Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

gargleblaster

Switzerland Decides on Nuclear Phase-Out
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/business/global/26nuclear.html


Japanese Parents Assail Government Over Radiation
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/world/asia/26japan.html

Iwannahurl

I've just found out serendipitously that Fukushima means "good-fortune island" in Japanese.

daelight

Just if anyone is interested.. Japan is recovering amazingly well all things considered. Typhoons are the next to try and destroy the country,, never a dull moment...

up for anything

http://www.infowars.com/land-around-fukushima-now-resembles-target-struck-by-atomic-bomb/

Land around Fukushima now resembles target struck by atomic bomb

Mike Adams
NaturalNews
May 31, 2011

It is nothing short of astonishing that the nuclear catastrophe we’ve all been told was “no big deal” has now escalated into the worst nuclear disaster in the history of human civilization. It’s so bad now that soil samples taken from outside the 12-mile exclusion zone (the zone considered safe enough by the Japanese government for schoolchildren to attend school there) are higher than the 1.48 million becquerels a square meter limit that triggered evacuations outside Chernobyl in 1986.

In other words, the radiation level of the soil 12 miles from Fukushima is now higher than the levels considered too dangerous to live in near Chernobyl. This is all coming out in a new research report authored by Tomio Kawata, a fellow at the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan. That same report also reveals that radiation from Fukushima has spread over 230 square miles.
What we’re facing here, folks, is a Fukushima dead zone where life will never return to its pre-Fukushima norms.

Radiation levels similar to nuclear bomb test site
Bloomberg is now reporting, “Tetsuya Terasawa said the radiation levels are in line with those found after a nuclear bomb test, which disperses plutonium. He declined to comment further.” (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-…)
One soil sample taking 25 kilometers away from Fukushima showed Cesium-137 exceeding 5 million becquerels per square meter. This level, of course, makes it uninhabitable by humans, yet both the Japanese and U.S. governments continue to downplay the whole event, assuring their sheeple that there’s nothing to worry about. By their logic, since all the people are sheeple anyway, as long as the area is safe enough for sheep, it’s also safe enough for the human population.

Both Japan and the U.S. have made huge efforts to raise the limits of allowed radiation exposure in foods and beverages. This was, of course, a deceitful tactic to try to reclassify radiation contamination as somehow magically being “safe” by redefining it.

The outright lying and tactics of deception that have been used to try to downplay the severity of the radioactive fallout from Fukushima are nothing less than despicable. In a time when radiation threatens the safety and food supply of hundreds of millions of people, we are getting nothing but a Fukushima whitewash.

Fukushima is now far worse than Chernobyl ever was and yet we’re all being told it’s no problem and that the government has it all under control. I ask: How is 5 million becquerels per square meter not a problem? It’s amazing that we even got this information, considering how frequently TEPCO claims its sensors and meters aren’t working (basically any time they get a reading that’s “too high”).
The Japanese government can’t wait to corral the sheeple back onto the radioactive soil, by the way. “Basically, the way in which the current zones have been drawn up aren’t a concern in terms of the impact on health,” said Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano. “Using Mr. Kawata’s report as a guide, we want to do what we can to improve the soil, so people can return as soon as possible.”

Barely two weeks ago, TEPCO finally admitted Fukushima suffered multiple core meltdowns in the hours following the tsunami strike (http://www.naturalnews.com/032378_n…) (http://www.naturalnews.com/032437_F…). This was the first time TEPCO openly admitted to something the alternative media had been reporting for months.

What has become perfectly clear in the reporting on Fukushima is that:
• Governments lie to the people
• Mainstream media lies to the people
• Only the alternative media was correct in reporting the severity of the core meltdowns and the release of radioactive material into the environment.
That’s why more and more people are turning away from traditional sources of (mis)information and instead relying on the alternative media to get accurate information about world events.

vibe666

that could almost pass for a legitimate news article until you get halfway through it and read this:

One soil sample taking 25 kilometers away from Fukushima showed Cesium-137 exceeding 5 million becquerels per square meter. This level, of course, makes it uninhabitable by humans, yet both the Japanese and U.S. governments continue to downplay the whole event, assuring their sheeple that there’s nothing to worry about. By their logic, since all the people are sheeple anyway, as long as the area is safe enough for sheep, it’s also safe enough for the human population.

and then all of a sudden it starts to read like a tinfoil hat piece, regardless of whether or not the statistics within it are actually factually accurate or not.

vibe666

there's a good piece on the BBC news site on retired elderly Japanese engineers (and others) campaigning for their government to let them take the place of younger nuclear plant workers.

A group of more than 200 Japanese pensioners are volunteering to tackle the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima power station.

The Skilled Veterans Corps, as they call themselves, is made up of retired engineers and other professionals, all over the age of 60.

They say they should be facing the dangers of radiation, not the young.

It was while watching the television news that Yasuteru Yamada decided it was time for his generation to stand up.

No longer could he be just an observer of the struggle to stabilise the Fukushima nuclear plant.

The retired engineer is reporting back for duty at the age of 72, and he is organising a team of pensioners to go with him.

For weeks now Mr Yamada has been getting back in touch with old friends, sending out e-mails and even messages on Twitter.

Volunteering to take the place of younger workers at the power station is not brave, Mr Yamada says, but logical.

Mr Yamada has been getting back in touch with old friends via e-mail and even messages on Twitter
"I am 72 and on average I probably have 13 to 15 years left to live," he says.

"Even if I were exposed to radiation, cancer could take 20 or 30 years or longer to develop. Therefore us older ones have less chance of getting cancer."

andrew

This is pretty good. It's about the risks of nuclear power in general.

I wish this was in the news a bit more, kinda hard to find out exactly what's going on now.

up for anything

vibe666 wrote: »

that could almost pass for a legitimate news article until you get halfway through it and read this:
and then all of a sudden it starts to read like a tinfoil hat piece, regardless of whether or not the statistics within it are actually factually accurate or not.

Feck, I didn't read that far down. Serves me right. :D

vibe666

up for anything wrote: »

Feck, I didn't read that far down. Serves me right. :D

it's known as shootius footius.

the thing is with those kinds of things, they could be telling you something completely legit but with such an obvious agenda in the text, it's hard to take seriously which i think is something we've learnt in this thread over time.

whatever a message is, it's hard for people to take it seriously or to have any hope of it changing their minds if it's constantly putting them down for believing something different to begin with.

i guess it's just one of those things though, when people feel strongly about something they get emotive and not always constructively, something i'm sure we've all been guilty of at some point.

take everything

vibe666 wrote: »

there's a good piece on the BBC news site on retired elderly Japanese engineers (and others) campaigning for their government to let them take the place of younger nuclear plant workers.

Jaysus.
Couldn't imagine something like this happening in Ireland.
Gotta love the Japanese.

Ficheall

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13678627

Japan doubles Fukushima radiation leak estimate

Japan has more than doubled its estimate of radiation that escaped from the tsunami-hit Fukushima nuclear plant in the first week after the disaster.
Japan's nuclear safety agency also said meltdowns took place in three reactors more quickly than earlier believed.
The assessment comes as an expert panel begins an inquiry into the crisis.
The plant's operator is hoping to shut down the facility by January, although there is concern it may take longer - the plant is still leaking radiation.
More than 80,000 local residents living within a 20km (12 mile) radius of the plant have been evacuated from their homes. A voluntary evacuation policy is operating in the area 20-30km from the plant.
Some towns further away have also been affected.
Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano says more evacuations are being considered. Monitoring shows the lie of the land and wind patterns may be causing a build-up of radiation in other areas.
Brace for criticism Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (Nisa) now says 770,000 terabecquerels escaped into the atmosphere following the 11 March disaster - more than double its earlier estimate of 370,000 terabecquerels.
Although the amount is just 15% of the total released at Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986 - the world's worst nuclear disaster - it suggests the contamination of the area around the plant is worse than first thought, says the BBC's Roland Buerk in Tokyo.
The safety agency also says that in reactor No 1, molten nuclear fuel dropped to the bottom of the pressure vessel within five hours of the earthquake - 10 hours earlier than initially estimated by operator Tepco.
Nisa also says a meltdown damaged the No 2 reactor after 80 hours, and the No 3 reactor 79 hours after the tsunami knocked out the plant's cooling systems.
The revision, nearly three months into the crisis, is likely to increase criticism in Japan that the plant's operator and the government were too slow to release information, our correspondent says.
The findings were released as an independent 10-member expert panel begins an investigation into the causes of the nuclear accident.
An investigation by the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, has already pointed out a key failure - admitted by Japan - to plan for the risk of waves crashing over the sea wall and knocking out the plant's back-up generators.
Even though a major faultline lies just offshore, the sea wall at Fukushima was less than 6m (20ft) high. The height of the tsunami wave was about 14m.
In its draft report, the IAEA said continued monitoring of the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the general public was necessary.
The report also emphasised the importance of independent regulators in the nuclear industry.
In Japan, the nuclear safety agency is part of the industry ministry, which promotes nuclear power.
A draft report obtained by Japanese broadcaster NHK - to be submitted to the IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety later this month - outlines plans to split the two bodies.

gbee

The safety agency also says that in reactor No 1, molten nuclear fuel dropped to the bottom of the pressure vessel within five hours of the earthquake -

.

I think this vindicates those who said from the beginning that they had a meltdown and a runaway reaction.

I'd like an apology fro those who commented about us 'Being better experts than .." It's obvious we were.

Google doesn't lie you know, if we take the official report of substances found and Google them we get a lot of information, from the beginning the reported isotopes clearly Googles as a meltdown in progress ~ it was, OK some call it by a slightly different name 'criticality' but this was just being pedantic TBH.

Another six months before they think they will have the plant contained. And it was the earthquake that caused the damage and the tSunami took out the back up diesel systems and batteries only latest to their design specifications.

Overheal

gbee wrote: »

.

I think this vindicates those who said from the beginning that they had a meltdown and a runaway reaction.

I'd like an apology fro those who commented about us 'Being better experts than .." It's obvious we were.

Google doesn't lie you know, if we take the official report of substances found and Google them we get a lot of information, from the beginning the reported isotopes clearly Googles as a meltdown in progress ~ it was, OK some call it by a slightly different name 'criticality' but this was just being pedantic TBH.

Another six months before they think they will have the plant contained. And it was the earthquake that caused the damage and the tSunami took out the back up diesel systems and batteries only latest to their design specifications.

Indeed. You're owed it. Somewhat. I had my own doubts several times but would have wanted to be 100% certain of anything before I promoted worry, grief or radiaphobic panic. We have that certainty now. At the time we had some good hypotheses and still again some other impassioned "Read the writing on the walls" type arguments which had no substance other than gut feeling.

For yourselves though just monitor radiation levels. But I do think they are nothing life threatening. Not more so life threatening that anything else, really. It's out of your hands at this point, aside from opposing nuclear policies. You can choose not to eat sodium nitrates, but it's hard to avoid a trace increase in background radiation, so I find it hard to imagine losing sleep over it. Up next: more oil-related conflicts around the world, with millions killed directly. And people still get into mass panic about radiation-related complications, birth defects and cancers. I guess because it's happening in your backyard, not Abdul's.

Jon

vibe666

gbee wrote: »

I'd like an apology fro those who commented about us 'Being better experts than .." It's obvious we were.

not being funny, but there was a huge amount of information that appeared to point to the contrary as well, at the end of the day you took one standpoint based on nothing more than a mental flip of a coin.

i'm sorry to break it to you, but you weren't right in this case because a few hours googling made you smarter than hundreds of the worlds nuclear physicists with decades of practical and theoretical experience in the field who were saying differently, all that happened was that you gained a very rudimentary understanding of a tiny fraction of nuclear physics concerning reactors and had a guess at a yes no question that just happened to be right, but all you were was lucky so please stop sounding so smug about it.

we've only just got rid of the last one of those after he pretty much destroyed the thread, it would be a shame to re-spoil the thread now with more of it.

personally, most of what i've said on the subject centres around the fact (which still hasn't changed) that nothing that could ever possibly go wrong (or has gone wrong) in fukushima will be anything more than an unfortunate industrial accident in comparison to the death and destruction wrought by the earthquake and tsunami that caused it.

maybe we can re-visit this thread in 40 years time and if fukushima has killed more than 28,000 people by that time and destroyed hundreds of miles of coastline, then i'll dust off my apology and give it to you then.

the biggest tragedy about fukushima (aside from it drawing the attention of the worlds media away from more important issues in japan at the time) is the billions it is going to cost to put it right that should be being used to rebuild the lives of the thousands of people who lost everything and everyone they loved on march 11th.

AskMyChocolate

vibe666 wrote: »

not being funny, but there was a huge amount of information that appeared to point to the contrary as well, at the end of the day you took one standpoint based on nothing more than a mental flip of a coin.

i'm sorry to break it to you, but you weren't right in this case because a few hours googling made you smarter than hundreds of the worlds nuclear physicists with decades of practical and theoretical experience in the field who were saying differently, all that happened was that you gained a very rudimentary understanding of a tiny fraction of nuclear physics concerning reactors and had a guess at a yes no question that just happened to be right, but all you were was lucky so please stop sounding so smug about it.

we've only just got rid of the last one of those after he pretty much destroyed the thread, it would be a shame to re-spoil the thread now with more of it.

personally, most of what i've said on the subject centres around the fact (which still hasn't changed) that nothing that could ever possibly go wrong (or has gone wrong) in fukushima will be anything more than an unfortunate industrial accident in comparison to the death and destruction wrought by the earthquake and tsunami that caused it.

maybe we can re-visit this thread in 40 years time and if fukushima has killed more than 28,000 people by that time and destroyed hundreds of miles of coastline, then i'll dust off my apology and give it to you then.

the biggest tragedy about fukushima (aside from it drawing the attention of the worlds media away from more important issues in japan at the time) is the billions it is going to cost to put it right that should be being used to rebuild the lives of the thousands of people who lost everything and everyone they loved on march 11th.

In fairness, Vibe, that's a pretty unhandsome way to admit that you were wrong, especially given the tone of a lot of your posts in this thread. You should read Overheal's post above yours. He wasn't half as smug and condescending as yourself and a couple of others on the pro-nuclear side and he has accepted he was at fault like a gentleman. As a neutral who has been trying to gain information from posters on both sides of the argument I would have to say, IMO, Rob A. Bank and Run to Da Hills suffered a lot more derision,condescension and namecalling from the pro-nuclear lobby than they deseved and refused for the most part to retaliate in kind. Just my opinion.

Back on thread, I asked very early on in this thread about the potential danger to Japan's marine eco-system; does anyone know what the situation is (best guess) with regards to this, given the most recent verifiable data?

I realise that the info we're getting is still very sketchy and one-sided and we should probably wait for the independent report, but even a rough scenario (from both sides) taking NISA's figures (which I assume are conservative) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Choco.

Overheal

Ah in fairness he does make the point that there were two sides to the whole spiel, and different folks sided differently based on any number of reasons. I just sided with establishment myself, as I often do in fluid/chaotic situations, and tried to do good by what I could learn. People did offer opposing theories but yes in the end only some could be right. At the time though you couldn't have known for sure who that would be.

Back on thread, I asked very early on in this thread about the potential danger to Japan's marine eco-system; does anyone know what the situation is (best guess) with regards to this, given the most recent verifiable data?

I realise that the info we're getting is still very sketchy and one-sided and we should probably wait for the independent report, but even a rough scenario (from both sides) taking NISA's figures (which I assume are conservative) would be greatly appreciated.

I haven't looked at any figures, but it's going to be unfriendly. The radiation falls off dramatically away from shore, but along the coast, it's pretty bad. I only remember what I heard a month ago about the seaweed issue. It will probably tie into the whole ecosystem for a long while. Once it's in the plankton it pretty much gets into everything. How long though depends on when the reactors are contained, and the radiation is passed through enough biomass in the food chain to be absorbed and dissipated/rendered inert. Probably impossible to track though in that case as once it's in the food chain the sea current models wont reflect travel patterns of sea life. A migratory whale pod could be a concern if it's been eating up MOX-contaminated fish and moving on a few hundred miles. But that all depends on concentration levels doesnt it. How much damage can a single isotope do, practically?

AskMyChocolate

Overheal wrote: »

Ah in fairness he does make the point that there were two sides to the whole spiel, and different folks sided differently based on any number of reasons. I just sided with establishment myself, as I often do in fluid/chaotic situations, and tried to do good by what I could learn. People did offer opposing theories but yes in the end only some could be right. At the time though you couldn't have known for sure who that would be. I haven't looked at any figures, but it's going to be unfriendly. The radiation falls off dramatically away from shore, but along the coast, it's pretty bad. I only remember what I heard a month ago about the seaweed issue. It will probably tie into the whole ecosystem for a long while. Once it's in the plankton it pretty much gets into everything. How long though depends on when the reactors are contained, and the radiation is passed through enough biomass in the food chain to be absorbed and dissipated/rendered inert. Probably impossible to track though in that case as once it's in the food chain the sea current models wont reflect travel patterns of sea life. A migratory whale pod could be a concern if it's been eating up MOX-contaminated fish and moving on a few hundred miles. But that all depends on concentration levels doesnt it. How much damage can a single isotope do, practically?

Cheers mate. I wasn't actually referring to who was wrong or who was right. There were a couple of posters on the "right" side who were equally as guilty of unfounded certainty, smugness and namecalling. Although there were far more "tinfoil hat" "scaremonger" "get an education" jibes, there were plenty of " Tepco apologist" " gullible sheeple" jibes too.

I'm just glad my woeful ignorance kept me out of the debate.:pac:

I just meant that I don't see any need for yourself or Andrew to apologise any more than I would have felt that Rob A. Bank would have owed anyone an apology had the whole thing turned out to be a storm in a teacup.

Anyway, back on thread.:(

Those poor people just can't seem to catch a fcuking break.:mad::(

The reason I was so worried at the start about the marine ecosystem (rather than the land) is because of the massive amount of fish the Japanese people consume. Their economy has already been hit with everything it can take. I just hope their reputation for "saving face" at all costs is exaggerated. If there is a major blow to their food supply/economy it will almost certainly impact on those who can least afford it. I just hope the Japanese government will handle it correctly and not let the least well-off suffer the most.

Anyway, fingers crossed. They're a very resilient people and hopefully the contamination won't be as bad as we fear and the ecosystem will heal itself in as short a space of time as is possible, with as little health risk as possible. Please keep posting if you come up with any new info.

Thanks again for all your posts (and indeed to everyone).

Choco

vibe666

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

I just meant that I don't see any need for yourself or Andrew to apologise any more than I would have felt that Rob A. Bank would have owed anyone an apology had the whole thing turned out to be a storm in a teacup.

the big difference being that if the shoe were on the other foot, that nobody on the pro-nuclear side of the fence would even have asked for an 'apology'.

this thread was almost totally derailed by someone doing almost exactly what gbee is trying to do, rub people's noses in it and it's totally uncalled for so i simply responded in kind.

gbee

vibe666 wrote: »

the big difference being that if the shoe were on the other foot, .

I think it is a basic science issue. A little isotope says the reactor is in meltdown, TEPCO says that's wrong, and IMHO, too many posters supported TEPCO's version, too enthusiastically.

vibe666

gbee wrote: »

I think it is a basic science issue. A little isotope says the reactor is in meltdown, TEPCO says that's wrong, and IMHO, too many posters supported TEPCO's version, too enthusiastically.

we're not just talking about tepco though, a large chunk (I'd estimate at least 50%, of not significantly more) of what would have been considered the more reliable experts that were wheeled in to comment in the media were saying the same thing, based on the information at hand at the time.

if it was so obvious that you were right, then why was it not totally obvious to EVERYONE with a background in nuclear physics that this was the case?

stating that your googling skills + a rudimentary knowledge of a small part of nuclear physics and taking a gamble to come to a particular conclusion that just happened to be correct when the majority of the experts on the subject and half the forum here were wrong somehow makes you smarter than everyone else is a fallacy.

unless you are an eminent nuclear physicist with access to all of tepco's private files, at the end of the day you guessed at a conclusion that suited your viewpoints just like the rest of us and you just happened to guess heads instead of tails.

gbee

vibe666 wrote: »

if it was so obvious that you were right, then why was it not totally obvious to EVERYONE with a background in nuclear physics that this was the case?.

I have to assume they were told what to say.

gbee

vibe666 wrote: »

and you just happened to guess heads instead of tails.

It wasn't a guess. By Monday morning after the accident a lot of media were saying the reactor was in meltdown. An avalaunch of denials and evidence supporting the opposite was released and these stories faded away, and anyone continuing to claim otherwise was dismissed.

vibe666

gbee wrote: »

I have to assume they were told what to say.

yes, hundreds of independent eminently qualified observers all over the world were told what to say, and a few people on the internet were the only ones who knew the real truth because they googled it. that makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

gbee wrote: »

It wasn't a guess. By Monday morning after the accident a lot of media were saying the reactor was in meltdown. An avalaunch of denials and evidence supporting the opposite was released and these stories faded away, and anyone continuing to claim otherwise was dismissed.

you must be thinking about some other nuclear incident because that's certainly not how fukushima played out in the mainstream media.

yes, there were plenty of crackpot conspiracy websites claiming that there was a nuclear meltdown, but those same sites are currently harping on about a secret military base on mars that someone just happened to stumble upon via google, and in the weeks and months before that they were talking about earthquakes and tsunami's being caused by secret military satellite weapons floating above us in orbit or how JFK was actually an alien. that one time in a blue moon of being right about 1 conspiracy theory out of a 1,000 doesn't in any way make something (or someone) a reliable source of information.

gbee

vibe666 wrote: »

yes, hundreds of independent eminently qualified observers all over the world were told what to say, and a few people on the internet were the only ones who knew the real truth because they googled it. that makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

How about that, it would be unbelievable if it were not in fact true. We don't get cases as clearly defined as this one turned out to be.

I'll end with a quote from Gene Roddenberry's character of Scottie, "Yer can nah change the laws of physics, Jim!"

Statistician

The Japanese government raises concerns that nuclear fuel has melted through the bottoms of the reactor pressure vessels.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-07/melted-fuel-at-fukushima-may-have-leaked-through-yomiuri-says.html

vibe666

gbee wrote: »

How about that, it would be unbelievable if it were not in fact true. We don't get cases as clearly defined as this one turned out to be.

I'll end with a quote from Gene Roddenberry's character of Scottie, "Yer can nah change the laws of physics, Jim!"

ah yes, when logic and reason escape you, turn to star trek. :rolleyes:

it's funny though, you should have googled your quote, it's obsolete.

http://news.scotsman.com/world/Ye-cannae-change-laws-of.6780241.jp

looks like you have a little bit of a secret fan club now too 'thanking' your posts now that you are carrying the torch for the fundamentalist conspiratorialist gang.

gbee

vibe666 wrote: »

ah yes, when logic and reason escape you, .

No, I think you've already claimed that prize for yourself. See, the simple facts are now KNOWN.

People who keep arguing when they've lost are often awarded this prize. I'm glad I added a second layer to my foil hat weeks ago.

I can supply you with instructions as to how you can make your own, but I'll have to charge you for the advice, gold only in advance, please and thanks.

take everything

Between the smug arrogance of the pro-nuclear crowd and the "i told you so" glee of some of the anti-nuclear crowd, this thread has really degenerated.
A pox on all your houses. :pac:

Extremely curious how this isn't in the news all the same.

vibe666

gbee wrote: »

No, I think you've already claimed that prize for yourself. See, the simple facts are now KNOWN.

People who keep arguing when they've lost are often awarded this prize. I'm glad I added a second layer to my foil hat weeks ago.

I can supply you with instructions as to how you can make your own, but I'll have to charge you for the advice, gold only in advance, please and thanks.

i'll tell you what, i'll get you a badge that says "gbee is smarter than 1,000 nuclear physicists" and we'll call it even.

if nothing else you do make me laugh.

those physicists who were at the time saying otherwise were all going on the information available to them (the same information everyone else had at that time) and using the benefit of their decades of study, experience and intellect in the field that would make anyone on this board (regardless of whether they were right or wrong about fukushima) look about as smart as a small piece of fruit.

here it comes and feel free to print it out and frame it...

>>>>>>>>>>YES, you and Coles & Rob.A.Bank and run_to_da_hills etc. were all right in varying degrees about at least some of what happened at fukushima.<<<<<<<<<<

but it wasn't because you are smarter than all those eminently qualified people, it was simply because you had a choice of two paths to go down and you made a decision based on a bit of googling and you got lucky.

if you truly believe otherwise then i suggest you jack in whatever job you are currently doing and re-do your CV so it simply reads "i googled fukushima and i was right" and hand it in at a few nuclear power stations and tell them you're fully qualified to run the place and you'd like a job. maybe even show them the badge i'm going to make for you, i'm sure you'll make a killing.

Coles

@vibe666. Why do you continue to disrupt this thread. You have no understanding of the issues involved and no interest in it. You have posted nothing of interest and you are determined to disrupt it.

Move on and stop ruining the thread.