accident as we know it so far. No one, other
than the
anti-nuke armchair experts, has said any design issues specific to
these
reactors were the cause of the accident. After a full investigation,
it
could very well turn out that the biggest issue was where the diesel
generators were located and how they were protected. And I would
not be surprised to see that reactors of other design were not
built with similar short comings. But we won't know that until there
is a full investigation, something some of us here obviously don't
want to see happen because they already claim to know so much.

wrote:
On Mar 18, 10:02 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
DGDevin wrote

Rod Speed wrote
DGDevin wrote
So far? So far it is a cluster ****. The situation is largely
out of control. The complex is a total writeoff and will cost
billions to clean up. And that is the best case.
And that affects you exactly how? Did they ask you to pay for
the clean up?
Who do you think is paying for the U.S. military's efforts to
offer aid in Japan if not the American taxpayer?
Thats peanuts as part of the US budget.
So is taxpayer support for public broadcasting, and yet the
Republicans in Congress figure its essential to end it as part of
saving the budget.

Your problem.

Last time I checked, the US assistance to Japan is focused on the
direct
effects of the earthquake and tsuanmi, which are far greater than any
effect the nuclear accident has had. Of course some would like to
make
it sound like the nuclear part is the worst part, but anyone paying
attention
to the news would know that we have 10,000+ dead from the direct
effects of the earthquake and tsunami. So far, what's the nuclear
death
toll? Zero.




U.S. auto plants are shutting down because they can't get parts
from
Japan, do you imagine that won't have a serious impact in the
U.S.?
Corse it wont, they will just get them from china and korea etc
instead.
Then why are plants closing if it's just a matter of ordering the
parts from someone else?

Because it takes a bit of time to organise a change of supplier like
that.

Any plant closings due to parts shortages are attributable to the
earthquake,
not the nuclear power issue. Bottom line, they lost part of their
generating
capacity. Show us a credible study that says if the power came from
other
sources, say coal or even solar, that the power situation as of now
would be
radically different. Or do you believe solar panels on the roofs of
collapsed
buildings just keep on sending power through transmission towers that
have toppled over.




Japan is America's most important ally in Asia, but for years to
come they're going to be focused inward, rebuilding from this
horrible disaster,
And that is likely to be good for their economy, because otherwise
their lost
decade could very well have ended up as a lost quarter century
instead.
It's only a few years short of being that now, which is why the
Japanese have largely changed the name to The Lost Years, it isn't
over yet.

Time will tell if this beings an end to it.

It's quite amazing how some of the anti-nukes can drag all kinds of
absurd
side issues into the discussion, isn't it?



is that unlikely to effect U.S. foreign policy in that part of
the world?
Yep. It wont have any effect on that.
So all those efforts to sign up Asian nations to resist China's
efforts to increasingly throw its weight around

Pure fantasy.

won't be impacted by the most powerful economy in that group of
nations being unable to participate?

Pure fantasy X2. Another lame attempt to try to link all kinds of
crap
by the anti-nuke nuts.



You aint established that Japan wont be able to
continue to do what it has already been doing.

Check the battery in your crystal ball.

Dont have one.

While I agree that a rush to judgment should be avoided, it is
hard
to ignore that these particular reactors have caused trouble
before.
And the terminal stupidity of building nukes that can melt down in
a very earthquake prone zone when there are nukes that cant melt
down like the Canadian CANDUs in spades.
If AECL was a publically traded company I'd suspect you of holding
a lot of stock.

More fool you.

Warnings about the vulnerability of the design were first raised
in the 1970s, and the reactors at this plant are already well past
their intended design life yet they were kept in service because
corporate profits were put ahead of public safety.
Nope, because there is nothing special about the intended life.
If you ignore that the Mark I design had safety flaws addressed in
later designs,

All nukes and anything else that major have done too.

flaws which have been revealed as brutally real in the past week.
But other than that, no big deal.

Irrelevant to that silly **** of yours about corporate profits.

And irrelevant to the accident as we know it so far. No one, other
than the
anti-nuke armchair experts, has said any design issues specific to
these
reactors were the cause of the accident. After a full investigation,
it
could very well turn out that the biggest issue was where the diesel
generators were located and how they were protected. And I would
not be surprised to see that reactors of other design were not
built with similar short comings. But we won't know that until there
is a full investigation, something some of us here obviously don't
want to see happen because they already claim to know so much.

wrote:
Last time I checked, the US assistance to Japan is focused on the
direct
effects of the earthquake and tsuanmi, which are far greater than any
effect the nuclear accident has had. Of course some would like to
make
it sound like the nuclear part is the worst part, but anyone paying
attention
to the news would know that we have 10,000+ dead from the direct
effects of the earthquake and tsunami. So far, what's the nuclear
death
toll? Zero.

I quickly found reports of at least 2 workers killed at the plant in an early
explosion.

That's 2 more than zero.

On Mar 19, 12:53*pm, "Bob F" wrote:
wrote:
Last time I checked, the US assistance to Japan is focused on the
direct
effects of the earthquake and tsuanmi, which are far greater than any
effect the nuclear accident has had. * Of course some would like to
make
it sound like the nuclear part is the worst part, but anyone paying
attention
to the news would know that we have 10,000+ dead from the direct
effects of the earthquake and tsunami. * So far, what's the nuclear
death
toll? * Zero.

I quickly found reports of at least 2 workers killed at the plant in an early
explosion.

That's 2 more than zero.

japan has told the US the cooling pools were fine, even after they had
no water.

Japan has tried to cover up the seriousness of the event, which slows
others including the US helping them

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
DGDevin wrote
Rod Speed wrote
DGDevin wrote

So far? So far it is a cluster ****. The situation is largely
out of control. The complex is a total writeoff and will cost
billions to clean up. And that is the best case.

And that affects you exactly how? Did they ask you to pay for the clean up?

Who do you think is paying for the U.S. military's efforts
to offer aid in Japan if not the American taxpayer?

Thats peanuts as part of the US budget.

So is taxpayer support for public broadcasting, and yet the Republicans
in Congress figure its essential to end it as part of saving the budget.

Your problem.

Last time I checked, the US assistance to Japan is focused on the
direct effects of the earthquake and tsuanmi, which are far greater
than any effect the nuclear accident has had. Of course some
would like to make it sound like the nuclear part is the worst part,
but anyone paying attention to the news would know that we have
10,000+ dead from the direct effects of the earthquake and tsunami.
So far, what's the nuclear death toll? Zero.

And even if it does end up being a few, thats a trivial part of what the tsunami did.

And even when the plant that was about to be decomissioned is
entombed in concrete, thats a trivial part of the cost of the tsunami too.

U.S. auto plants are shutting down because they can't get parts from
Japan, do you imagine that won't have a serious impact in the U.S.?

Corse it wont, they will just get them from china and korea etc instead.

Then why are plants closing if it's just a matter of ordering the
parts from someone else?

Because it takes a bit of time to organise a change of supplier like that.

Any plant closings due to parts shortages are attributable to the
earthquake, not the nuclear power issue.

Sure, he never said that it was the result of the nuclear issue.
His comment was clearly in response to why does he care ?

Bottom line, they lost part of their generating capacity.
Show us a credible study that says if the power came
from other sources, say coal or even solar, that the
power situation as of now would be radically different.

None of the coal fired power stations got anything like the Fukushima result.

Or do you believe solar panels on the roofs of collapsed
buildings just keep on sending power through transmission
towers that have toppled over.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Japan is America's most important ally in Asia, but for years to
come they're going to be focused inward, rebuilding from this
horrible disaster,

And that is likely to be good for their economy, because otherwise their lost
decade could very well have ended up as a lost quarter century instead.

It's only a few years short of being that now, which is why the Japanese
have largely changed the name to The Lost Years, it isn't over yet.

Time will tell if this beings an end to it.

It's quite amazing how some of the anti-nukes can drag
all kinds of absurd side issues into the discussion, isn't it?

Nope, it doesnt amaze me at all, thats all they have ever done.

It wasnt that long ago that those ignorant clowns were claiming
that nuke power stations could go bang like nuke missiles do.

They actually are that pig ignorant.

is that unlikely to effect U.S. foreign policy in that part of the world?

Yep. It wont have any effect on that.

So all those efforts to sign up Asian nations to resist
China's efforts to increasingly throw its weight around

Pure fantasy.

won't be impacted by the most powerful economy
in that group of nations being unable to participate?

Pure fantasy X2. Another lame attempt to try
to link all kinds of crap by the anti-nuke nuts.

And he carefully deleted from the quoting my point that the tsunami
may well have a significant effect on the capacity of Japan to buy
US govt securitys and that may have a significant effect on the US.

Might not too if china takes over quite a bit of what Japan currently does too.

You aint established that Japan wont be able to
continue to do what it has already been doing.

Check the battery in your crystal ball.

Dont have one.

While I agree that a rush to judgment should be avoided, it is hard
to ignore that these particular reactors have caused trouble before.

And the terminal stupidity of building nukes that can melt down in
a very earthquake prone zone when there are nukes that cant melt
down like the Canadian CANDUs in spades.

If AECL was a publically traded company I'd suspect you of holding a lot of stock.

More fool you.

Warnings about the vulnerability of the design were first raised
in the 1970s, and the reactors at this plant are already well past
their intended design life yet they were kept in service because
corporate profits were put ahead of public safety.

Nope, because there is nothing special about the intended life.

If you ignore that the Mark I design had safety flaws addressed in later designs,

All nukes and anything else that major have done too.

flaws which have been revealed as brutally real
in the past week. But other than that, no big deal.

Irrelevant to that silly **** of yours about corporate profits.

And irrelevant to the accident as we know it so far. No one,
other than the anti-nuke armchair experts, has said any design
issues specific to these reactors were the cause of the accident.

It looks very likely that the lack of mains power and the inadequacy
of the backup diesel powered pumps due to their location is the reason
that the reactors and spent rod ponds couldnt be adequately cooled tho.

After a full investigation, it could very well turn out that the biggest issue was
where the diesel generators were located and how they were protected.

Yes, but you dont really need a full investigation on that.

Even the most superficial documentation should show if they were used after the tsunami.

Something must have been to initially fill the reactors with sea water.

Its less clear why that wasnt feasible with the spent rod pond too.
Maybe it just got more damaged and exceeded the pumping capacity
of the emergency pumps or something.

And I would not be surprised to see that reactors of
other design were not built with similar short comings.

Sure.

But we won't know that until there is a full investigation, something some of us here
obviously don't want to see happen because they already claim to know so much.

I dont see that they dont want to see it, its more that they are very free to
proclaim that the problem is corporate profits without bothering about evidence.

Thats typical of fools like that.

On 3/19/2011 12:44 PM, Bob F wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 18, 10:02 pm, "Rod wrote:
DGDevin wrote

Rod Speed wrote
DGDevin wrote

(pointless 'is too- is not' drivel snipped)

Guys, that is Rod you are talking to. If you said the sky is blue, he
would argue the point. Just ignore him long enough, and he'll go hang
out in some other group awhile.

--
aem sends...