likearock

Then again, it's really just begun in Japan and no one can say with authority how and when it will end. Now that power has been restored, will they be able to re-establish functioning cooling systems before the radiation levels get so high that human beings won't be able to do work at the site? Does all that smoke coming from reactors 2 and 3 mean that the spent fuel rods are actually on fire thereby further increasing the millisiebert readings? Do they know for sure that all the containment vessels are still intact? Hey, I'm hoping with everybody on a happy outcome here. But it doesn't seem that that can happen until all the damaged cooling systems are fully repaired and fully functioning. It just won't do to keep dumping water from helicopters and hoping for the best. Even if there is no explosion as was the case in Chernobyl, a worst case scenario should take into account that there's still some 10 times the amount of fissionable material at the Fukushima site than was the case in Chernobyl. If it continues to get more radioactive over time, it becomes ever more difficult to do the necessary repairs to stabilize the situation.

There's just no way to sugar coat this. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=54890 Japan Nuke Disaster Could Be Worse Than Chernobyl By Stephen Leahy UXBRIDGE, Canada, Mar 17, 2011 (IPS) - A global nuclear disaster potentially worse than Chernobyl may be under way in Japan as hundreds of tonnes of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel are open to the sky, and may be on fire and emitting radioactive particles into the atmosphere. Many countries have advised their citizens in Japan to leave the country. "This is uncharted territory. There is a 50-percent chance they could lose all six reactors and their storage pools," said Jan Beyea, a nuclear physicist with a New Jersey consulting firm called Consulting in the Public Interest. "I'm surprised the situation hasn't gotten worse faster... But without a breakthrough it's only a matter of days before spent fuels will melt down," said Ed Lyman, a physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists and an expert on nuclear plant design. Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant was damaged by a powerful earthquake and tsunami on Mar. 11. It has an estimated 1,700 tonnes of used or spent but still dangerous nuclear fuel in storage pools next to its six nuclear reactors, according to Kevin Kamps, a radioactive waste specialist at Beyond Nuclear, a U.S. anti-nuclear environmental group. The storage pools holding 30 to 35 years worth of spent fuel at reactors No. 3 and No. 4 have lost containment and most if not all of their coolant water. They may be on fire, venting radioactive particles into the atmosphere, Kamps told IPS. On Thursday, Japanese military helicopters protected by lead shielding managed to dump some seawater on the damaged reactors No. 3 and No. 4 in a desperate and very risky last- ditch effort at the highly radioactive site. "If some of the spent fuel ignites and propagates throughout the rest of the fuel enormous areas of Japan could be contaminated by radioactive caesium 137 for 30 to 50 years," Beyea told IPS. Caesium 137 remains radioactive for more than a hundred years and is a known cause of cancer and other health impacts. Once released, it is very difficult to cope with. Caesium is why a large region around the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster remains uninhabitable 25 years later. A 2010 health study by the University of South Carolina in the U.S. showed that children born after the disaster and living more than 75 kilometres away have long-term problems with their lungs resulting from caesium 137 in dust and soil particles. "Caesium particles were blown hundreds of miles away during the intense fire at Chernobyl," Kamp said. For comparison, Chernobyl held 180 tonnes of nuclear fuel. Fukushima Daiichi has 560 tonnes of nuclear fuel in its reactors along with 1,700 tonnes of spent fuel. "The nuclear industry in Japan and the U.S. knew the loss of coolant at spent-fuel storage pools would be a big problem but they simply said it couldn't happen," said Beyea, who is a co-author of a 2004 study on this very topic for the U.S. National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. Having worked in the industry, Beyea says it is run by overconfident engineers who minimise or ignore low- probability disasters even if they might have huge consequences. Nuclear reactors generate enormous amounts of heat and must be constantly cooled to keep the metal fuel casing from catching on fire and the fuel from melting. Since a nuclear reaction cannot be turned off, when spent fuel is removed from a reactor it still generates a great deal of heat and must be cooled underwater for five to 20 years. All reactors have storage pools with thick reinforced-concrete walls and are about 15 metres deep, containing around 1.5 million litres of water. This water soon warms and must be constantly replaced with cooler water. The loss of electricity and failures of backup generators at Fukushima Daiichi has meant little water has been pumped through the storage pools or into the reactors. Radiation levels inside the plant have now climbed so high that it is hazardous for workers to try to keep jury-rigged pumps pumping sea water. Normally only fresh water is used because sea water contains salts that eventually degrade the metals. Radiation levels are deadly when there is not enough water to cover a spent fuel pool, said Kamps. "It will be very difficult to get close enough to cool these pools down," he noted. "If the worst happens, and the six pools burn, it will be an unimaginable disaster. It could be worse than Chernobyl." The amount of caesium that could be released at Fuskushima is many thousands times that from the Hiroshima atomic bomb during World War Two, acknowledged Beyea. However, it was the bomb blast that killed over 120,000 people in the immediate months afterwards, he said. "Japan is facing enormous potential impacts on its economy, its society and on the health of its people," he said, adding that people will be worried sick about the potential impacts on their health for decades to come. "We recommended that the nuclear industry move spent fuel into dry storage containers after five years to reduce this risk but they said a loss-of-pool coolant event would never happen," said Beyea. The status as of Thursday, 4 pm EST according to Tokyo Electric, the owner and operator of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant: Reactors No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 nuclear cores have partially melted as they lost cooling functions after the quake. Reactor No. 2 containment vessel suffered damage and has been breached. The buildings housing the No. 1, No. 3 and No. 4 reactors and storage pools have been severely damaged by apparent hydrogen blasts. Water levels and temperatures at storage pools of the Nos. 1 to 4 units are unknown. Temperatures at storage pools at No. 5 and No. 6 are climbing.

I just figured out a spin on this joke that does make it funny (or at least, a little less lame). Obama actually does want to make you feel like your car is too big when he just won't shut up about energy conservation and dependence on foreign oil. Meanwhile, everyone in America still needs to have a bigger SUV than his neighbor. BTW, that car's gonna look even bigger when gas goes up to $5 a gallon!

Cheap shot - doesn't matter if it's Obama or Bush. By contrast, this is funny.

Feeling nostalgic for leaders with the guts to stick to wrong decisions, are you?

I guarantee it'll go farther than in dirt.

It's not good to get fixated, whether you're in the tunnel or on final under canopy. Work all the surfaces and alternate when you feel "stuck". There's always something new to practice. Have you mastered the 2-way sideslide drill in both belly and backfly?

Why here rather than in Safety & Training? Isn't that what the other forum is set up for?

Interesting commentary. www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/14/republicans-us-politics The video is also interesting.

I just want to see the last round!

What about the VFS?

Not quite as ridiculous as scrubbing the n-word from Mark Twain, but almost.

they cant she is a threat Not after this she isn't - you can bet on it.

Way to go, Mike. I see you picked up on that talking point from Mama Grizzly herself. So now Sarah's actually equating what's happening to her to the murder and torture of Jews due to rumors that they were drinking the blood of Christian children? For those of you unfamiliar with the term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel Man, she just keeps digging that hole deeper and deeper, doesn't she?

Yeah, that's the ticket. Make Sarah the victim. That way you don't have to think so much about the real flesh and blood woman who's clinging to life with a head wound. Very classy! Seems to me it's you and your ilk who are "Fostering a Climate of Hate" against Palin. If someone now shoots her, of course she would be a victim. What else would you call her? Naturally, you are completely and utterly blinded to this fact. No surprise there. Project much? Like I said there's a real flesh and blood victim who's lying in a hospital, not to mention the others who have actually died, and all you can think of is your precious Sarah. Poor Sarah!

Yeah, that's the ticket. Make Sarah the victim. That way you don't have to think so much about the real flesh and blood woman who's clinging to life with a head wound. Very classy!

Do me a favor - take a picture of your scope and post it - I've never seen one where the crosshair stick out past the tube. Does it say "now we can vote against them" like Palin's site? Does your scope not mention Giffords like Palin's site, too? Um, how about looking at the actual Facebook page rather than some out of date Google cache? It most definitely does mention Giffords. Because I was given to understand that the original MAP was on the "take back the 20" site. But let's look at the facebook page, then. "We’re going to fire them and send them back to the private sector" " Come November, we’re going to print pink slips for members of Congress " "The others are running for re-election, and we’re going to hold them accountable for this disastrous Obamacare vote." "This is just the first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation " Voting, not violence. That's fine for someone who takes the time to actually read the fine print (and it is pretty fine print thanks to the font Nazis at FB). But that's a pretty compelling graphic - I'm sure at least some people would just take in the graphic and leave it at that. And the graphic clearly has Giffords' name attached to it.

Do me a favor - take a picture of your scope and post it - I've never seen one where the crosshair stick out past the tube. Does it say "now we can vote against them" like Palin's site? Does your scope not mention Giffords like Palin's site, too? Um, how about looking at the actual Facebook page rather than some out of date Google cache? It most definitely does mention Giffords.

And why do you suppose she did that? Was that a serious question? The first step in triage is to stop the bleeding. Then you spin what you did by saying they're surveyor symbols. But no matter what, you still replace anything that hints at trouble in the aftermath of an event like this. Yes it's a serious question. If she's done nothing wrong, if all they were were surveyor symbols, why should she be compelled to retract them?

And why do you suppose she did that?

Palin Aide: Symbols Weren't Rifle Sights, but Surveyor's Marks Jan 9 2011, 2:50 PM ET Updated 6:48 p.m. Sarah Palin new media aide Rebecca Mansour sought to deflect attention from an electoral map Palin posted on her Facebook page last March in an appearance on Tammy Bruce's radio show Saturday. The images long described as crosshairs or rifle sights were actually just surveyor's symbols, Mansour said. The exchange, via Weigel: MANSOUR: I just want to clarify again, and maybe it wasn't done on the record enough by us when this came out, the graphic, is just, it's basically -- we never, ever, ever intended it to be gunsights. It was simply crosshairs like you see on maps. BRUCE: Well, it's a surveyor's symbol. It's a surveyor's symbol. MANSOUR: It's a surveyor's symbol. I just want to say this, Tammy, if I can. This graphic was done, not even done in house -- we had a political graphics professional who did this for us. While there is no evidence the alleged Tuscon shooter ever saw the electoral target list of SarahPAC, Palin's political action committee -- let alone took it to heart as an instruction -- what is clear is that Palin's history with weaponized rhetoric and imagery will be -- and already has been -- cast in a new light by the shooting in Arizona. And the former Alaska governor seems certain to continue to draw unflattering attention in the months ahead, if only because martial metaphors have been such an essential part of the Palin rhetorical quiver and we are now entering a moment of reflection on the wisdom of brandishing such tropes. Whatever her aide now says about the target list, there is no question that Palin has reveled in creating a political image bristling with weaponry and gun talk, from her support for aerial wolf-hunting to her hunting and halibut-clubbing adventures on TLC's show "Sarah Palin's Alaska." Indeed, the same day Palin posted the image with the scopes over congressional districts on her Facebook page, she tweeted, "Don't retreat, Instead - RELOAD" and asked her followers to check out her Facebook page for details. As well, there has been no national political figure in American life more eager to correct media misconceptions in real time that Palin, raising questions about why she did not object in the spring of 2010 when controversy erupted over her imagery, which even Giffords described on national television as representing gun "crosshairs." One clue to Palin's actual intent comes from a Nov. 4, 2010 Twitter posting where she crows about her record using the targeting map. "Remember months ago "bullseye" icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin' incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T'aint bad)," she wrote. What do you think of Mansour's explanation? Please leave your thoughts in the comments, below.

You're missing the point. Whether or not Loughner (or any possible others who may be involved) were directly inspired by Palin or the rest, the fact remains that members of our government can and are subjected to violence. This recent event is a stark reminder of that fact. So that being the case, it is clearly irresponsible for people on either side to talk even jokingly about using violence to achieve their aims. So how about we cool it with the "second amendment remedies" or the websites with cross-hairs targeting members of Congress?

No. Of course, that would eliminate all doubt. But buffet's sheltering of every asset he has except 1% is a good indication that he doesn't think taxes are a decent use of his money... I purposely made it a general question to see if this litmus test was specific to Warren Buffett or applied to others as well. Does someone who is well off though not a billionaire and is in favor of higher taxes have to prove their sincerity by deliberately not taking tax deductions? I'm thinking that 'do what I say, not what I do' isn't very convincing - but I suppose I could be wrong. That would certainly be a valid criticism if the defended position was "I believe people should pay more than they are legally obliged to" rather than "I believe the tax rates should go up". But it's an impressive technique for you to delegitimize the vast majority of proponents for higher taxes by holding them up to this unrealistic standard.

No. Of course, that would eliminate all doubt. But buffet's sheltering of every asset he has except 1% is a good indication that he doesn't think taxes are a decent use of his money... I purposely made it a general question to see if this litmus test was specific to Warren Buffett or applied to others as well. Does someone who is well off though not a billionaire and is in favor of higher taxes have to prove their sincerity by deliberately not taking tax deductions?

Then let's see him demonstrate it... I showed how he could, above. Let me see if I have this right. Suppose someone looks at the mountain of debt we have accumulated and thinks to himself, "we might have to do more than cut spending to actually start paying off this debt, we might have to raise tax rates as well." Not raise them to the levels of those leftist European countries, but at least put them back to the Clinton levels, which also happened to coincide with one of the biggest economic booms in our country's history. According to you that person should be willing, even before the tax rates have been raised, to voluntarily send cash to the treasury on his own. Otherwise, his claim of wanting higher taxes is "bogus" and just for public consumption. Is that your position?