Hey guys, remember Fukushima?
That big nuclear power plant that melted down due to a earthquake and a tsunami back in 2011?
Everyone seems to have forgotten about it all of a sudden and you don't see news about it whatsoever.
Why? Because news are not allowed to address Fukushima.
The amount of radiation at Fukushima is so high robots have been developed to try and clean up the site, but the radiation levels are so high, the circuits of such robots melt down whithin two hours of operation, it is claimed by TEPCO that every robot takes at least two years to build.
The containment plan for the radiation whithin the area included an underwater ice wall to prevent underground water to get contaminated and flow freely to the ocean, such plan has revealed to not be as effective as expected in recent claims by TEPCO.
The radiation levels at the plant have been measured to be far greater (30% higher) than those at Chernobyl, and that is outside of the reactors.
Unnatural mutations in sea life, higher number of forest fires and general death of wildlife has been reported around the globe;
There is also the constant threat of the containment tanks for contaminated water at the Fukushima site, which as of now it's number only grows having reached already 1000 tanks.
I could go hours listing news about Fukushima but for now I will just leave you some sauce.
Compilation of various news about Fukushima (old and new)
https://href.li/?http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/weve-opened-gates-hell.html
Japan news site reporting about the contained water at Fukushima
https://href.li/?https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20170225/p2a/00m/0na/010000c
>The fallout is coming anon
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): F236898C6B9AE990B6B404540A17E3FC-635492.gif (620.6 KB, 534x600, medium.gif)
> cesium-137 levels in air by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude
>Caesium-137
>Nuclide data
>Natural abundance: 0 (trace)
I suppose technically 0 times 1000 is still 0.
>persists for long time in living organisms
Long-lived nuclear material is literally the least dangerous nuclear material.
>radiation levels at the plant have been measured to be far greater than those at Chernobyl
Maybe because Chernobyl has been entombed?
>unnatural mutations
how would you even qualify that.
>higher number of forest fires
good one.
I could go hours listing why fukushima has no impact on 99.99% of life on earth and how it's being dealt with appropriately for the rest.
Nice image, though.
>Caesium-137
>Nuclide data
>Natural abundance: 0 (trace)
I suppose technically 0 times 1000 is still 0.
>persists for long time in living organisms
Long-lived nuclear material is literally the least dangerous nuclear material.
>radiation levels at the plant have been measured to be far greater than those at Chernobyl
Maybe because Chernobyl has been entombed?
>unnatural mutations
how would you even qualify that.
>higher number of forest fires
good one.
I could go hours listing why fukushima has no impact on 99.99% of life on earth and how it's being dealt with appropriately for the rest.
Nice image, though.
>>109944
>Long-lived nuclear material is literally the least dangerous nuclear material.
Any radioactive waste is dangerous, if not dealt with in a proper way, in this case we have small amounts of radioactive waste scattered around the place.
>Maybe because Chernobyl has been entombed?
The elephant foot reading at Chernobyl used to be of around 10.0000 roentgens per hour, that was claimed to be the worst piece of radioactive waste in the world.
Fukushima plant got a reading of 73 sieverts per hour (7300roentgens) yet it is speculated that the actual radiation is far greater, reaching that of 530 sieverts per hour based on how the robots TEPCO has been developed "die" whitin less than two hours.
>how would you even qualify that.
Unnatural as in abnormal mutations for what is considered normal on a species.
For example red crabs turning white or blue.
Of course, the rare mutations could just be a coincidence.
>I could go hours listing why fukushima has no impact
I insist, maybe I am wrong, I like to discuss.
>Long-lived nuclear material is literally the least dangerous nuclear material.
Any radioactive waste is dangerous, if not dealt with in a proper way, in this case we have small amounts of radioactive waste scattered around the place.
>Maybe because Chernobyl has been entombed?
The elephant foot reading at Chernobyl used to be of around 10.0000 roentgens per hour, that was claimed to be the worst piece of radioactive waste in the world.
Fukushima plant got a reading of 73 sieverts per hour (7300roentgens) yet it is speculated that the actual radiation is far greater, reaching that of 530 sieverts per hour based on how the robots TEPCO has been developed "die" whitin less than two hours.
>how would you even qualify that.
Unnatural as in abnormal mutations for what is considered normal on a species.
For example red crabs turning white or blue.
Of course, the rare mutations could just be a coincidence.
>I could go hours listing why fukushima has no impact
I insist, maybe I am wrong, I like to discuss.
>>109948
m8 Fukashima's impact is way over played, those robots dieing are being sent into the core of a broken reactor. There is a shit ton of radiation there but the rad source is shielded from the outside. Why that's even an issue is it prevents them from find the points where leaks are occurring at but even then the material leaked is small and contains rad sources with longer halflives which are less dangerous. Chernobyl was bad not because of the super high radiation in one spot but the fact that highly radioactive material was shot over the entirety of a town and up into the atmosphere. Honestly the Hanford site is worse then Fukashima in that regard just no one cares about it because the nuclear waste was buried before anyone knew how bad of an idea that was.
m8 Fukashima's impact is way over played, those robots dieing are being sent into the core of a broken reactor. There is a shit ton of radiation there but the rad source is shielded from the outside. Why that's even an issue is it prevents them from find the points where leaks are occurring at but even then the material leaked is small and contains rad sources with longer halflives which are less dangerous. Chernobyl was bad not because of the super high radiation in one spot but the fact that highly radioactive material was shot over the entirety of a town and up into the atmosphere. Honestly the Hanford site is worse then Fukashima in that regard just no one cares about it because the nuclear waste was buried before anyone knew how bad of an idea that was.
4 replies | 1 files | 1 UUIDs | Archived