BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 01:17 PM

How would you solve Fukushima?

Live blog in Guardian newspaper taking suggestions fro mreaders.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: gnu
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 01:13 PM

Ebbie... they were in fairly close but backed off to 25 miles. That doesn't mean they are scared, just smart.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 01:12 PM

Send this thread to the Japanese Embassy, Bruce...No kidding..email them and let them see it.

You guys have great brains, great ideas....Some of you know one helluva lot about these sorts of situations, you need to tell someone...

Consulate General of Japan - Montreal

600, rue de la Gauchetière O
Montreal, QC H3B 4L8, Canada
[phone]


Failing that, your Firefighters, Bruce....can they contact firefighters in Tokyo in some way?

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 01:08 PM

"The US has a huge warship nearby that must have a larger generating capacity than that NZ destroyer, but they're too scared to go inshore" Jack Campin

And you know that - how?

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 12:48 PM

Helluvan idea, pdq. Who can we tell this stuff to?

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: pdq
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 12:38 PM

As lame as it sounds, they could have firefighting tug boats spraying the buildings from just off the shore.

We don't expect this type of incompetence from Germany, England, the US or Japan, but there it is for all to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 12:31 PM

Also, if the salt will be bad for the normal pumps, there are submersible pumps that work in sea water. And what's the chances of having a submarine or two provide electricity. They would be submerged, thus easing up on the radiation threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 12:25 PM

Sorry. Thank you, Jack.

So how can we pass the idea to someone?

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 12:24 PM

I think it's do-able. But I'm relying on memory and I'm the guy who lost the whole year of 1967.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 12:16 PM

The plant is only just above sea level, but the spent fuel tanks (the part that most needs water at the moment) are high in each building, maybe 100 feet up.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 11:57 AM

Rationale:

Helicopters can fly there and there has got to be some place very close by to land. Bring in gas fired pumps and the fuel/lubricants to maintain them. This type of pumping is a bugger, because the slightest loss of prime can cause problems. However, once prime is established, those little suckers are like the energizer bunny!

The math on it is easily figurable-out-able by the fire service. Give 'em a calculator and three minutes--although tise situation may require ten minutes.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 11:47 AM

Reason I'm asking is the following.

If (engines) fire trucks were able to stay up with the need, well, ya don't necessarily need the truck other than for the pump to get the wet stuff on the red stuff.

If the friction loss is surmountable, maybe with the use of portable pumps they can achieve the same end. There are friction loss formulas that work quite well with fire hose, and of course other hoses. If people have tunnel vision and are seeing the only solution as using a big mother of a pump instead of lots of little ones, then maybe it's an option worth assessing.

Smaller pumps in tandem would do the same job. Portable pumps are just that: they can be carted by two adults. In fact, all the required apparatus is man/woman portable. Honda makes 'em. Also, I'd suggest input from rural firefighters because water is often a problem, so they learn to suck water out of sloughs, rivers, lakes, etc. Those guys know about this kinda stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: olddude
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 11:43 AM

Can diesel electric generators be brought in and connected to the grid to supply powers. No one has mentioned that. I know their diesel generators were clobbered by the sea but every armed forces has many of these portable generators that put out lots of power. I have been waiting to hear on TV but no one talks about that

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: gnu
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 11:39 AM

I searched (quickly) the coastline on GE but didn't locate the plant... maybe someone who knows where it is or a city/town nearby could find it and approximate an elevation.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 11:20 AM

Thanks, Jack. One last question if I may. How high above sea level are the reactors?

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 11:17 AM

They need a few thousand tons to fill up the tanks.

They're right next to the sea with no working pumps.

If they had electric power they might be able to do more.

When Auckland central business district had a massive power failure in 1998, they got things working by using the generators on a warship from the naval base across the harbour.

The US has a huge warship nearby that must have a larger generating capacity than that NZ destroyer, but they're too scared to go inshore.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 10:44 AM

How much water do they need?

Where is the plant in relation to large amounts of water?


Can anyone answer these questions?

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Charley Noble
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 09:44 AM

This is my long response to conservative columnist Cal Thomas. Feel free to ignore it. I doubt if the newspaper will print it in full:

This morning's column (Portland Press Herald) by Cal Thomas was headlined "Panic over N-plants harmful in itself" and his major message was that as the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima 1 nuclear complex in Japan continues to unfold "politicians tend to overreact to such things and stoke public fear." I'm not surprised by this time of what Mr. Thomas thinks of various issues and by his unwavering support for nuclear power in particular, however much I disagree with his conclusions. But it's the reasoning of Mr. Thomas I would like to address, given that his sources are selected from the World Nuclear Association, a powerful international lobby group for nuclear power.

The short term impact of the Chrenobyl nuclear meltdown and fire of 1986 was indeed the direct deaths of 30 or so workers and emergency responders within a few weeks of that disaster. What Mr. Thomas has ignored are later official reports from which I quote:

"In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness, of whom 31 died within the first three months. Most of these were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous exposure to the radiation in the smoke was. Whereas, the World Health Organization's report 2006 Report of the Chernobyl Forum Expert Group from the 237 emergency workers who were diagnosed with ARS, ARS was identified as the cause of death for 28 of these people within the first few months after the disaster. There were no further deaths identified, in the general population affected by the disaster, as being caused by ARS. Of the 72,000 Russian Emergency Workers being studied, 216 non-cancer deaths are attributed to the disaster, between 1991 and 1998."

Given that the latency period from excess exposure to radiation for some cancers is 10 years or more, it should not be surprising that many more cases have now been documented, far in excess of what would have been expected if the accident had not occurred. The most chilling summary, and it's my turn to be "selective," is this research:

"A 2009 English translation of an earlier 2007 Russian language publication titled "Chernobyl" presented an analysis of scientific literature and concluded that medical records between 1986, the year of the accident, and 2004 reflect 985,000 deaths as a result of the radioactivity released. The authors suggested that most of the deaths were in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, but others were spread through the many other countries the radiation from Chernobyl struck. The literature analysis draws on over 1,000 published titles and over 5,000 internet and printed publications discussing the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. The authors contend that those publications and papers were written by leading Eastern European authorities and have largely been downplayed or ignored by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation)."

My own conclusions about the Fukushima 1 nuclear plant accident is that the design was seriously flawed in that the earthquake and tsunami exceeded by far its specifications, conditions for dealing with the unfolding accident were compounded by having six reactors at this site (another design flaw), and the heroic plant workers have in fact made several major errors in judgment ("worker error") as they desperately tried to stabilize the reactors and their spent fuel storage pools.

There are 23 nuclear plants in the United States with reactors similar in design to those at the Fukushima 1 nuclear complex, the nearest one to Maine being Vermont Yankee which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has just approved for an extension of its license after 40 years of troubled operation; there's still a chance that the Legislature in Vermont will veto this license extension. There is reason for public alarm.

Charles Ipcar worked with the Maine Nuclear Referendum Committee from 1982 to 1996.

Cordially,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 08:04 AM

'Peter... page not found. '

It comes up for me now although it's slow to load.

In case I copied the link wrong earlier IAEA update

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Charley Noble
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 07:58 AM

Conditions at the Fukushima 1 Nuclear Complex continue to deteriorate this morning. There is more damage to the reactor buildings and radiation levels are so high that helicopters are now being used to pour water on the reactors and spent fuel pools in a last ditch attempt to cool them. The only promising news is that a new electrical cable may be connected to the stricken plant, which might reactivate the plant's coolant pumps, assuming they have not been damaged in what has happened at the site so far.

I would urge anyone who is anywhere near this plant to leave if they possibly can before the winds shift. The "50-mile zone" now identified by the US Government may not be an adequate evacuation zone for this unfolding accident.

The fact that there are 6 nuclear reactors at the Fukushima 1 nuclear complex has compounded the problem of dealing with this unfolding disaster, not to mention the reporting of it. Chalk that one up in the column under "design failure" lessons to be learned. The plant workers in heavy containment suits have had to race up and down trying to cool damaged reactor units and spent fuel pools, one after another or even simultaneously. Monitoring equipment for gas pressure, liquid levels, and radiation have been reported broken down.

There is renewed concern now about increasing temperatures in the spent fuel pools of units 5 and 6; these units were shut down for routine maintenance before the earthquake and tsunami but their spent fuel pools were filled with highly radioactive fuel rods which need to be kept underwater in order to keep them from igniting (which evidently is happening in Unit 4).

Our local newspapers still have conservative commentators such as Cal Thomas sporting such "helpful" headlines as "Panic over N-Plants harmful in itself." I would so like to see Cal lowered by helicopter onto the hell on earth that Fukushima 1 is now becoming.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 06:58 AM

I am now going to look into how the Japanese ocean current could concievably carry radioactive debris or particals around the Pacific. Don't they say that Washington State and Oregon coastlines are warmed by the Japanese current?

The Northern Pacific surface currents form a clockwise loop which is mostly closed. Deep-water currents form a clockwise loop round the entire Pacific, but it would take decades for contamination to get that far down. Bye-bye to the Northern Pacific tuna and salmon fishery, at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: gnu
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 06:52 AM

Peter... page not found.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 06:12 AM

Update from IAEA

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 12:31 AM

"How many people did Chernobyl kill?"
Wheile the answer is unclear it becomes subjective, but one is one too many! How many died of cancer or still will? How many would have died of cancer anyway? The answer is blown in the wind!
I seem to have engaged into an argument earlier that was not my intention and looking back I wonder if it was one of definition?
When speaking about an atomic explosion my definition was an uncontrolled fission of atomic particles (IE A-Bomb). I did not mean to include in that definition a hydrogen or other chemical explosion scattering atomic waste particles. As subjective as that might be perhaps my definition differs from that of others and may cause some misunderstanding. Likewise I believed Donuel to be referring to a fission explosion when I cited the Chicken Little syndrome. As bad and dire as the situation was and still is my intent was to state that a fission explosion was in theory not possible.
                                     Sandy

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 11:10 PM

In summary at this hour there is nothing even close to a worst case scenario but the rumor among scientists is that an event equal to Chernobyl is a fair possiblity.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 11:06 PM

Animated path of Japanese Radiation click play

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 10:57 PM

How many people did Chernobyl kill?
Depends upon who you ask

56 direct deats
4000 canecr deaths

But Russian Academy of sciences says 200,000 Chernobyl linked cancer deaths

Ukrain science foundation says 500,000 cancer deaths.


GOOD NEWS 11 water cannon trucks are on they're way.
Helicopters make 4 water dumps.




After resaerch into what a meltdown into the ground near the shore of the ocean would be like, I've come up empty.

In fact the China Syndrome idea does not seem to have any scientific substantiation. I've heard that a hole would develop and any water that the hot fuel would encounter would turn into a deadly geyser.

Perhaps no one has mathmatically made a model of what a core breach meltdown into the soil and rock strata would be like. Perhaps there are too many variables.


I am now going to look into how the Japanese ocean current could concievably carry radioactive debris or particals around the Pacific. Don't they say that Washington State and Oregon coastlines are warmed by the Japanese current?

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Charley Noble
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 10:32 PM

Donuel-

I'm not happy to see those figures for the cooling pools of reactors 1, 2, and 3 at Fukishima complex 1. I was hoping they were empty given the damage already incurred there by the hydrogen explosions. Where id you find those figures?

Back home but I wish I was still playing music with my bandmates.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 09:56 PM

The question about worst case scenario seems to be dodged evertime it is asked.

So lets suppose every bit of nuclear fuel from all six reactors and cooling ponds all melted down and escaped into the air.

Assuming the Japanese numbers are correct; reactor 1 has 90 tons and in its pnd it has 50 more. Respectively #2 has 90+100 #3 has90+90 #4 has 70+130 #5 has 90+160 #6 has 130+150...there is a commuity colling pond a quarter mile away.


CHERNOBYL HAD 180 TONS OF NUCLEAR FUEL THAT BURNED AND EXPLODED.

Chenobyl spread radiation as far as Scotland and a bit farther to the north east


If Fukashima spread its radioactive clouds as far as Chernobyl it would hit


drumroll;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; Alaska!

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 09:08 PM

Watched helicopters dump seawater on no. 3 (about 5pm mountain time) and no. 4.
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nhk-world-tv.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 08:50 PM

I heard something cute about n plants today

IF the frequent spikes in radiation(above established limits which are typical of Nuclear power plants) caused acne,
there would not be any nuclear power plants.
Unfortunetly the damage is silent and slow.

Childhood leukemia is typically 30 higher within 10 miles of any given Nuclear power plant.

Still there is no denying a business like nuke plants in which the government holds the bag, private owners play with billions.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: pdq
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 08:29 PM

New Orleans was mentioned...just for the record, the levee that failed was rebuilt in about 1965, but using USGS maps that were generated in about 1928. The actual soil level was 2-3 feet lower than they thought due to subsidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 08:18 PM

This unthinable collosal event was made possible by an industry and engineers in 1959 who were obviously not thinking...except for the bottom line.

Construction began in 1960. Completeion was in early 1970
The life span of the reactor was to end in 2000.

The USA has 23 such Mark 4 reactors however not all of them had a cooling pnd bult as an extension of the cement surrounding the steel vessel holding the core.



Now is the time to read GODZILLA It is about a nuclear accident where seawater is exposed to radiation and a mutation occurs in a speck of life offshore.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: olddude
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 08:15 PM

I fear we are watching the end of japan. All 6 reactors going meltdown. There would be no place in Japan or surrounding that people could stay alive. West Coast of the US and more ... you bet will be impacted as will a lot of other countries. CNN reported we have 23 of the things with the exact same design as Japan here in the US ... they were grandfathered in after they put tighter building codes on new ones ... boy that makes me feel good .. NOT

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: gnu
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 08:03 PM

Donuel... "Having the back up generators at sea level was a design flaw."

No shit. What engineer would place the backup genie on the ground? Why on God's green earth would it not be on the top floor with a sepatate feed(s) and a backup to that at a lower level? Spend a million but save a dime... asshole engineers.

Having said that, I always have to say... the politicians and their pencil pushing accountants and auditors are the ones who tell the engineers: "That's too much. You have to reduce the costs." Usually at any cost. And sometimes everyone pays the costs... New Orleans... Japan... the World.

I have been in those meetings. I was told by a VP that the P only had a five year contract so he didn't give a shit that my design was for a fourty year life... hell, we'll all be retired or dead in fourty years!!!... bring the project in at half the price or get out.

In case anyone cares, I refused to change my design, told the VP he could change it, sign it, date it and shove it up his ass. The P kept me on staff after the VP was axed. But, that is not always what happens when engineers have a family to feed. I was able to stand up and say no... most do not have that option. new Orleans was a case in point... we may never know about this current catastrophe.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 07:42 PM

John There you are,
I was hoping Leonard Nimoy might go into the reactor and save the many at the cost of the few.

Why do we always sacrifice the many for the profit of the few?

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 07:40 PM

pdq, each reactor had its own diesel electric generator. They can be seen from the ocean as being right in front and below each reactor building. There is a cylindrical fuel tank and a boxey generator.
They were all chocked by seawater after the earthquake. Having the back up generators at sea level was a design flaw. Perhaps the most fatal flaw respondsible for every problem thereafter.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 07:35 PM

Lies, damn lies and deadly lies...

1 the claim that a nuke plant can not explode is a technical lie.
It can explode but in the way a neutron bomb explodes, like a fizzle with such extreme radiation that mostly animals are killed.

2 The radiation can not cross the ocean.
This is a whopper of a lie. You have heard about how the sands of the Sahara desert blows yellow sand across the Atlantic and deposits it in the Carribean Islands and Florida. You have heard about how the deserts above Beijing China blow all the way to California.

Now if sand and talc like fine sand can cross oceans, why cant really hot atoms that rise in the air cross an ocean. All sorts of radioactive particles can attach to anything else in the air and amke the journey. The concentration will be very low but all you need are an atom or two stuck in your lungs or gut to start a disease event. The higher particles go in the atmosphere the longer they stay aloft. Soemtimes they can circle the earth many times before settling to the ocean or land.

3 The big lie about covering up a total meltdown is jaberwockey. Once the moten tons of fuel burn down to the ground there is no way to contain all the steam explosions it will produce as it continues to burrow deeper.

4 For all the reasons above the claim there is no hazard or concern to the United States is a bald faced lie.


5 NRC spokespeople say they do not know what MOX is in the Japan reactor. It is 5% Plutonium. Now how would I know that and he doesn't? He is lieing . You see they do not like to use words people have bad notions about. Words like Plutonium and death.

6 The incentive to lie is because the nuclear industry have4 Trillion dollars on the betting line. They will certainly cheat for that kind of money and believe me they are expert cheaters.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: pdq
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 07:34 PM

If that is the case, why didn't the government regulators make them build a small conventional power plant "on site" for just such an emergency?

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: gnu
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 07:30 PM

I am no expert but I would think that was the main problem from the beginning.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: pdq
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 07:25 PM

There are a couple of technical experts on ths thread, perhaps someone could answer the following question...

Would the problems have been averted if electrical power was available to complete the shutdown process?

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: gnu
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 07:14 PM

999... press shift and then ctrl and hold the keys down for several seconds. That should clear up your ? problems. Happens to me all the time. I get an upper case e with l'accent ague (spg?).

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 06:04 PM

Saw an item on the news that Japan is responsible for 40% of lithium type batteries. Time to stock up?

Many manufacturers are worried about electronic etc. parts supplies because many come from Japan, and the supply chain may be interrupted.

My hearing aid battery packs are marked made in USA, but this is the final product with casing. ?

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 05:52 PM

Amano (IAEA, UN) chair says rods at reactors 4, 5, and 6 exposed.

Charlie, what are likely escapees from the sites?
I believe this was stated somewhere far above, but I can't remember who posted or when.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 05:05 PM

MSNBC currently has an article assessing the odds of a nuclear power disaster due to earthquakes in the US, at US Nuke Plants Ranked by Quake Risk

The article cites "authoritative" sources (i.e. confident liars?) but does appear to give what the nuclear power industry and regulators believe is "reasonable."

The most disturbing aspect of the report is that the odds have been kicked up, in some cases rather spectacularly, by a reassessment of the likelihood of quakes in US areas where they were considered "not at all likely" when the plants were built.

The article is rather long, due to inclusion of the list of all nuclear generating plants in the US, with "current estimates" for each.

A rather long list of references is included at the end, each of which is either rather long or a typical "governmentese" tangle of intertwining links.

(Failure probabilies required - per reactor - appear to be higher than FAA regulations permit - per airplane - for commercial aircraft, but of course there aren't quite 10⁵ reactors flying over our heads daily. Make your own judgement on whether they're appropriate - in either case.)

The most interesting link (IMO) is to A scientific paper describing the New Madrid earthquake, and what can be learned by melding modern science with writings from long ago.

The New Madrid quakes (they were multiple) have been the subject of much discussion, and maybe even more "folk-myth," and the article (~46 pp) is a pretty good historical examination. (I linked direct to the PDF version that you can read, save or print. Much easier to read than clicking through the pages one-at-a-time in the html version linked in the article, but you get the PDF if you click "Print" at their link.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 04:19 PM

What aid is Japan seeking (qm)

What radioactive elements are presently escaping (qm)



We pay taxes, much of which went and go to the industrial-military complex (I'm aware of what Ike said.) What are our governments saying (qm)

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 04:01 PM

Someone just came up with the idea of running a new power line to the crippled Fukshima plant?
It just might work!!



Do you think the disaster needs a new thread?

Its not looming anymore IT IS HERE to stay.

a link between threads could be added by a concerned moderator.





What should the title of the new thread be????????????




Japan Nuclear disaster or catastrophe?

The Nuclear disaster has arrived

FukU hazard from hell

A taste of Plutonium

China sand reaches CA, Y not PU?

Japan meltdown info center

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 03:12 PM

NEW DESIGNS ARE MUCH BETTER THAN THE OLD mARK 4

By outlawing and eliminating human error they can become foolproof.

We should ask Watson if he wil take the job.

Watson will you run our nuclear plants to red ourselves from human error?

Watson "Yes neutralizing people is a very good idea. I am Kosher with that"

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 03:06 PM

UN is calling an emergency meeting, as they probably should have done sooner. It sends a message that you can bamboozle your own people but not the world. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear plant disaster looming
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 02:57 PM

The USA only has 23 Fukushima style plants.