Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

OT: CA fukushima radiation levels

Posted by bigvein 
OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 15, 2014 10:38AM
anyone from the west coast have any comment on this story?

[www.infowars.com]
Re: OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 15, 2014 11:15AM
not sure, I am a surfer, I have been hearing the radiation levels have been tested extensively in the Santa Cruz area and they were found slightly elevated but nothing to be concerned with right now. My comment is: 21% of all electricity in CA is produced using nuclear. Wake up and smell the coffee people, this is a small world when it comes to nuclear. Reduce your use and demand a end to nuclear energy and nuclear warfare. I need to do some more research I guess.
Re: OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 15, 2014 12:18PM
yo BV - alex jones is a wack job... not someone intelligent folk should cite as a source.....

[www.theguardian.com]
Re: OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 15, 2014 03:35PM
I recommend www.safecast.org for a more level-headed approach to this situation. All the random articles & videos were freaking me out for a bit there, but since then I've read some more well-reasoned articles & realize it's not quite an end-of-the-world situation...yet. Stay informed peeps, and I agree with JohnBlaze that we should keep pressure on politicains/energy officials to phase out nuclear power and warfare. No such thing as "safe nuclear"!
Re: OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 21, 2014 11:04AM
Re: OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 21, 2014 12:04PM
Quote
John Blaze
My comment is: 21% of all electricity in CA is produced using nuclear. Wake up and smell the coffee people, this is a small world when it comes to nuclear. Reduce your use and demand a end to nuclear energy and nuclear warfare. I need to do some more research I guess.

Hey, if your worried about Global Warming then nuclear energy can be a major practical solution to that problem.

If electric cars ever become practical and in wide spread use, then that energy will come from the electrical power grid.

The risks, trade-offs and solutions to the increasing world's energy needs is an extremely complex and difficult issue.

There are all kinds of questions and considerations involved not the least being this a world-wide problem with political implications.

There will be no simple solutions like reduce your use and demand an end to nuclear power.

However, Nuclear Proliferation is a very big problem and needs to be addressed NOW...or you won't have to worry about global warning or the safety of nuclear power. This is currently a real threat to everyone in the world and technical methods to minimize and/or eliminate this threat are presently available...what is missing is the political will and cooperation to do so.
Re: OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 21, 2014 04:52PM
Nuclear is not a sustainable solution to global warming, I know some people argue that position but I work in the energy industry and I will debate that with anybody(not on this forum). Reducing your use is simple and everybody in the world can start doing it today on some scale. Yes, these are complex issues but sustainability is a very simple principle and needs to be applied to any practice for a better life for future generations.
Re: OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 21, 2014 06:20PM
Quote
Rhythmwize
Hey, if your worried about Global Warming then nuclear energy can be a major practical solution to that problem.

Insanity. Ignorance. Or stupidity.

[www.cbsnews.com]

The plant "has served this region for over 40 years," Ted Craver, chairman of SCE parent Edison International said in a statement. "But we have concluded that the continuing uncertainty about when or if (the plant) might return to service was not good for our customers, our investors or the need to plan for our region's long-term electricity needs."

PS. nuclear power IS nuclear proliferation



Re: OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 22, 2014 12:24AM
Quote
John Blaze
Nuclear is not a sustainable solution to global warming, I know some people argue that position but I work in the energy industry and I will debate that with anybody(not on this forum). Reducing your use is simple and everybody in the world can start doing it today on some scale. Yes, these are complex issues but sustainability is a very simple principle and needs to be applied to any practice for a better life for future generations.

Perhaps I wasn't clear; Nuclear energy could play a major role in the effort to combat global warming...but not simply by itself.

Other methods will be required as well such as the increased use of renewables, conservation and population control which no one seems to want to talk about.

To limit global temperature to a hypothetical 2 degrees Celsius rise would demand a 75% decline in carbon emissions in industrial countries by 2050, if the population is 10 billion in 2050.

However, in the real world, economic growth in developing nations, fueled by a continued reliance on fossil fuels, mainly coal, will account for most of the emission increases which are projected to increase by roughly 50% in the next 40 years.

So, try telling developing nations in Asia, Africa and South America to stop having so many babies, stop burning coal and oil and stop using so much energy per person, like we currently do. You can try...but it ain't gonna happen.

Sustainability is a good goal but it won't happen until it is forced upon the world population by mother nature.
Re: OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 22, 2014 09:00AM
I think Nuclear energy along with renewables is the future. If we recycle fuel rods or better yet use the element Thorium which is more abundant than Uranium and does not produce Plutonium as a by product. We have always known about Thorium but we wanted to make bombs so we chose the Uranium route which gave us plutonium. Thorium is a game changer.

There is Bacteria that can actually munch away at heavy metals including nuclear waste. Its called Geobacter bacteria. Bacteria is another game changer for cleaning up wastes. Geobacter basically causes nuclear waste to become insoluble in water preventing it from spreading into water.

I think its stupid to use nuclear power with no plan to deal with the waste. we have not built a nuclear plant in over 40 years. There is much better technology out there. its all about thorium or flipping the bill to recycle fuel rods.

I friend who is a fisherman off the central coast in the town of Morro Bay is very concerned, he said the anchovies are all sickly looking. He said the only time he caught any this last summer died before he even made it back to shore.
Re: OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 22, 2014 09:26AM
I find the support on this phorum for nuclear power to be a bit astonishing.



Re: OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 22, 2014 01:58PM
Quote
Daniel
I find the support on this phorum for nuclear power to be a bit astonishing.

I was thinking the same thing. Just wow.

Positive Vibrations w/ DJ Treez | Tahoe's Reggae Show | Thursday Nights 9pm | 101.5 FM KTKE | truckeetahoeradio.com
Re: OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 22, 2014 04:58PM
There is a lot of mis information and green washing surrounding nuclear supported by a lot of money. Arguments can be made for its application in todays energy mix but any reason can challenge those claims. NO NUKES, Send the bacteria you are dreaming about to Japan ASAP, haha
Re: OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 22, 2014 05:59PM
What is usually not figured into the cost of nuclear power is the containment of the waste, literally forever, far longer than our culture has lasted so far. If you add that cost in, nuclear is expensive beyond imagination. It will be a problem again. Getting the spent nuclear fuel out of fukushima will be an incredible feat.

Love that reggae!
Re: OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 22, 2014 06:59PM
Geobacter is still in the laboratory and about ten years out they say, they have used the critters in a toxic site back east and they really can eat heavy metal waste and poop it out in a insoluble form making it easier to clean up. Bacteria fellas! There is not one element or form of anything on this planet that a type of bacteria cannot break down. We have lots to learn from bacteria, that's what we are made of...bacteria might also cause havoc to mankind also?

I have always been against nuclear power, until recently I have begun to change my stance. I grew up next to Diablo Canyon in SLO county and remember protesting and being scared to death because there was only one road out of morro bay if the sirens blew. These units need to be shut down....They recently discovers a new fault line just off shore...nuff said.

I believe its France that uses about 90% of its energy from nuclear power, but they recycle almost all of their fuel rods. What scares me is that all Americas Nuclear waste is sitting is pools across the country. Its our Ignorance that we think we can predict mother nature and think there will never be a earthquake or tsunami a certain size. That thinking will always back fire.

If we can use Thorium that produces no waste or risk proliferation....I say why not? Solar panels are more toxic!

I recently wrote a paper on geobacter....there is very little info out there but its a promising idea that can help clean up our toxic messes. They used another type of bacteria in the gulf a few years ago..so it can help?

I do think nuclear has a black eye and just the word scares people....the Simpson's tv show for example?

If we had not had a love affair with bombs we could have gone down a completely different path with nuclear energy...a clean one.
Re: OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 22, 2014 07:08PM
Quote

I do think nuclear has a black eye and just the word scares people....the Simpson's tv show for example?

Can't say I've ever watched the Simpsons, but it's things like Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima that 'scares' me. And, I recall seeing a documentary years ago about how France buried their nuclear waste at the bottom on the ocean in containers that will last less than 10% of the life of the waste contained therein. Wonder if those are gonna be 'recycled' as well...
Re: OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 22, 2014 07:21PM
Well, I believe its France or Germany..i cannot remember, but one of them recycle their fuel rods...its very expensive but they do it.

here is some interesting news.
.
[www.youtube.com]



UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
October 1, 2013
IN RESPONSE REFER TO FOIA/PA-2013-0019A (FOIA/PA-2013-0088)
0o 0
Mr. Kyle Cleveland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Sociology
Temple University Japan 2-8-12 Minami-Azabu Minato-ku Tokyo Japan 106-0047
Dear Mr. Cleveland:
On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Iam responding to your letter dated July 18, 2013, to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) officer, in which you appealed the agency's June 18, 2013, decision related to your January 22, 2013, FOIA request, FOIA/PA- 2013-0088, for all communications between Messrs. Charles Casto, Kirkland H. Donald, and Troy J. Mueller for the time period of March 11, 2011 to April 30, 2011, relating to the Fukushima nuclear crisis in Japan. Specifically, you appealed the NRC's adequacy of search for records subject to your request and the decision to withhold portions of the record pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 6 of the FOIA.
Acting on your appeal, I have reviewed the record in this case and have determined that the information previously withheld pursuant to Exemption 5 will continue to be withheld. The withheld portions consist of analyses and opinions relating to the catastrophic events in Fukushima, disclosure of which would tend to inhibit the open and frank exchange of ideas essential to the deliberative process. For this reason, the agency is continuing to withhold the portions from public disclosure pursuant to Exemption 5 (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)) and 10 CFR 9.17(a)(5) of the Commission's regulations.
While the name of the recipient of the e-mail has been provided in the unredacted portions of the record released to you, the NRC is continuing to withhold the individual's e-mail address pursuant to Exemption 6 (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)) and 9.17(a)(6). This exemption protects records in which their release would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. There is no public interest in the release of the e-mail address.
K. Cleveland 2
Finally, in support of your contention that the search for records was inadequate, you have asserted that if Messrs. Donald and Mueller were given access to the NRC's Japan SharePoint site, all records contained therein would be responsive to your request. However, the NRC's Japan SharePoint site was not made publicly available and was not made available to Messrs. Donald and Mueller, or to any other non-NRC employees or organizations, including other Federal agencies. Nevertheless, the NRC conducted another search for records subject to your request and determined that there are no additional records subject to your initial FOIA request.
Therefore, your appeal is denied.
The 2007 FOIA amendments created the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) to offer mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. Using OGIS services does not affect your right to pursue litigation. You may contact OGIS in any of the following ways:
Office of Government Information Services National Archives and Records Administration 8601 Adelphi Road-OGIS College Park, MD 20740
E-mail: oqis(anara.qov Telephone: 202-741-5770 Fax: 202-741-5769 Toll-free: 1-877-684-6448


its what they are not telling us is what is total BS.
and I was wrong Daniel, France derives 75% of its power from nuclear and 17% of that is from recycling spent fuel rods.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2014 07:36PM by gabertron.
Re: OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 23, 2014 02:52PM
My thing against nuclear is Murphy's Law... If something can go wrong, it will go wrong... eventually. We can have all the safest nuclear power plants, but all it takes is a major earthquake/tsunami to cause catastrophe.

Daniel, you've NEVER watched the Simpsons?
Re: OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 23, 2014 03:41PM
Quote
Reggabe

My thing against nuclear is Murphy's Law... If something can go wrong, it will go wrong... eventually. We can have all the safest nuclear power plants, but all it takes is a major earthquake/tsunami to cause catastrophe.

If thats the case, we are all in very serious danger of being eliminated.

Throughout the world, there are well over 4000 active nuclear warheads sitting in silo's ready to go.

And 100 of them are in Pakistan and another 100 in N. Korea.

Sleep well tonite my friends.
Re: OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 23, 2014 05:40PM
One of the things that came out after fukashima is the fact that most of the plants built were not built to withstand massive environmental disasters, especially if that disaster wasn't a common occurance in the area being built.

Reducing our usage is definitely a huge part, I've done work in people's houses where they leave multiple tv's on all day.

Nuclear energy is like driving a car, sooner or later we will get in an accident, regardless of whether it was our fault. We are already ruining the planet many generations ahead, why use something that will ruin it for longer than humanity has existed
Re: OT: CA fukushima radiation levels
January 23, 2014 11:10PM
RasTantan, I think you summed it up well and did a good job of connecting the dots...
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login