FUKUSHIMA LEVEL 8 NUCLEAR DISASTER (April 2)

[Billy Burnett]

Run time: 13:53 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4wppvo6ALA   Posted on YouTube: April 02, 2011 By YouTube Member: playbacklapompe Views on YouTube: 1079   Posted on DU: April 02, 2011 By DU Member: Billy Burnett Views on DU: 2361

 

[hlthe2b]

1. First of all, isn't 7 the highest level?

The unvarnished truth is frightening enough..:shrug:


On edit: "There are 7 levels on the INES scale; 3 incident-levels and 4 accident-levels. There is also a level 0."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale

[Billy Burnett]

2. Its worse than the Chernobyl disaster, which was a 7.

The Chernobyl disaster set the high mark at 7, now Fukushima sets a new high mark.

[hlthe2b]

3. The offical scale is 0-7....

[Billy Burnett]

4. I do understand that. Time for an addition. This is worse than the old top-of-scale.

:hi:

[FourScore]

8. Well, since they can manipulate the amount of radiation allowed,

seems they can manipulate this scale too. I agree it is, and over long-term will be, much worst than the Chernobyl disaster.

[Buzz Clik]

7. We're having a Spinal Tap moment.

[DemzRock]

5. Someone turned it up to 11? n/t

[Pharaoh]

6. Certainly worse than Chernobyl

I mean for fuck sake their are 3+ reactors melting down! But officially

The scale only goes to 7.

Perhaps they should amend that to anything above a 7 is

"we're all Fucked!!!"

[Shining Jack]

9. +1

[jimlup]

10. This is in-fact a desperate catastrophe

with severe consequences, particularly for Japan but it isn't worse than Chernobyl, at least not yet. Chernobyl was an absolute catastrophic meltdown including a graphite moderator fire which dispersed radiation all over Eastern Europe. Such a release, even in the worst case scenario isn't possible here.

The situation with reactors 2 and 3 are very troubling. They could develop into something of comparable order to Chernobyl but we are not in need of revising the scale with this yet. Anyone saying otherwise is just engaging in hyperbole.

[bvar22]

11. Relax.

I know Science.
They're just venting a little steam.
There has NOT been a breach of containment.
These plants have been engineered to withstand earthquakes.
If they weren't safe they wouldn't have built them.

Did I mention that I know "Science"?

[TheMadMonk]

12. Yes with the clear and obvious intent of calling doubt on anyone...

...who appeals to science and reason in discussion of this subject.


No if they'd been able to vent a little steam early in the piece, instead of trying to contain it to pander to anti-nuclear sensibilities they most likely would not be in the mess they are today.

There has been no significant breach of containment. There can not have been or the reactors would simply not be able to hold pressure.

These reactors were indeed engineered to withstand an earthquake and in fact survived one five times as powerful as they were designed to. If the earthquake HAD caused meltdowns, we possibly could be better off

Petroleum refineries are not safe. Why do we build them? Mines are not safe. Why do we dig them? Wars aren't safe. Why do we have them?


Did I mention, you deliberately slanted your language to call doubt on anything resembing reasoned argument?

[truth2power]

17. False analogy. There are degrees of "safe"...

The consequences of failure in a nuclear plant far outstrip anything one can imagine.

I wonder why you feel the need to support this technology.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

13. This guy's videos are among the most chilling I've seen.

n/t

[Urban Prairie]

14. My concern is the possibility of burying these reactors waay too soon

Too soon being perhaps measured in years, since the crews continue to spray water into them, and at least one if not two of the four still have their roofs intact, or mostly intact, from viewing images of them from above in HD... so how exactly are the (allegedly) still structurally sound and attached pools within the two that are the least damaged, possibly having their TONS of spent fuel rods being cooled properly, since they are, from example diagrams that I have viewed, attached (or WERE attached in the case of the two most damaged of the four reactors) to two if not three sides of the upper half of the inside of the reactor building? These pools obviously would require MUCH more accurate spraying from the holes punched in their sides from an (IMO) impossibly angled and nearly pinpoint accuracy, unless the crews aim for perhaps the inside ceilings of the reactors' roofs, and HOPE that much if not most of the spray drops into the pools?!?

Will TEPCO have to eventually remove the entirety of ALL FOUR reactor's roofs, in order to ALSO bury their contents in, for example, dirt, clay, boron, sand, cement, or whatever else that they believe will help to "smother" them?

[WhoIsNumberNone]

15. I've been looking at some other stuff about the wider impact of this disaster

It's everywhere. There's been no evacuation because there's nowhere to evacuate to. In another month the whole world is going to be covered in a pall of the shit that's flowing out of Fukushima. Yes, it will be worse in Japan, but it's going to be bad everywhere soon.

[pam4water]

16. Isn't that the guy who put up the a fake video about Tokyo water last week, then

took it down when he got called on it?