Tsunami in Japan

the raciation will be less than sunlight when it reaches iowa.

the radiation when it reaches okinawa will be less than a banana.

even in tokyo it won't even reach MRI levels.

the meltdown won't even be very bad at all, much less than nagasaki. (yes, worse than it SHOULD be, but hardly bad all things considered)

KristallNacht wrote:the raciation will be less than sunlight when it reaches iowa.

the radiation when it reaches okinawa will be less than a banana.

even in tokyo it won't even reach MRI levels.

the meltdown won't even be very bad at all, much less than nagasaki. (yes, worse than it SHOULD be, but hardly bad all things considered)

my thoughts too

When i heard about this, i laughed. XD I'm goin to hell aren't i?

Yep, because this ain't the first time you lauged at things sensible wouldn't.

well i laughed at multiple things a sane person wouldn't, three guys one hammer and the Rise Against, ready to fall uncut video. Many people told me i'm going to hell. I'm not saying that what happened in Japan was funny or that I don't care, but i just needed to say the first thing.

Well, sea water with boron is corrosive to the fuel rods, but it stops a bigger disaster from happening, so the situation is pretty well under control when compared to the other stuff going on in Japan.

My definition of Bad would be a meltdown scenario, which is unlikely to happen regardless of how corroded the fuel rods get. Bad for the reactors, yes, bad for the millions of people living close to the reactors, no.

obviously they're not gonna be able to use the reactors again, so they might as well go all-out on preventing harm to their people.

why won't they be able to use the reactors again?

they're already set up, and supposedly that facility provides 1/3rd of mainlands power.

this event is just going to cause upgrades to the cooling systems and implementing a better secondary fall back.

Cause they've been damaged or something. It's what I heard on news hour, which usually isn't completely wrong about stuff except when they let analysts talk.

and its more efficient to make 4 whole new reactors than fix the very small amounts of damage done to these?

You're like the only person saying that there's a small amount of damage only.

so all the reactors are entirely inoperable?

the only thing I've heard about damage to the reactors is "there is none"

and thats including the american news stations they show at the chow hall.

the buildings around the reactor are damaged, but hardly inoperable.

I've heard a lot of talk about radiation reaching Hawaii and the west coast. It made me laugh. I think some of the news stations have stock in the iodine industry. ;)

even if it did meltdown it wouldn't be worse, radiation-wise, than hiroshima or any of our other nukes.

and we've tested those much closer to home than this is.

I thought the radiation from an atomic bomb lasts shorter then from a meltdown.

depends technically on which bomb, and dirty vs clean.

but, I'm rather sure that also with how much control there is on the plants, it can't possibly be that much, and in a significantly smaller area.

if radiation reached the west coast of the united states from Japan.... enough to effect us... then about half our planet would be in a pretty bad state