Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Fukushima More Dangerous Than Chernobyl

Discussion in 'Free Fire Zone' started by Poppy, Apr 11, 2012.

  1. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    10,811
    Likes Received:
    897
    Location:
    Michigan
    I believe it's a mutation that has a significant negative impact on the survivability of the individual born with it.
     
    brndirt1 likes this.
  2. Skipper

    Skipper Kommodore

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    24,970
    Likes Received:
    2,362
    We"ll know more about this in 30 years. It's to early to say who will get cancer and which lands will still be contaminated. Officially it will take at least thirty years to clear the area but it all depends how close you'll get to the plant. Which zones will be reopened to civilians after a year, after ten years, or never? When will cows (and milk ) be allowed in farms again? When will getting mushrooms in the forest be allowed, if ever?
     
  3. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    8,227
    Likes Received:
    998
    That was easy. I'm not sure what the confusion was there.
     
  4. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,709
    Likes Received:
    1,493
    Victor G. here is an example from the Chernobyl "mistake", and genetic mutations which are "harmful".

    [​IMG]
     
  5. 36thID

    36thID Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    191
    Simple Question... Japan is an island. Why did they build this nuclear plant on the ocean side of the island ? Wouldn't it been safer on the leeward side away from an ocean tsunami.
     
  6. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,709
    Likes Received:
    1,493
    cooling needs water, cheaper to build near the ocean than anywhere else and the eastern side is less "mountain", more flat land. Economics; again.
     
  7. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    6,762
    Likes Received:
    1,221
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    No, because tsunamis are not effected by wind, but what happens during an earthquake, since not all earthquakes will produce tsunamis. There have been more than a few earthquakes that produced tsunamis in the Sea of Japan. So, by placing nuclear plants on the shoreline abutting the Sea of Japan, is no guarantee that there will never be a large tsunami in that area.
     
  8. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    8,227
    Likes Received:
    998
    They build them where the people are.
     
  9. Poppy

    Poppy grasshopper

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    6,669
    Likes Received:
    457
    Location:
    Shambhala http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv9DwzU3K
    Seeing the explosions in the different buildings and the resulting debris cloud, surely the fine dust would have contaminated a very large area. The 30 or 50 mile zone is no protection from wind carrying stuff hundreds of miles. How would/does the average citizen there look beyond the fact they could be inhaling/eat/touch something that will kill in a matter of time? Thinking there would be an exodus out of Japan. Wonder if those who can afford it, have already left Japan? ...How does it affect the food chain, especially the ocean? Seeing as how JP gets a lot of its food from the sea. Also, Chernobyl was encased in concrete. Fuku is still burning, out in the open, on the coast....This guy worrying too much?
     
  10. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    6,762
    Likes Received:
    1,221
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Poppy,

    Do you drive?
     
  11. Poppy

    Poppy grasshopper

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    6,669
    Likes Received:
    457
    Location:
    Shambhala http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv9DwzU3K
    Never on a Friday the 13th/ full moon/ or after swimming. ..So I guess I'm overreacting. Okeydokey....There's always Man Made Global Warming to fret about eh. That's pretty serious...Give me something to worry about!..Because there's always something.
     
  12. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,709
    Likes Received:
    1,493
  13. Poppy

    Poppy grasshopper

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    6,669
    Likes Received:
    457
    Location:
    Shambhala http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv9DwzU3K
    Geeze, was thinking about EA Campbell's and how their passings reminded me of brndrt1...
    Not sure how i got here, but here i is.
    Thinking/reading about this long lost post , then felt the familiar kick to the nads by my brother, MrT...Good to see things haven't changed much in 5 years.

    Looky, looky- Fukushima has by far surpassed any Chernobyl...Should we sound the alarm now, or wait 5 more years- smarty pants.

    In a way, i feel brndrt1 had a hand in raising the subject again. Best wishes BD1.
     
    Otto likes this.
  14. Poppy

    Poppy grasshopper

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    6,669
    Likes Received:
    457
    Location:
    Shambhala http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv9DwzU3K
    Hear that?...It's called silence. And it is golden.
    Truth shines the light- alternative news hides from it.
     
  15. wm.

    wm. Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2016
    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    72
    Location:
    Silesia Inferior
    Cesium-137 isn't produced by radiation as some say, but directly by nuclear reactions.
    The reactions convert about 6% of uranium to cesium-137.

    There is only a few kilograms of uranium in an atomic bomb, but tens of tons in a nuclear reactor. So in the end a reactor produces much more cesium-137 than a bomb.

    Atomic bombs spread their cesium freely all around, but in nuclear reactors uranium is contained in fuel rods and never leaves them - this is why nuclear reactors are very safe.
    All the poisons they produce never leave their fuel rods.
    So it's all very nice - unless the fuel rods melts, and then it's bad. But not quite, it's just a pile of sh.. laying on the ground. So who cares.

    But cesium-137 is readily soluble in water like the common salt. Give it access to water, like in the water table or an ocean, and the poison will spread like fire - all around the world.
     
  16. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,272
    Likes Received:
    454
    I remember watching the TV set in the kitchen with my parents in Leningrad (yes Leningrad). Even at the tender age of 4(?) I remember the reaction of my parents and what was shown as it all unfolded. Years later I watched the same exact footage (again with my parents) and again my mom shed tears. The tears were for the brave men that continued to do all they could to close the hole. They did this voluntarily knowing full well what awaited them. All were dead in less than a year(?) Even the camera man on the helicopter who brought the footage home to everyone watching could not escape. Heroes all of them.

    Truly an excellent thread.
     
    Poppy and Otto like this.
  17. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    6,762
    Likes Received:
    1,221
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    To be fair, and not to detract from the liquidators' efforts, many of them were in the military, and they did so because they were ordered to. Further, I don't think that they knew full well what was awaiting them, at the least, not initially.


    Unless you can give a specific group of liquidators...No, all were not dead in a year, nor were they all dead in 10 or 20 years. You see, there were, and sources vary on this, 600,000-830,000 Chernobyl Liquidators. Sources also vary greatly on the number of deaths - between 64 and 65,000+

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5GTvaW34O0
     
  18. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    6,762
    Likes Received:
    1,221
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Hmmm...3 reactors melted down at Fukushima versus only 1 at Chernobyl, thus Fukushima has by far surpassed Chernobyl.

    Thank you Poppy for telling us that 3 is greater than 1. I do not think the rest of us are capable of grasping such a concept. :cool:

    The alarm was sounded back when the disaster first began.
     
  19. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    8,227
    Likes Received:
    998
    People have fun with numbers. When I was in Japan back in the early '80s they were adding names of people who died to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Memorials. These weren't people who were recently discovered to have died that day, but people who were there and were just now dying. Running up the score.
     

    Attached Files:

  20. jagdpanther44

    jagdpanther44 Battlefield wanderer

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,751
    Likes Received:
    403
    Location:
    Cheshire, England
    On the subject of Chernobyl, I am going there with my son this coming May. We have booked a private tour of Chernobyl and the abandoned town of Pripyat which was once home to the nuclear power plant workers and their families before it was evacuated literally overnight following the disaster.

    These days the area is quite safe to visit but there are still places that should be avoided like the Pripyat hospital basement where a lot of the firefighters gear (who were first on the scene after the reactor explosion) is still strewn about the floor. Radiation in the basement is still very high so we will be giving that place a wide berth!

    We also plan to visit the now disused over the horizon radar facility called DUGA. It is a huge array that would have given the Russians an early warning of any incoming airborne attacks by the west.
     

Share This Page