Page 4 of 5

Re: Tsunami

Posted: 16 Mar 2011
by Father Ted
Philhod wrote: their main fear now is N0 3 reactor, as it definitely has plutonium in it FFS, The fallout from that is deadly, causing every cancer known to man. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: bastards.
Look on the bright side, The Nips are fookin miles away. With a bit of luck we wont get any fall out.

Re: Tsunami

Posted: 16 Mar 2011
by jayw
Philhod wrote:The twats want putting up against a wall and fucking shooting.
Just like old times... oh, wait... that was the Nazis... :wink:

Re: Tsunami

Posted: 18 Mar 2011
by docchevron132
I've got me enough potassium iodine tablets for me and my loved ones, ie, me.
Oh, and the doggies.
Just in case.
In brighter news, I imagine there will be many less Prius' on the road if Fukushima goes pop! So ya know, always look at the positives!

Re: Tsunami

Posted: 18 Mar 2011
by Father Ted
jayw wrote:
Philhod wrote:The twats want putting up against a wall and fucking shooting.
Just like old times... oh, wait... that was the Nazis... :wink:
Image

Re: Tsunami

Posted: 18 Mar 2011
by Philhod
:lol: If you look at that picture, it looks like a nuke went off below it.

If the cooling ponds are dry they may as well drop wet concrete from those helicopters....The final solution.... as Hitler would have put it 8)

Re: Tsunami

Posted: 19 Mar 2011
by docchevron132
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: Tsunami

Posted: 20 Mar 2011
by Vanny
docchevron132 wrote:In brighter news, I imagine there will be many less Prius' on the road if Fukushima goes pop!
You understand that Priusses are battery and not nuclear powered?

Re: Tsunami

Posted: 20 Mar 2011
by Philhod
:lol: The weight of them, you would think there was a pressure vessel in there somewhere.

Re: Tsunami

Posted: 27 Mar 2011
by Philhod
Sadly it looks like I was right again. They are now admitting that they acted too slowly but more importantly, contamination levels in the sea surrounding the plant have spiked at 1250 times the safe limit.
I said it depended on what they did with all the seawater they were using. They were evidently chucking it back in the sea!!!!!
They just don't seem to have had any sort of plan in place, sort of oh it will never happen sort of thing.
I have always thought that the IAEC should have powers to veto any new stations that do not conform to established protocols and that any governments should have to apply to them for permits to build. With suitable sanctions available should anyone not wish to conform.

Re: Tsunami

Posted: 27 Mar 2011
by docchevron132
these are very old though, like 40 odd? Aside from number 6 which is newer, and isn't shitting the bed!

Re: Tsunami

Posted: 28 Mar 2011
by Philhod
these are very old though, like 40 odd
The first 4 are 41 years old,the other 2 about 12. They are all PWR system though, not MAGNOX, like some we were using until very recently and were over 50 years old.
Like I said from the beginning, it's all down to procedures, back up systems and maintenance.

To be fair, the damage was caused by a freak circumstance, but knowing instantly what you do next and having the (working) equipment and trained personnel to do it, is rather crucial.

Re: Tsunami

Posted: 28 Mar 2011
by docchevron132
well, with the number of X-rays, MRI's, cat scans I've had over the years, I should theoretically glow anyways so I'm not too fussed about the slitty eye'd yips TBH!

Re: Tsunami

Posted: 28 Mar 2011
by Philhod
:lol: Yeah, you probably could see your way home, in the dark. In fact if your lights fail, they could put you on the bonnet and someone else drive. :P

My concern though Doc, is the poor condition of unitsin the old cccp, where units are old and poorly maintained, some even without a containment shell.
In the far east, such as s***h Korea. The units are mostly new and well maintained, but are much bigger and their attention to H&S is deplorable. :shock:

Re: Tsunami

Posted: 28 Mar 2011
by docchevron132
well, lets look on the "bright" side, a Nuclear winter would rather ensure we get no snow!

Re: Tsunami

Posted: 28 Mar 2011
by Philhod
:lol: Either that or it would blot the sun out and we'd get now't else but.

Re: Tsunami

Posted: 29 Mar 2011
by docchevron132
I think if it was that bad, none of us would be in any condition to worry about the weather!

Re: Tsunami

Posted: 29 Mar 2011
by Way2go
Philhod wrote::lol: Either that or it would blot the sun out and we'd get now't else but.
Not quite the same but that comment puts me in mind of the ending of Dr Strangelove with mushroom clouds rising all over the Earth and Vera Lynn singing "We'll meet again"! :(

Re: Tsunami

Posted: 29 Mar 2011
by Vanny
Philhod wrote::lol: Either that or it would blot the sun out and we'd get now't else but.
No sun, no evaporation, no water cycle, no snow?

Re: Tsunami

Posted: 29 Mar 2011
by Bx Bandit
how come it snows at night then?

Re: Tsunami

Posted: 29 Mar 2011
by Father Ted
Bx Bandit wrote:how come it snows at night then?
Because.
The answer to all lifes complicated questions is "Because"

Once you realise this life becomes so much easier to handle.