BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Other Energy Options  Hop To Forums  Nuclear Power    Fukushima Disaster updates
Page 1 2 3 4 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Fukushima Disaster updates
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
You have something right, it's all about the money with nuke all right.

Those interested in teh truth rather than sticking their head up their nether regions and denying everything they don't want to admit should have a look at this summary.

http://www.infowars.com/confir...leaks-still-ongoing/

It give some updates on the severity of the ongoing crisis and points out how it could get worse still and the incredible amount of radiation leaked into the environment.

One of the most respected annalists on the subject known for fact rather than opinion has had ongoing reports and infomation posted here:

http://fairewinds.com/updates

It makes for extremely interesting viewing. Of particular interest is how this guy has questioned and and disagreed with the official stories since day one and in time, TEPCO and others have come to admit and prove him right all along.

Makes for some scary thinking of his future concerns given his perfect prediction record so far.
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
Dirty, polluting coal is the backbone of Australia's economy.
I am not sure where you get your information, but coal of all types accounts for only about 3% of Australia's GDP.
The service industry is the backbone of Australia's economy at about 69% of GDP
 
Registered: October 04, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Coal provides about 85% of Australia's electricity production. Australia is the world's leading coal exporter. Without coal, Australia's economy would be in deep trouble. The pro-coal, anti-nuke bias is fully understandable. The toxic pollution from Australia's coal far exceeds the pollution from nuclear power plants. Prevaricating and equivocating simply proves it.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
Coal provides about 85% of Australia's electricity production. Australia is the world's leading coal exporter.
I see you have been doing some research. It is actually closer to 75%.
quote:
Without coal, Australia's economy would be in deep trouble.
Can you be more precise. What kind of deep trouble were you thinking about?
quote:
The toxic pollution from Australia's coal far exceeds the pollution from nuclear power plants. Prevaricating and equivocating simply proves it.
How does prevarication and equivocation prove that the toxic pollution from Australia's coal far out exceed the pollution from nuclear power plants.
When you say "Australia's Coal" I assume you are not counting the coal Australia sells. Once the coal is sold it is completely up to the owner what they do with it.
 
Registered: October 04, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Yup, if Australia couldn't burn dirty polluting coal at least 75% of their economy that runs on coal-fired electricity would come to a grinding halt. Yeah, dirty coal isn't the backbone of Australia's economy it's the heart.

Number of people killed or injured by nuclear power vs.
Number of people killed or injured by coal fired pollution

Anyone can master Google and do the math.


Nuclear power in Australia is a heavily debated concept. Australia currently has no nuclear facilities generating electricity, however, Australia has 23% of the world's uranium deposits[1] and is the world's second largest producer of uranium after Kazakhstan. At the same time, Australia's extensive, low-cost coal and natural gas reserves have historically been used as strong arguments for avoiding nuclear power.

Nah, no bias in Oz. Puking toxic coal pollution isn't a problem. Oh yeah, and about that uranium... "shush, we don't want to talk about that" Hypocrisy is alive and well down under.

ROTFL



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Could the radiation escaping from Fukushima be from Australian uranium.

Oh my, that would be inconveniently embarrassing wouldn't it?

Ah yes, when it comes to toxic pollution Oz has all the bases covered.
Pollution is just so profitable isn't it?



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
John,
Surely you did not believe sergio58 when he said that it was only 75%.
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
Yup, if Australia couldn't burn dirty polluting coal at least 75% of their economy that runs on coal-fired electricity would come to a grinding halt.
 
Location: Falcon Hill | Registered: August 04, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Of course not, that's what 'at least' implies.

Quibbling over a few percent doesn't change the disastrous effect it would have. If Oz was clever they would be trading minerals with China for solar PV to displace a significant amount of the coal Oz burns. Oz has a fortuitous solar potential which can combine well with natural gas fired electricity for the lower nighttime loads.

I wonder how they're coming along with that?

Insurmountable opportunity?



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
To me it implies that you are going along with sergio58's 75% instead of your 85%
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
Of course not, that's what 'at least' implies.
 
Location: Falcon Hill | Registered: August 04, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ttommy:
Speaking of Hypocrisy John, What does Canada do with all the spent fuel from those nice, clean 18 reactors it has?
I suppose it just spreads it over the ground does it because used nuclear fuel is so safe and environmentally friendly isn't it?

I'm wondering if you realize or just trying to ignore the facts that will get in the way of yet another one of your very authoritative sounding but completely flawed and twisted rants
that canada actually generates more electricity from " dirty polluting coal" as you dramatise it than it does your pet champion nuke power.

What was that about hypocrisy John?

quote:
Could the radiation escaping from Fukushima be from Australian uranium.

Oh my, that would be inconveniently embarrassing wouldn't it?


Actually, seeing Canada is a bigger Uranium exporter than Australia and sells their Uranium to Japan, Most likely the by your accusations of blame, Canadian uranium is most likely the material laying vast tracts of land to waste and poisoning people In Japan and the US.

Oh, And you mentioned something about Hypocrisy before there John??


quote:
Lost: 10+ ostriches. Large birds, temperament unknown. Please do not feed or approach. If sighted, contact the Fukushima Nuclear Exclusion Zone commander immedia---+++ATH0+++



Tell Me John, what is this " 20Km Exclusion zone" around the Fukushima nuclear plant for and why do they have it when nuclear is such a clean non polluting energy source.

And why are people in Japan being told not to eat fish and why are Cows and pigs inside this " Exclusion Zone" Being Killed?
I heard there was a lot of Land around Chernobyl where people aren't allowed to live anymore. Why is that John??


quote:
Anyone can master Google and do the math.


I Googled " coal fired power plant exclusion Zones" and all it came up with was a lot of references to Nuclear exclusion Zones. That's not what I was looking for at all!
Google must be wrong.... or there aren't any coal fired power plant exclusion zones where people aren't allowed to live... surely not after what you were saying John!



quote:
Number of people killed or injured by nuclear power vs.
Number of people killed or injured by coal fired pollution


Ya know John, When I looked that up, it said more people were killed by coal that nuclear.
And I found something else too.....

They also quote hydro as causing more deaths that Nuclear.

quote:
According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, in the province, approximately 26,000 people died from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected. Official estimates of the number of people killed by the disaster have run as high as 230,000 people.
The death toll of this disaster was declassified in 2005.


AND.... I found that 58% of Canada's electrical generation is Hydro based.

Now I'll get you to explain that hypocrisy thing to me John because I'm a bit confused given the statements and accusations you are making and the facts I'm looking up as you suggested on Google.

But something else i found out.... Even though the amount of nuke power is relatively low, the PERCENTAGE of power generated is HIGHER than hydro generated power.
That's an interesting twist isn't it John?
I wonder how that could be seeing Nuke is so safe and Clean as you say???

So to sum up a few points relating to what you have said John:

* Canada generates more power with " Dirty Polluting coal" than your pet favorite nuke power,

* Hydro which Canada generates 58% of it's power from causes more deaths than nuke power overall,

* Nuke power causes more deaths per TW generated at a disproportional rate to Hydro,

* Canada sells more Uranium than Oz and sells it to Japan so is more likely to be the source of the current nuclear contamination ruining the environment across the globe.

* There are no areas of land currently rendered unhabitable by Coal power but hundreds of thousands of square miles rendered useless by nuke power,

* There are no food sources currently rendered inedible by coal power but many on land and sea by nuke power.

But go ahead and conjure up some more flawed and hypocritical garbage about countries responsible for pollution and deaths and other one sided facts you dredge up because it seems as soon as a person starts looking into your statements, they see that your really doing more for the other side of the debate than you are nearly doing for your own.

Oh! And whatever you do in your next no doubt entertaining reply, DO NOT forget to explain that Hypocrisy thing you were talking about to all the readers here will you??


Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bistro Boy:
To me it implies that you are going along with sergio58's 75% instead of your 85%
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
Of course not, that's what 'at least' implies.
It's nice that you do. I hope it gives you an overwhelming sense of satisfaction in your life. Have a nice day.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
But What about the hypocrisy John?

Explain that to us and how it relates to your previous posts About Australia and the reality of power generation and exports of Canada.
Dying to see how you spin doctor that one.
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Oh my john,
Is your face going to be red.
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
Could the radiation escaping from Fukushima be from Australian uranium.

Oh my, that would be inconveniently embarrassing wouldn't it?



"The fall-out (both radioactive and political) from last month's Fukushima nuclear plant disaster continues to be felt around the world as well as in Japan.

One of the three countries which supply uranium to Japan is Canada, whose Cameco Corporation is the world's biggest "yellowcake" provider.

Indeed Tepco - the utility responsible for operating the failed Fukushima plant - has itself partnered with Cameco in "developing" Canada's huge Cigar Lake uranium mine."


It looks like the uranium in the Fukushima disaster was Canadian.
That is so sad.
 
Registered: October 04, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Wild monkeys to monitor radiation levels in Japan
http://www.zmescience.com/scie...-radiation-17122011/
- Sat, Dec 17, 2011

How do you measure the radiation level at the Fukushima power plant, without endangering people in the process? Researchers found quite a creative way of doing this: they tagged wild monkeys which hang around the place anyway with radiation sensors.

Takayuki Takahashi explained that he and his team are planning to put radiation-measuring collars on three such monkeys, as well as GPS devices that also measure the distance from the ground. The information will help scientists understand how grave the radiation is and how it may affect the environment (humans, plants and animals).

This idea is extremely creative and interesting especially because monkeys walk on the ground and climb trees as well, and can measure radiation at ground level and higher above it. The next step in the work is to also employ the help of wild boars, which have the advantage of moving around quite a lot and being very resistant.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Canada has no problem with mining, using, and exporting uranium, or safe reliable nuclear power technology developed in Canada. Canada embraces nuclear power, so there is no hypocrisy involved in uranium exports, unlike Australia which doesn't use uranium for moral or ethical reasons, but hypocritically has no problem exporting what they consider as poisonous technology to the rest of the world. That's hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually practice.

Top Suppliers of Japan’s Imported Uranium 2010
http://daniel-workman.suite101...ntry-in-2010-a361135

The top 3 trade partners supplying nuclear fuel to Japan accounted for almost 95% of uranium shipped to the Land of the Rising Sun during 2010. America, the number one nuclear power resource, generated almost three-quarters of Japan’s imported uranium.

United States … US$967.8 million, up 16.9% from 2009 (73.3% of total)
France … $145.8 million, up 2.4% (11.1% of total)
United Kingdom … $138.4 million, up 20.2% (10.5% of total)
Canada … $29.7 million, up 39.3% (2.3% of total)
South Africa … $13.3 million, up 76.6% (1% of total)
South Korea … $4 million, up 70% (0.3% of total)
Germany … $2.3 million, down 10.7% (0.17% of total)
Australia … $1.1 million, up 378.3% (0.08% of total)
Czech Republic … $303,449 up 388 % (0.02% of total)
Russian Federation … $194,928 down 11% (0.015% of total)
India … $185,585 up 233.4% (0.014% of total)
China … $82,570 down 40.9%(0.006% of total).

Among the top 12 exporters of radioactive supplies, 9 increased their percentage sales to Japan last year.

Fastest-growing Sources of Imported Japanese Nuclear Fuel

Three of the smaller suppliers posted triple-digit gains in imported uranium sales to Japan, although Australia has some of the world’s largest uranium mines.

Czech Republic … US$303,449 up 388%
Australia … $1.1 million, up 378.3%
India … $185,585 up 233.4%
South Africa … $13.3 million, up 76.6%
South Korea … $4 million, up 70%
Canada … $29.7 million, up 39.3%
United Kingdom … $138.4 million, up 20.2%
United States … $967.8 million, up 16.9%
France … $145.8 million, up 2.4%



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
Canada has no problem with mining, using, and exporting uranium, or safe reliable nuclear power technology developed in Canada. Canada embraces nuclear power, so there is no hypocrisy involved in uranium exports, unlike Australia which doesn't use uranium for moral or ethical reasons, but hypocritically has no problem exporting what they consider as poisonous technology to the rest of the world. That's hypocrisy.



OOOOPPS!

Wrong again John!
Geez your certainly on a roll of sticking your foot in it and making yourself look silly aren't you?

The reason why Australia actually has no nukes is because of the obscene cost of building the things!

Nothing to do with your again flawed and invented reasoning designed to make yourself look clever.
There has recently been talk here of building a reactor by 2020 but it hasn't gone far for the basic reason that we are just a little hick backward country and can't afford it.
What a shame!

quote:
Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually practice.


Well I have to hand it to you john, you certainly got that one down pat.
I bet when they put out the next edition of the dictionary, you handle on this forum will be given as an example.

quote:

Top Suppliers of Japan’s Imported Uranium 2010
http://daniel-workman.suite101...ntry-in-2010-a361135

The top 3 trade partners supplying nuclear fuel to Japan accounted for almost 95% of uranium shipped to the Land of the Rising Sun during 2010. America, the number one nuclear power resource, generated almost three-quarters of Japan’s imported uranium.

United States … US$967.8 million, up 16.9% from 2009 (73.3% of total)
France … $145.8 million, up 2.4% (11.1% of total)
United Kingdom … $138.4 million, up 20.2% (10.5% of total)
Canada … $29.7 million, up 39.3% (2.3% of total)
South Africa … $13.3 million, up 76.6% (1% of total)
South Korea … $4 million, up 70% (0.3% of total)
Germany … $2.3 million, down 10.7% (0.17% of total)
Australia … $1.1 million, up 378.3% (0.08% of total)
Czech Republic … $303,449 up 388 % (0.02% of total)
Russian Federation … $194,928 down 11% (0.015% of total)
India … $185,585 up 233.4% (0.014% of total)
China … $82,570 down 40.9%(0.006% of total).

Among the top 12 exporters of radioactive supplies, 9 increased their percentage sales to Japan last year.

Fastest-growing Sources of Imported Japanese Nuclear Fuel

Three of the smaller suppliers posted triple-digit gains in imported uranium sales to Japan, although Australia has some of the world’s largest uranium mines.

Czech Republic … US$303,449 up 388%
Australia … $1.1 million, up 378.3%
India … $185,585 up 233.4%
South Africa … $13.3 million, up 76.6%
South Korea … $4 million, up 70%
Canada … $29.7 million, up 39.3%
United Kingdom … $138.4 million, up 20.2%
United States … $967.8 million, up 16.9%
France … $145.8 million, up 2.4%


So, Australia supplies $1.1M worth of Japans Uranium.
Now I have no idea of the cost of Uranium but I'm thinking it's got to be pretty expensive stuff.
Exactly how much Uranium would you get for $1.1m?
A bucket full?
A drum full?

I'm thinking for that small an amount of uranium it was probably more for medical than power generations use anyway.


I see from the site you referenced above, that " Dirty Polluting coal" is Canada's number 9 export earner.


Top Canadian Exports by Dollar Value

The following top 15 product categories accounted for 48.3% of total Canadian exports in 2010.

Crude oil … C$51.9 billion, up 21.3% from 2009 (13% of total exports)
Passenger vehicles … $38 billion, up 43% (9.5% of total)
Liquefied gases … $18.4 billion, up 0.1% (4.6% of total)
Non-crude oil preparations … $14.8 billion, up 23.5% (3.7% of total)
Gold … $13.8 billion, up 65.4% (3.5% of total)
Vehicle parts … $9.1 billion, up 30.1% (2.3% of total)
Airplanes, helicopters and spacecraft … $6.9 billion, down 11.1% (1.7% of total)
Aluminum … $6 billion, up 23.9% (1.5% of total)
Coal … $5.99 billion, up 20.8% (1.5% of total)
Fertilizers … $5.2 billion, up 41.9% (1.3% of total)
Lumber … $5.1 billion, up 28% (1.3% of total)
Chemical woodpulp … $4.96 billion, up 36% (1.2% of total)
Wheat … $4.7 billion, down 22.4% (1.1% of total)
Gas turbines (includes turbo-jets) … $4.1 billion, down 7.8% (1% of total)
Medications … $4 billion, down 29.3% (1% of total).


Read more at Suite101: Top Canadian Exports in 2010 | Suite101.com http://daniel-workman.suite101...375744#ixzz1gsRxosa4


Almost 6 Billion in Dirty polluting coal exports from Canada.
That sounds a lot of coal doesn't it John?

And look, Uranium doesn't make the list!
That means Canada Export more Dirty polluting coal than clean, safe uranium!
Ohh the hypocrisy, the Hypocrisy!!!

Like you said John, There's money in pollution and don't forget about all that clean, enviro friendly OIL Canada exports.

Is your backside smarting and red raw yet from being kicked or would you like to come back for another butt whooping with your flawed facts and BS?

Oh, and here's a nice picture of that clean, safe nuclear power you were talking about.



Enjoy!
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Japan tsunami debris expected on Alaska shores soon

A few items with higher sail areas have hit B.C., Washington beaches.

By MIKE DUNHAM
Anchorage Daily News / adn.com

Published: December 18th, 2011 10:35 PM
Last Modified: December 18th, 2011 10:36 PM

Debris from the March 11 Japan tsunami has reached Washington state and British Columbia. According to predictions from a leading oceanographer, Alaskans can expect to see flotsam -- perhaps tons of it -- washing up on coastal beaches soon.

On Tuesday, a black float about the size of a 55-gallon drum was displayed in Port Angeles, Wash., on the Olympic Peninsula where it had been found a few miles east of Neah Bay.

On Wednesday, Canadian television showed photos of bottles and metal containers that washed up near Tofino, in the middle of the west coast of Vancouver Island. One resident interviewed said he had "never seen such a large quantity of debris at once."

An even larger quantity is out there. Much larger.

In September, the Russian ship Pallada reported encountering a vast stretch of debris 2,000 miles from Japan. The Pallada -- a tall-masted sailing ship used to train sailors that visited Kodiak and Sitka in July of this year -- took seven days to pass through the flotsam. By some estimates the area of the mass is twice the size of Texas.

No tsunami-related debris has been reported in Alaska, according to the Center for Alaska Coastal Studies in Homer and the Marine Conservation Alliance Foundation in Juneau. But that may speak more to the absence of observers than to the oceanographer's predictions.

"We have not seen anything as of yet," said Dave Gaudet with the Marine Conservation Alliance on Friday. "But of course our weather, being what it is, people really aren't out there looking. December is not prime beachcombing time in Southeast Alaska."

The panhandle has been plagued with a lot of storms this fall, he said. The area around Craig, on Prince of Wales Island 500 miles north of Tofino, is a likely candidate for the first landfall in Alaska. But Gaudet said he had been in touch with parties in Craig who told him bad weather was making it impractical to scout around the sprawling and sparsely inhabited island.

Earlier this year, Seattle oceanographer Curtis Ebbesmeyer, retired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration where, among other things, he tracked the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as it was picked up by ocean currents, predicted the debris would hit America's west coast from Puget Sound to the Gulf of Alaska. He initially expected it to arrive by Halloween.

"By Pearl Harbor Day (Dec. 7), none had been reported," he noted on his website, beachcombersalert.org. In fact the Neah Bay float had been found, but not yet identified as tsunami flotsam.

On Tuesday Ebbesmeyer appeared with colleague Jim Ingraham at the Port Angeles event. They asked members of the public to be watching for large deposits of debris that might include everything from houses and boats to pieces of cars and "just about anything else that floats."

Including shoes that could contain the feet of tsunami victims.

"All debris should be treated with great reverence and respect," Ebbesmeyer told the Port Angeles Peninsula Daily News. Families of victims are anxious for any information that can be gleaned from traceable items.

Caution is also in order. The earthquake and tsunami damaged nuclear power facilities and experts warn that water contained in items might be radioactive.

The float found near Neah Bay and the bottles washing up in Tofino are among the first items to arrive because they're light enough to float high in the water where they are more exposed to winds that can speed their progress. But bulkier items can also be expected, even improbably heavy ones. Among the things the crew of the Pallada reported bobbing in the water was a television set. Slower moving items might not reach America until 2013.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
The Radiation Network


"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

George Orwell
 
Registered: June 09, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4  
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Other Energy Options  Hop To Forums  Nuclear Power    Fukushima Disaster updates

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014