TEPCO today announced their new estimates of the radiation release at Fukushima. They now estimate that four times as much Cesium was released as at Chernobyl

accountt1234 · 2012-05-24T07:51:19.118957-07:00

The "later reporting" part, is talking about Fukushima, not about Chernobyl.

accountt1234 · 2012-05-24T14:38:55.844247+00:00

The total Bq isn't important, because the total Bq includes the gas xenon and other isotopes that aren't important.

accountt1234 · 2012-05-24T14:17:37.504955+00:00

I looked on Google for Chernobyl and Carbon-14. The only thing I found was a talk page on Wikipedia asking if Chernobyl released Carbon-14.

In regards to the Caesium-137, radioactive particles can't be "neutralized".

It sounds to me, considering your username, that you're just trolling, so consider this my last response.

accountt1234 · 2012-05-24T13:42:17.167285+00:00

I disagree with you that the damage done at Chernobyl was mainly due to Carbon-14 and Strontium-90.

I've looked very hard, and haven't found any sources alleging that Carbon-14 was released in significant amounts at Chernobyl.

I have however found the following graph, which shows that after about a year, Cesium 137 became the main isotope from the Chernobyl disaster that was still releasing radiation:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/AirDoseChernobylVector.svg

accountt1234 · 2012-05-24T11:57:47.705953+00:00

Oh there were quite a few of those people.

Typically Reddit.

Reddit has an unlimited faith in mankind's ability to improve his situation through technology.

accountt1234 · 1 day

You can trust who you want.

The facts are as following:

The new Cesium release estimate is about 36 times the earlier estimate, and 4 times the estimated amount released at Chernobyl.

accountt1234 · 1 day

For the people who aren't following this very well:

TEPCO combined the two methods and repeated its calculations under different conditions. It reached a final estimate of 400,000 terabecquerels of iodine-131 and 360,000 terabecquerels of cesium-137.

That doesn't sound like a lot when you compare it to the following sentence:

The amount of radioactive substances discharged in the Chernobyl accident in 1986 was 5.2 million terabecquerels.

Problem is, this is misleading, because they're only counting TWO isotopes at Fukushima, while counting all isotopes at Chernobyl, including the gasses which are just released into the atmosphere and never reach us humans.

If we compare the individual numbers given, we see the reality:

It reached a final estimate of 400,000 terabecquerels of iodine-131 and 360,000 terabecquerels of cesium-137.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Caesium-137

Over the course of the disaster, Chernobyl put out a total of 85,000 TBq of caesium-137.[11] However, later reporting on 12 April estimated total caesium releases at 6,100 TBq to 12,000 TBq, respectively by NISA and NSC – about 2–4 kg.

In other words, the new numbers show that Fukushima put out 4 times the amount of Caesium-137 that Chernobyl put out, and more than 36 times the amount of some of the previous estimates.

In other words, the conspiracy theorists were right, and Fukushima has turned into a far bigger disaster than the nuclear lobby wanted us to believe.

accountt1234 · 1 day

For the people who aren't following this very well:

TEPCO combined the two methods and repeated its calculations under different conditions. It reached a final estimate of 400,000 terabecquerels of iodine-131 and 360,000 terabecquerels of cesium-137.

That doesn't sound like a lot when you compare it to the following sentence:

The amount of radioactive substances discharged in the Chernobyl accident in 1986 was 5.2 million terabecquerels.

Problem is, this is misleading, because they're only counting TWO isotopes at Fukushima, while counting all isotopes at Chernobyl, including the gas.

If we compare the individual numbers given, we see the reality:

It reached a final estimate of 400,000 terabecquerels of iodine-131 and 360,000 terabecquerels of cesium-137.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Caesium-137

Over the course of the disaster, Chernobyl put out a total of 85,000 TBq of caesium-137.[11] However, later reporting on 12 April estimated total caesium releases at 6,100 TBq to 12,000 TBq, respectively by NISA and NSC – about 2–4 kg.

In other words, the new numbers show that Fukushima put out 4 times the amount of Caesium-137 that Chernobyl put out, and more than 36 times the amount of some of the previous estimates.

In other words, the conspiracy theorists were right, and Fukushima has turned into a far bigger disaster than the nuclear lobby wanted us to believe.

accountt1234 · 2 days

http://news.discovery.com/animals/fat-pets-obesity-weight.html

accountt1234 · 2 days

There's good reason to believe that obesity is a bigger problem than people simply being irresponsible in their dietary choices. There are good measurements showing that animals are also becoming increasingly heavier, both in the wild, and lab animals. Something in our environment seems to be making us fat.

I'm saying that as someone who's himself at a healthy bodyweight by the way.

accountt1234 · 2 days

Well something disturbing is going on.

Diabetes in teens has doubled in a decade, without any increase in obesity in the same period:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/21/teen-diabetes_n_1528665.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

icanhaznomasters · 2 days

This won't be very popular. It would have been popular back under Bush, but leftists can't help but feel loyal to Obama, even if he continues all of Bush's policies.

Froolow · 3 days

If you want to cause some political change, go about it the normal way, like everyone else does. Not with vandalism and terrorism, but with protests, because protests work.

Consider for example, that the United States under George W. Bush, almost went to war with Iraq, but was stopped by massive outcry by millions of people worldwide who did not want another war.

accountt1234 · 5 days

So you propose that 100 year from now we all sit around, partying and playing minecraft I guess, while being taken care of by machines?

If you truly desire to abolish all work, you will need machines intelligent enough to do the work for us, intelligent enough to maintain themselves, and intelligent enough to build and porgram each other.

In that case, what motivation will the machines have to keep us around?

And should the machines ever fail, how will we ensure that we survive?

By promoting the use of such intelligent machines you are in fact threatening the existence of all life on our planet.

The sun will wipe this planet out a few hundred million years in the future, but at least the life that has lived on it will be free. And there is no reason to assume life exists on this planet alone.

accountt1234 · 5 days

Sure, you can have the thousands of engineers build self-cleaning toilets.

How will you build fully automated self-cleaning toilets?

To make them affordable, you have the Chinese at Foxcon do it.

And what about the engineers? How do you get people who can build automated toilets? Well, you first send them to elementary school, where they're forced to learn things, while they want to be outside and play with their friends.

Then you send them to high school, where they'll be forced to study, while their friends go use drugs and alcohol. And then you send them to college, where the same happens.

You will build a new society of humans who spend their entire working lives programming and designing machines to do the work for them.

If you are intelligent enough to do so, you can work in this society.

If you are not intelligent enough to build machines, you're either used as manual labor, like the people at Foxcon in China, or you're sitting at home, unemployed.

Now in an Anarchist society that's possible of course, but what will happen to these permanently unemployable people? People who are simply not intelligent enough to have a constructive job?

Will you give them busywork? Will you "fix' their brains, to make them intelligent enough to participate in the creation of machines? Or will you eliminate them?

Whatever you may choose, there will inevitably be the point where the machine-builders ask themselves "Why am I forced to do this tedious work, for people who get to sit around all day doing nothing because they're too stupid to program a computer".

What do you think the engineers will do then?

accountt1234 · 5 days

Well gee, if they have "freedom of choice in where they work" , why would they go into the mines to begin with?

If I was allowed to do every job I want, I'd be working as a movie star, when I was done working as a professional musician.

The fact of the matter is simply that in every society people are willing to do certain jobs, but unwilling to do others.

We have far more historians and archeologists than we need. We have for more dancers. We have far more law students than we need lawyers.

The system doesn't care about this, because if it has 5 people who want to be lawyers for every lawyer it needs, it can choose the best one, and force the other four to do a job they don't want to do, to get them to pay off the debts they made to get a law degree.

Unless you want to have 5 lawyers and 5 doctors while you only need one, you're going to have to use force to keep people from becoming lawyers and doctors, and use debt slavery to get them to work in whatever jobs you do have for them.

Consider how in every remotely successful anarchist society, the majority of people did agricultural labor. There's a reason for that. It's because Anarchism only works in simple low-tech communities

accountt1234 · 5 days

Benefits is newspeak for "bribing people to get them to do something they don't really want to do".

It's funny how you both claim that the future "anarchist" (read: communist) society will be post-consumerist, and yet, people will be bribed to get them to work in the mines.

What do you suggest they spend their extra money on, if it isn't going to be on consumer goods? Or are you going to take people who do not have money and lure them into going into the mines with your "benefits"?

If so, you're simply doing what the capitalist system is already doing. Creating financial dependency in people through loans and debt, so they become forced to work to pay off their debts.

accountt1234 · 5 days

Recycling isn't 100% effective. Mining is already as automated as it's going to get.

These type of shitty jobs exist, because somebody is required to carry them out.

If toilets could efficiently clean themselves, nobody would be working as a toilet cleaner.

accountt1234 · 5 days

So what will you do when we need 50.000 people working in the mines, and only 20.000 people volunteer to do so?

Three-Year Club	Inciteful Link 2011-03-11
ComboLinker 2010-07-26	Well-rounded 2010-05-22
Verified Email

accountt1234

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login