Mars 2011: Kärnkraftverket i Fukushima - utbruten och sammanfogad tråd

Den stora tragedin är att om ett senast ett par år så kommer kärnkraftvurmarna och visar sina fula trynen igen. Det verkar vara så att varje land behöver en radioaktiv öken för att äntligen fatta vilket djävla fail kärnkraft är.

eftersom olyckor är så otroligt sällsynta?
hur många människor har kärnkraften dödat hittills, typ 50-60 pers i tjernobyl, säkert fastställt,
plus ett antal möjliga cancerfall området.
Hur många dör i trafiken varje dag? Kärnkraft är fantastiskt.

Läste och tyckte följande megaparagraf från UK var intressant:

Let me now talk about what would be a reasonable worst case scenario. If the Japanese fail to keep the reactors cool and fail to keep the pressure in the containment vessels at an appropriate level, you can get this, you know, the dramatic word “meltdown”. But what does that actually mean? What a meltdown involves is the basic reactor core melts, and as it melts, nuclear material will fall through to the floor of the container. There it will react with concrete and other materials … that is likely… remember this is the reasonable worst case, we don’t think anything worse is going to happen. In this reasonable worst case you get an explosion. You get some radioactive material going up to about 500 metres up into the air. Now, that’s really serious, but it’s serious again for the local area. It’s not serious for elsewhere even if you get a combination of that explosion it would only have nuclear material going in to the air up to about 500 metres. If you then couple that with the worst possible weather situation i.e. prevailing weather taking radioactive material in the direction of Greater Tokyo and you had maybe rainfall which would bring the radioactive material down do we have a problem? The answer is unequivocally no. Absolutely no issue. The problems are within 30 km of the reactor. And to give you a flavour for that, when Chernobyl had a massive fire at the graphite core, material was going up not just 500 metres but to 30,000 feet. It was lasting not for the odd hour or so but lasted months, and that was putting nuclear radioactive material up into the upper atmosphere for a very long period of time. But even in the case of Chernobyl, the exclusion zone that they had was about 30 kilometres. And in that exclusion zone, outside that, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate people had problems from the radiation. The problems with Chernobyl were people were continuing to drink the water, continuing to eat vegetables and so on and that was where the problems came from. That’s not going to be the case here. So what I would really re-emphasise is that this is very problematic for the area and the immediate vicinity and one has to have concerns for the people working there. Beyond that 20 or 30 kilometres, it’s really not an issue for health.

Källa:

ukinjapan.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=News&id=566811882

Kan någon svara på denna tror det folk vill veta mest av allt..Verkar sådan hype i tråden visst det är kaos i japan men vi bor inte där..

Läste och tyckte följande megaparagraf från UK var intressant:

Let me now talk about what would be a reasonable worst case scenario. If the Japanese fail to keep the reactors cool and fail to keep the pressure in the containment vessels at an appropriate level, you can get this, you know, the dramatic word “meltdown”. But what does that actually mean? What a meltdown involves is the basic reactor core melts, and as it melts, nuclear material will fall through to the floor of the container. There it will react with concrete and other materials … that is likely… remember this is the reasonable worst case, we don’t think anything worse is going to happen. In this reasonable worst case you get an explosion. You get some radioactive material going up to about 500 metres up into the air. Now, that’s really serious, but it’s serious again for the local area. It’s not serious for elsewhere even if you get a combination of that explosion it would only have nuclear material going in to the air up to about 500 metres. If you then couple that with the worst possible weather situation i.e. prevailing weather taking radioactive material in the direction of Greater Tokyo and you had maybe rainfall which would bring the radioactive material down do we have a problem? The answer is unequivocally no. Absolutely no issue. The problems are within 30 km of the reactor. And to give you a flavour for that, when Chernobyl had a massive fire at the graphite core, material was going up not just 500 metres but to 30,000 feet. It was lasting not for the odd hour or so but lasted months, and that was putting nuclear radioactive material up into the upper atmosphere for a very long period of time. But even in the case of Chernobyl, the exclusion zone that they had was about 30 kilometres. And in that exclusion zone, outside that, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate people had problems from the radiation. The problems with Chernobyl were people were continuing to drink the water, continuing to eat vegetables and so on and that was where the problems came from. That’s not going to be the case here. So what I would really re-emphasise is that this is very problematic for the area and the immediate vicinity and one has to have concerns for the people working there. Beyond that 20 or 30 kilometres, it’s really not an issue for health.

Källa:

ukinjapan.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=News&id=566811882

eftersom olyckor är så otroligt sällsynta?
hur många människor har kärnkraften dödat hittills, typ 50-60 pers i tjernobyl, säkert fastställt,
plus ett antal möjliga cancerfall i området.
Hur många dör i trafiken varje dag? Kärnkraft är fantastiskt.

Den stora tragedin är att om ett senast ett par år så kommer kärnkraftvurmarna och visar sina fula trynen igen. Det verkar vara så att varje land behöver en radioaktiv öken för att äntligen fatta vilket djävla fail kärnkraft är.

Läste och tyckte följande megaparagraf från UK var intressant:

Let me now talk about what would be a reasonable worst case scenario. If the Japanese fail to keep the reactors cool and fail to keep the pressure in the containment vessels at an appropriate level, you can get this, you know, the dramatic word “meltdown”. But what does that actually mean? What a meltdown involves is the basic reactor core melts, and as it melts, nuclear material will fall through to the floor of the container. There it will react with concrete and other materials … that is likely… remember this is the reasonable worst case, we don’t think anything worse is going to happen. In this reasonable worst case you get an explosion. You get some radioactive material going up to about 500 metres up into the air. Now, that’s really serious, but it’s serious again for the local area. It’s not serious for elsewhere even if you get a combination of that explosion it would only have nuclear material going in to the air up to about 500 metres. If you then couple that with the worst possible weather situation i.e. prevailing weather taking radioactive material in the direction of Greater Tokyo and you had maybe rainfall which would bring the radioactive material down do we have a problem? The answer is unequivocally no. Absolutely no issue. The problems are within 30 km of the reactor. And to give you a flavour for that, when Chernobyl had a massive fire at the graphite core, material was going up not just 500 metres but to 30,000 feet. It was lasting not for the odd hour or so but lasted months, and that was putting nuclear radioactive material up into the upper atmosphere for a very long period of time. But even in the case of Chernobyl, the exclusion zone that they had was about 30 kilometres. And in that exclusion zone, outside that, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate people had problems from the radiation. The problems with Chernobyl were people were continuing to drink the water, continuing to eat vegetables and so on and that was where the problems came from. That’s not going to be the case here. So what I would really re-emphasise is that this is very problematic for the area and the immediate vicinity and one has to have concerns for the people working there. Beyond that 20 or 30 kilometres, it’s really not an issue for health.

Källa:

ukinjapan.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=News&id=566811882

Det handlar om ett område på några kilometer om det inte sprider sig. Lär ju inte hända så många fler gånger. Är väl ingen som tänkt att vi ska ha kärnkfraft för evigt. Men för närvarande finns det inget miljövänligare, säkrare och billigare alternativ.

Eller ska vi kanske stänga ner all annan kemisk industri också? Finns många fabriker som skulle kunna radera ut stadsdelar om en osannolik olycka skulle vara framme.

Problemet är att en trafikolycka dödar någon idag. Kärnkraft fortsätter att döda folk i hundratusen år.
Liknelsen hade varit ok om trafikolyckan innebar att alla som åker förbi den platsen någonsin också dör.

50-60 pers?
ett antal möjliga cancerfall?
Haha, du är ju uppåt väggarna. Kanske dags för dig att se lite dokumentärer och läsa lite böcker.

Sen kan jag upplysa dig att om du krockar en bil betyder inte det att man inte kan bo, bygga hus och industri och gro grödor på den marken förren några tusen år senare.

Nu är det ju dock inte 100%igt vederlagt att det är så. Ok, inom några mil, men utanför det tvistar ju fortfarande folk om hur man ska tolka efterverkningarna. Kom ju en omtvistad FN-rapport som hävdade att ungefär 130 pers dött direkt av Tjernobyl.