Crazy happenings over in Japanland.
03-12-2011, 04:12 AM
#21
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
Goddamn, this **** is terrible for them. First a big quake a few weeks ago, then a huge quake yesterday, followed by a devistating tsunami, and now the nuclear plant north of Tokyo that was leaking radiation blew up and now they could be facing a full Chernobyl style meltdown that could displace 150,000-250,000 people for decades. Talk about bad things coming into alignment. I donated to recovery this morning, since Japan is my favorite country, even though I have never been. This won't help the global economy, since China and Japan are basically tied for 2nd largest economy in the world. This will take a long long time to recover from, even with their technological advancements over the years dealing with natural disasters.
Reply
0
0
03-12-2011, 07:57 AM
#24
Goddamn, this **** is terrible for them. First a big quake a few weeks ago, then a huge quake yesterday, followed by a devistating tsunami, and now the nuclear plant north of Tokyo that was leaking radiation blew up and now they could be facing a full Chernobyl style meltdown that could displace 150,000-250,000 people for decades. Talk about bad things coming into alignment. I donated to recovery this morning, since Japan is my favorite country, even though I have never been. This won't help the global economy, since China and Japan are basically tied for 2nd largest economy in the world. This will take a long long time to recover from, even with their technological advancements over the years dealing with natural disasters.
Reply
0
0
03-12-2011, 08:21 AM
#25
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
In its current state, probably yes. If we could get Washington straightened out, get my local government officials out of office to stop us from being the most in debt city in the country (about $4 billion, for a city of only ~200k people), then I would love it more again. I hate turning on the news to see what bullshit happened each day.
And if anyone planned to say well move there if you like it so much. Set me up a fund and I will be glad to make the trip.
And if anyone planned to say well move there if you like it so much. Set me up a fund and I will be glad to make the trip.
Reply
0
0
03-12-2011, 09:59 AM
#26
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
The surfing was pretty good here yesterday. I think that's about the extent to which any of this was at all noticeable.
Absolutely impossible. For starters, Chernobyl wasn't a meltdown.
It's important to understand that the design of the reactors which were in use at the Chernobyl plant differed quite radically from pretty much anything else in service before or since. In a traditional reactor design, you have a sealed, stainless steel reactor vessel, essentially a giant pressure cooker, which is filled with water and nuclear fuel. The water serves both as a coolant and as a moderator. (Moderation, in this context, refers to the slowing of neutrons such that they have an increased probability of striking a uranium atom and splitting it. No moderation = no chain reaction.) In the absence of water, the rate of the reaction therefore drops. These reactors are said to have a negative void coefficient. Translation: as voids (pockets of steam) form, the reactivity of the system decreases.
In the RBMK (Chernobyl) design, there is no pressure vessel, just a huge concrete pit. (There was also no containment building in an RBMK design, but that is of secondary relevance.) Inside the core, a small amount of water serves as a coolant, however it is not effective as a moderator. For this purpose, the reactor pit is filled with graphite blocks. Not only does graphite quite happily moderate neutrons regardless of whether coolant is present, but as the coolant disappears, what little neutron capture function it was performing also goes away. So a loss of coolant translates to a increase in reactivity, a so-called positive void coefficient. Translation: As a situation develops in which you are less able to control the reactor, the power output of the reactor goes up all by itself.
At Chernobyl, the reactor underwent an uncontrolled power excursion. Cooling was lost, the water started to boil, reactivity skyrocketed, and that resulted in a steam explosion which physically ejected large sections of the core into the surrounding environment; both the uranium fuel and the graphite moderator, the latter of which subsequently burst into flames, causing further fragmentation and sending more debris aloft in the form of ash. And it happened in seconds, not hours or days. This is one characteristic which separates a good reactor design from a bad one- even if you do everything 100% wrong, a well designed reactor will just sit there and slowly melt.
As with most great industrial disasters, Chernobyl was the product of a comedy of errors. Fundamentally, however, the RBMK reactors were highly unstable pieces of **** that wanted to explode if you took your eyes off of them and were designed to fail in pretty much the worst way imaginable.
At Fukushima-I, the reactor vessel itself is still intact, and the sequence of events has thus far resembled that which occurred in the meltdown event at Three Mile Island Unit 2 in 1979 (loss of cooling, venting of steam, hydrogen explosion) and appears that the reactor itself is presently in a shutdown condition, requiring only decay cooling. It's an ugly situation, and there has been a release of radioactive steam, but a full-scale Chernobyl event just isn't in the cards.
The worst thing that will come of this is that the global nuclear power industry as a whole has probably just been set back another 30 years, further increasing our dependence on fossil fuels and setting the stage for more billions of dollars to be poured down the bottomless pit of "green" energy development.
Absolutely impossible. For starters, Chernobyl wasn't a meltdown.
It's important to understand that the design of the reactors which were in use at the Chernobyl plant differed quite radically from pretty much anything else in service before or since. In a traditional reactor design, you have a sealed, stainless steel reactor vessel, essentially a giant pressure cooker, which is filled with water and nuclear fuel. The water serves both as a coolant and as a moderator. (Moderation, in this context, refers to the slowing of neutrons such that they have an increased probability of striking a uranium atom and splitting it. No moderation = no chain reaction.) In the absence of water, the rate of the reaction therefore drops. These reactors are said to have a negative void coefficient. Translation: as voids (pockets of steam) form, the reactivity of the system decreases.
In the RBMK (Chernobyl) design, there is no pressure vessel, just a huge concrete pit. (There was also no containment building in an RBMK design, but that is of secondary relevance.) Inside the core, a small amount of water serves as a coolant, however it is not effective as a moderator. For this purpose, the reactor pit is filled with graphite blocks. Not only does graphite quite happily moderate neutrons regardless of whether coolant is present, but as the coolant disappears, what little neutron capture function it was performing also goes away. So a loss of coolant translates to a increase in reactivity, a so-called positive void coefficient. Translation: As a situation develops in which you are less able to control the reactor, the power output of the reactor goes up all by itself.
At Chernobyl, the reactor underwent an uncontrolled power excursion. Cooling was lost, the water started to boil, reactivity skyrocketed, and that resulted in a steam explosion which physically ejected large sections of the core into the surrounding environment; both the uranium fuel and the graphite moderator, the latter of which subsequently burst into flames, causing further fragmentation and sending more debris aloft in the form of ash. And it happened in seconds, not hours or days. This is one characteristic which separates a good reactor design from a bad one- even if you do everything 100% wrong, a well designed reactor will just sit there and slowly melt.
As with most great industrial disasters, Chernobyl was the product of a comedy of errors. Fundamentally, however, the RBMK reactors were highly unstable pieces of **** that wanted to explode if you took your eyes off of them and were designed to fail in pretty much the worst way imaginable.
At Fukushima-I, the reactor vessel itself is still intact, and the sequence of events has thus far resembled that which occurred in the meltdown event at Three Mile Island Unit 2 in 1979 (loss of cooling, venting of steam, hydrogen explosion) and appears that the reactor itself is presently in a shutdown condition, requiring only decay cooling. It's an ugly situation, and there has been a release of radioactive steam, but a full-scale Chernobyl event just isn't in the cards.
The worst thing that will come of this is that the global nuclear power industry as a whole has probably just been set back another 30 years, further increasing our dependence on fossil fuels and setting the stage for more billions of dollars to be poured down the bottomless pit of "green" energy development.
Reply
0
0
03-12-2011, 11:48 AM
#27
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
The surfing was pretty good here yesterday. I think that's about the extent to which any of this was at all noticeable.
Absolutely impossible. For starters, Chernobyl wasn't a meltdown.
It's important to understand that the design of the reactors which were in use at the Chernobyl plant differed quite radically from pretty much anything else in service before or since. In a traditional reactor design, you have a sealed, stainless steel reactor vessel, essentially a giant pressure cooker, which is filled with water and nuclear fuel. The water serves both as a coolant and as a moderator. (Moderation, in this context, refers to the slowing of neutrons such that they have an increased probability of striking a uranium atom and splitting it. No moderation = no chain reaction.) In the absence of water, the rate of the reaction therefore drops. These reactors are said to have a negative void coefficient. Translation: as voids (pockets of steam) form, the reactivity of the system decreases.
In the RBMK (Chernobyl) design, there is no pressure vessel, just a huge concrete pit. (There was also no containment building in an RBMK design, but that is of secondary relevance.) Inside the core, a small amount of water serves as a coolant, however it is not effective as a moderator. For this purpose, the reactor pit is filled with graphite blocks. Not only does graphite quite happily moderate neutrons regardless of whether coolant is present, but as the coolant disappears, what little neutron capture function it was performing also goes away. So a loss of coolant translates to a increase in reactivity, a so-called positive void coefficient. Translation: As a situation develops in which you are less able to control the reactor, the power output of the reactor goes up all by itself.
At Chernobyl, the reactor underwent an uncontrolled power excursion. Cooling was lost, the water started to boil, reactivity skyrocketed, and that resulted in a steam explosion which physically ejected large sections of the core into the surrounding environment; both the uranium fuel and the graphite moderator, the latter of which subsequently burst into flames, causing further fragmentation and sending more debris aloft in the form of ash. And it happened in seconds, not hours or days. This is one characteristic which separates a good reactor design from a bad one- even if you do everything 100% wrong, a well designed reactor will just sit there and slowly melt.
As with most great industrial disasters, Chernobyl was the product of a comedy of errors. Fundamentally, however, the RBMK reactors were highly unstable pieces of **** that wanted to explode if you took your eyes off of them and were designed to fail in pretty much the worst way imaginable.
At Fukushima-I, the reactor vessel itself is still intact, and the sequence of events has thus far resembled that which occurred in the meltdown event at Three Mile Island Unit 2 in 1979 (loss of cooling, venting of steam, hydrogen explosion) and appears that the reactor itself is presently in a shutdown condition, requiring only decay cooling. It's an ugly situation, and there has been a release of radioactive steam, but a full-scale Chernobyl event just isn't in the cards.
The worst thing that will come of this is that the global nuclear power industry as a whole has probably just been set back another 30 years, further increasing our dependence on fossil fuels and setting the stage for more billions of dollars to be poured down the bottomless pit of "green" energy development.
Absolutely impossible. For starters, Chernobyl wasn't a meltdown.
It's important to understand that the design of the reactors which were in use at the Chernobyl plant differed quite radically from pretty much anything else in service before or since. In a traditional reactor design, you have a sealed, stainless steel reactor vessel, essentially a giant pressure cooker, which is filled with water and nuclear fuel. The water serves both as a coolant and as a moderator. (Moderation, in this context, refers to the slowing of neutrons such that they have an increased probability of striking a uranium atom and splitting it. No moderation = no chain reaction.) In the absence of water, the rate of the reaction therefore drops. These reactors are said to have a negative void coefficient. Translation: as voids (pockets of steam) form, the reactivity of the system decreases.
In the RBMK (Chernobyl) design, there is no pressure vessel, just a huge concrete pit. (There was also no containment building in an RBMK design, but that is of secondary relevance.) Inside the core, a small amount of water serves as a coolant, however it is not effective as a moderator. For this purpose, the reactor pit is filled with graphite blocks. Not only does graphite quite happily moderate neutrons regardless of whether coolant is present, but as the coolant disappears, what little neutron capture function it was performing also goes away. So a loss of coolant translates to a increase in reactivity, a so-called positive void coefficient. Translation: As a situation develops in which you are less able to control the reactor, the power output of the reactor goes up all by itself.
At Chernobyl, the reactor underwent an uncontrolled power excursion. Cooling was lost, the water started to boil, reactivity skyrocketed, and that resulted in a steam explosion which physically ejected large sections of the core into the surrounding environment; both the uranium fuel and the graphite moderator, the latter of which subsequently burst into flames, causing further fragmentation and sending more debris aloft in the form of ash. And it happened in seconds, not hours or days. This is one characteristic which separates a good reactor design from a bad one- even if you do everything 100% wrong, a well designed reactor will just sit there and slowly melt.
As with most great industrial disasters, Chernobyl was the product of a comedy of errors. Fundamentally, however, the RBMK reactors were highly unstable pieces of **** that wanted to explode if you took your eyes off of them and were designed to fail in pretty much the worst way imaginable.
At Fukushima-I, the reactor vessel itself is still intact, and the sequence of events has thus far resembled that which occurred in the meltdown event at Three Mile Island Unit 2 in 1979 (loss of cooling, venting of steam, hydrogen explosion) and appears that the reactor itself is presently in a shutdown condition, requiring only decay cooling. It's an ugly situation, and there has been a release of radioactive steam, but a full-scale Chernobyl event just isn't in the cards.
The worst thing that will come of this is that the global nuclear power industry as a whole has probably just been set back another 30 years, further increasing our dependence on fossil fuels and setting the stage for more billions of dollars to be poured down the bottomless pit of "green" energy development.
I've read quite a bit about Chernobyl, interesting reading, and it makes a damn fun game (Stalker).
Reply
0
0
03-12-2011, 02:08 PM
#29
<in before CR thread where they all cry about the price increase in cartoon ****, dolls and Garage Vary parts.>
How in the **** could you favor one place over another if you've never experienced both? Bro, Saturn is my favorite planet and ****. It's got rings and all kinds of gases I can probably huff to get all loopy while I float around on clouds. **** you. Weeeeeeeeeeee.
In its current state, probably yes. If we could get Washington straightened out, get my local government officials out of office to stop us from being the most in debt city in the country (about $4 billion, for a city of only ~200k people), then I would love it more again. I hate turning on the news to see what bullshit happened each day.
And if anyone planned to say well move there if you like it so much. Set me up a fund and I will be glad to make the trip.
And if anyone planned to say well move there if you like it so much. Set me up a fund and I will be glad to make the trip.
Reply
0
0
03-12-2011, 07:29 PM
#31
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
<in before CR thread where they all cry about the price increase in cartoon ****, dolls and Garage Vary parts.>
How in the **** could you favor one place over another if you've never experienced both? Bro, Saturn is my favorite planet and ****. It's got rings and all kinds of gases I can probably huff to get all loopy while I float around on clouds. **** you. Weeeeeeeeeeee.
How in the **** could you favor one place over another if you've never experienced both? Bro, Saturn is my favorite planet and ****. It's got rings and all kinds of gases I can probably huff to get all loopy while I float around on clouds. **** you. Weeeeeeeeeeee.
Their culture > Our culture (or lack of). Their history > Our history. Their music > Our music. Their women > Our women. Their food > Our food. Their cars > Our cars. Their respectful people > Our bitchy stuck up people.
Just saying.
Reply
0
0
03-12-2011, 08:44 PM
#34
I know plenty of Japanese people, close enough...
Their culture > Our culture (or lack of). Their history > Our history. Their music > Our music. Their women > Our women. Their food > Our food. Their cars > Our cars. Their respectful people > Our bitchy stuck up people.
Just saying.
Their culture > Our culture (or lack of). Their history > Our history. Their music > Our music. Their women > Our women. Their food > Our food. Their cars > Our cars. Their respectful people > Our bitchy stuck up people.
Just saying.
Reply
0
0
03-12-2011, 08:53 PM
#35
I know plenty of Japanese people, close enough...
Their culture > Our culture (or lack of). Their history > Our history. Their music > Our music. Their women > Our women. Their food > Our food. Their cars > Our cars. Their respectful people > Our bitchy stuck up people.
Just saying.
Their culture > Our culture (or lack of). Their history > Our history. Their music > Our music. Their women > Our women. Their food > Our food. Their cars > Our cars. Their respectful people > Our bitchy stuck up people.
Just saying.
History? Have you not heard of WWII?
Music? Two words - Yoko Ono
Their women? (see pic below)
Their food? Meow, Arf Arf
Their cars? Miata vs Corvette
Their respectful people vs douchebags who hate the US and want to live in Japan. Ok, you got me there.
Hell, they do not know how to use a toilet and invented Pokeman. Tons of Japs come to the US to better their lives. Nuff said...
Reply
0
0
03-12-2011, 11:03 PM
#36
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
To each their own. A little defensive are we? I'm glad to know you care enough to waste your time trying to prove that I am wrong for liking what I like.
None of those things you mentioned couldn't be turned around and put on America...
Amerikuh, **** yeah. That better? Lets go slaughter a people and take their land somewhere.
None of those things you mentioned couldn't be turned around and put on America...
Amerikuh, **** yeah. That better? Lets go slaughter a people and take their land somewhere.
Reply
0
0
03-13-2011, 12:11 AM
#37
To each their own. A little defensive are we? I'm glad to know you care enough to waste your time trying to prove that I am wrong for liking what I like.
None of those things you mentioned couldn't be turned around and put on America...
Amerikuh, **** yeah. That better? Lets go slaughter a people and take their land somewhere.
None of those things you mentioned couldn't be turned around and put on America...
Amerikuh, **** yeah. That better? Lets go slaughter a people and take their land somewhere.
Now I can be serious though. Name a place where we have slaughtered people and took their land. You can go as far back as my entire life, my father's life, my grandfather's life and my great grandfather's life. I figure six generations (counting my non-existent children and grandchildren) is enough to be given a pass on anything we did 200 years ago.
Reply
0
0
03-13-2011, 03:03 AM
#39
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
I was joking (Yoko Ono <G>). Damn! Anyway, I wasn't wasting my time. I'm at working getting paid $45 an hour to write this so I guess I am wasting my companies time.
Now I can be serious though. Name a place where we have slaughtered people and took their land. You can go as far back as my entire life, my father's life, my grandfather's life and my great grandfather's life. I figure six generations (counting my non-existent children and grandchildren) is enough to be given a pass on anything we did 200 years ago.
Now I can be serious though. Name a place where we have slaughtered people and took their land. You can go as far back as my entire life, my father's life, my grandfather's life and my great grandfather's life. I figure six generations (counting my non-existent children and grandchildren) is enough to be given a pass on anything we did 200 years ago.
I've never understood the way a lot of Americans think. It's like if you like another country, you are a traitor and should be kicked out or something. No one has control over where they are born, and I think it is foolish to have to like the country you live in or were born in more than another, and be expected to stay there. Just so happens that I think I would enjoy living in Japan more than I do here. Of course as already stated, I've never even been (hope to change that in the following few years), but I can guess by everything I have seen, hear, tasted, ect., that I would like it there. Or really, many countries have appeal to me simply for a change of pace. I'm not one of those people who put down roots and live in one city or state their whole lives. Up till now I have always lived in one state, and hope to make my escape one day. Too much world to see to stay in one place. Especially a **** hole like Alabama. Maybe I would find myself home sick after a few years, but that would be fine too. I just do what I feel that I want to do and pick up the mess later. Life is too short to play it safe and boring.
Reply
0
0
