Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-05-05 01:19.
I make so much from these posts that I can afford my own private bunker next to Dick Cheney.
True story, he has video cameras installed in everyone's house that has ever donated to Greenpeace. He wants to know what you are up to, and how he can destroy the companies that make useful clean technology.
Submitted by Angela (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-02 14:26.
Excuse me, but you, "Anonymous" are not onsite either. And yes, black smoke could be anything, but it's coming out of a nuclear plant. I don't think it's barbeque. How else as he been 'off the mark' and why do you assume you know what's going on inside reactors that no one is willing to go near?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-02 15:18.
You are not onsite either how can you know what the smoke is?
We can only know it's makeup by what it is leaving behind if noone can take a sample. And, at this point there is no huge deposit of Plutonium or Uranium reported onsite. There have been trace amounts found so far as has been reported. The radiation levels have been dropping with the dissipation of the Iodine and Cesium, so I ask you, where is your proof that this is Plutonium or Uranium?
As for Mr. Gundersen, he has been incorrect in assuming the detection of Chlorine-38 as a fission byproduct, it was later ruled an error in measurement, he was incorrect about the number 4 spent fuel pool being dry, it isn't, and he was incorrect about his assertion that Americium had been detected in New England.
He might be a very forthright and stand-up guy, but he still needs to go by the data and is only making educated guesses.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-05-03 01:03.
Well, if this black smoke is from a barbeque, I'm not eating at it. Pieces of fuel rod were found as far as two miles away after reactor #3's explosion. Up, up, up and away we go.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-05-03 08:21.
Are there any official reports or articles about pieces of fuel rods
being found two miles away after the #3 explosion? I've seen this
mentioned a few times on this forum. But, I've never seen it reported
by any agencies or news outlets.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-05-04 10:46.
No way dude--Tepco even said they had seen nuetron beams 2 miles from the site--what the heck do you think was causing nuetron beams 2 miles from the site? I'll tell you--the fuel rods that blew up in the reactor 3 explosion.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-05-04 11:02.
I'm sorry but your statement is quite misinformed. Neutron beams can travel long distances in air. Arnie Gundersen spoke of his experience at Millstone where during startup they detected Neutron beams a mile away.
There have been no reports of fuel assemblies being found offsite, one, two or any number of miles away as this is turning into an urban ledgend.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-05-04 21:39.
You are so obvious--are you being payed by the Nuke indusrtry or something. You've picked the wrong group of people to try and disuade--go out and work on some of the sheeple not in this forum.
Submitted by Percy (not verified) on Thu, 2011-05-05 19:45.
It cracks me up when "truthers" claim that skeptics and scientists are shills because they use reason and the scientific method to justify their beliefs. I lived in Berkeley for over a decade myself and I'm the biggest bunny-hugging socialist you can find, but I don't believe in rumors and hearsay and fairy tails. I need to see evidence. Data. Reproducible results. You people might as well be claiming that there is an invisible pink unicorn causing the problems in Reactor 1. The burden of proof lies on you to provide evidence for your claims, and this does not mean one person saying something on YouTube. Much as I love Arnie and like his videos, if he says something counter to what most other experts are saying (sorry, I mean nuclear industry shills), I must see corroborating evidence. I myself am a biologist and I have worked with any number of federal and state agency folks. I have yet to meet a "shill." You know why? Because unless they are telling the truth, it is easy to prove them wrong. Sure, I have met people who have worked for large corporations who want to make a profit, but for me personally it's been in the context of the corporation making changes that will reduce their impact on the environment due to federal and state regulations. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that suggests that anyone on these forums is a "shill." It's amusing, but tiresome.
Submitted by R. Cromack (not verified) on Thu, 2011-05-05 19:52.
It must be easy to insult people, mock them and call them all sorts of names when you're too much of a greaseball woosy-assed pussy to do anything but hide behind this "Anonymous" bullcrap. Be a man, or an adult, and if you're going to GIVE that sort of heat, stand up and stand by it, and open yourself up to TAKING it, too. You grok me? Otherwise, just shut the crap up and disbelieve all you want.
Sorry for the language, folks, I've just had enough of certain people's nonsense. Discussion, argumentation and even contradiction is okay by me, but this level of cowardly sniping just hacks me off something fierce.
The document also suggests that fragments or particles of nuclear fuel from spent fuel pools above the reactors were blown “up to one mile from the units,” and that pieces of highly radioactive material fell between two units and had to be “bulldozed over,” presumably to protect workers at the site. The ejection of nuclear material, which may have occurred during one of the earlier hydrogen explosions, may indicate more extensive damage to the extremely radioactive pools than previously disclosed.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-05-04 17:03.
"Are there any official reports or articles about pieces of fuel rods
being found two miles away after the #3 explosion?"
No one except you said that any whole intact fuel rods went anywhere. The above summary very clearly says "fragments or particles of nuclear fuel from spent fuel pools above the reactors were blown “up to one mile from the units,”"
Why are you off on this tangent? Would intact fuel rods somehow be worse to be exposed to the atmosphere than pulverized ones?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-05-04 17:56.
Because there is still no proof that this is the case. We have seen proof of a few traces on 5 plots, but nothing to sugget anything en-masse made it off site. The video of the explosion of reactor 3 showed debris going straight up and coming straight down.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-05-04 23:02.
you keep asking for "proof" yet what proof are you offering that the plant is stable, that it isn't gushing radiation 24/7, that it isn't a threat to human health? Let's see YOUR proof? No one can even get close to these reactors and they are in no better shape today than they were a month ago! It's an absolute disgrace. They are clinging to the side of a cliff by their fingernails and probably will be forever. "no end in sight"
And then you come on this site and make snarky mean comments to scared moms who are only trying to protect their children.
If you're so confident everything is hunky dory there, why don't you hop on a plane and go volunteer to help clean up the plant.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-05-04 00:41.
Just shortly after the number 3 reactor explosion, I read a number of reports stating that fuel rods were found two miles away from the Fukushima reactors. Wish I had copied that information down. It was awhile back, and I have read massive amounts of information since. Sorry, I don't remember the sources, other than Gundersen.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-02 16:29.
error in measurement? TEPCO has a history of retracting information after giving out information to limit the damage to their reputation.
All the nuclear accidents, also Chernobyl always claimed errors in measurement. That is a tactic but obviously it works for people as seen in your comment.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-02 12:35.
I did hear on the German news that the French nuclear authorities believe that it is uranium and plutonium oxide.
can't find the source but that is what I heard.
"Clean & Green Nuclear Energy"
Last I checked, those who pay you to post were claiming nuke power is the GREENEST form of energy!
I make so much from these
I make so much from these posts that I can afford my own private bunker next to Dick Cheney.
True story, he has video cameras installed in everyone's house that has ever donated to Greenpeace. He wants to know what you are up to, and how he can destroy the companies that make useful clean technology.
Also WiFi causes sterility.
Excuse me, but you,
Excuse me, but you, "Anonymous" are not onsite either. And yes, black smoke could be anything, but it's coming out of a nuclear plant. I don't think it's barbeque. How else as he been 'off the mark' and why do you assume you know what's going on inside reactors that no one is willing to go near?
You are not onsite either
You are not onsite either how can you know what the smoke is?
We can only know it's makeup by what it is leaving behind if noone can take a sample. And, at this point there is no huge deposit of Plutonium or Uranium reported onsite. There have been trace amounts found so far as has been reported. The radiation levels have been dropping with the dissipation of the Iodine and Cesium, so I ask you, where is your proof that this is Plutonium or Uranium?
As for Mr. Gundersen, he has been incorrect in assuming the detection of Chlorine-38 as a fission byproduct, it was later ruled an error in measurement, he was incorrect about the number 4 spent fuel pool being dry, it isn't, and he was incorrect about his assertion that Americium had been detected in New England.
He might be a very forthright and stand-up guy, but he still needs to go by the data and is only making educated guesses.
Well, if this black smoke is
Well, if this black smoke is from a barbeque, I'm not eating at it. Pieces of fuel rod were found as far as two miles away after reactor #3's explosion. Up, up, up and away we go.
Reports of fuel rods two miles away
Are there any official reports or articles about pieces of fuel rods
being found two miles away after the #3 explosion? I've seen this
mentioned a few times on this forum. But, I've never seen it reported
by any agencies or news outlets.
No way dude--Tepco even said
No way dude--Tepco even said they had seen nuetron beams 2 miles from the site--what the heck do you think was causing nuetron beams 2 miles from the site? I'll tell you--the fuel rods that blew up in the reactor 3 explosion.
I'm sorry but your statement
I'm sorry but your statement is quite misinformed. Neutron beams can travel long distances in air. Arnie Gundersen spoke of his experience at Millstone where during startup they detected Neutron beams a mile away.
There have been no reports of fuel assemblies being found offsite, one, two or any number of miles away as this is turning into an urban ledgend.
You are so obvious--are you
You are so obvious--are you being payed by the Nuke indusrtry or something. You've picked the wrong group of people to try and disuade--go out and work on some of the sheeple not in this forum.
shills
It cracks me up when "truthers" claim that skeptics and scientists are shills because they use reason and the scientific method to justify their beliefs. I lived in Berkeley for over a decade myself and I'm the biggest bunny-hugging socialist you can find, but I don't believe in rumors and hearsay and fairy tails. I need to see evidence. Data. Reproducible results. You people might as well be claiming that there is an invisible pink unicorn causing the problems in Reactor 1. The burden of proof lies on you to provide evidence for your claims, and this does not mean one person saying something on YouTube. Much as I love Arnie and like his videos, if he says something counter to what most other experts are saying (sorry, I mean nuclear industry shills), I must see corroborating evidence. I myself am a biologist and I have worked with any number of federal and state agency folks. I have yet to meet a "shill." You know why? Because unless they are telling the truth, it is easy to prove them wrong. Sure, I have met people who have worked for large corporations who want to make a profit, but for me personally it's been in the context of the corporation making changes that will reduce their impact on the environment due to federal and state regulations. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that suggests that anyone on these forums is a "shill." It's amusing, but tiresome.
OMG, there's a unicorn
OMG, there's a unicorn causing this? How are they going to get it out?
Shouldn't you be out
Shouldn't you be out petitioning Berkeley to turn all public sidewalks into restrooms?
Nutcase.
You know... [WARNING: ROUGH LANGUAGE IN POST]
It must be easy to insult people, mock them and call them all sorts of names when you're too much of a greaseball woosy-assed pussy to do anything but hide behind this "Anonymous" bullcrap. Be a man, or an adult, and if you're going to GIVE that sort of heat, stand up and stand by it, and open yourself up to TAKING it, too. You grok me? Otherwise, just shut the crap up and disbelieve all you want.
Sorry for the language, folks, I've just had enough of certain people's nonsense. Discussion, argumentation and even contradiction is okay by me, but this level of cowardly sniping just hacks me off something fierce.
For the record, I am...
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com
...and you're damn right, I approve THIS message.
Yes Rick, we know who you
Yes Rick, we know who you are.
But, no real name posting until it's a mandate by the system.
Cheers
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/0
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/asia/06nuclear.html
The document also suggests that fragments or particles of nuclear fuel from spent fuel pools above the reactors were blown “up to one mile from the units,” and that pieces of highly radioactive material fell between two units and had to be “bulldozed over,” presumably to protect workers at the site. The ejection of nuclear material, which may have occurred during one of the earlier hydrogen explosions, may indicate more extensive damage to the extremely radioactive pools than previously disclosed.
No reports, huh? Disinfo much?
"The report
"The report suggests..."
Wake me when they find a fuel rod sticking in the ground at one mile.
See above the NYT summary is
See above the NYT summary is misleaing in saying that anything whole traveled a mile away.
Misinfo much?
"Are there any official
"Are there any official reports or articles about pieces of fuel rods
being found two miles away after the #3 explosion?"
No one except you said that any whole intact fuel rods went anywhere. The above summary very clearly says "fragments or particles of nuclear fuel from spent fuel pools above the reactors were blown “up to one mile from the units,”"
Why are you off on this tangent? Would intact fuel rods somehow be worse to be exposed to the atmosphere than pulverized ones?
Because there is still no
Because there is still no proof that this is the case. We have seen proof of a few traces on 5 plots, but nothing to sugget anything en-masse made it off site. The video of the explosion of reactor 3 showed debris going straight up and coming straight down.
Plutonium truthers.
you keep asking for "proof"
you keep asking for "proof" yet what proof are you offering that the plant is stable, that it isn't gushing radiation 24/7, that it isn't a threat to human health? Let's see YOUR proof? No one can even get close to these reactors and they are in no better shape today than they were a month ago! It's an absolute disgrace. They are clinging to the side of a cliff by their fingernails and probably will be forever. "no end in sight"
And then you come on this site and make snarky mean comments to scared moms who are only trying to protect their children.
If you're so confident everything is hunky dory there, why don't you hop on a plane and go volunteer to help clean up the plant.
Fool. They are working in
Fool.
They are working in Reactor 1 today, as I write this.
The proof is right infront of you. Just not that bright, eh?
Yes...
Over 50 days into this and they're putting air filtration in Unit 1.
Their progress is astounding.
How many days did even IAEA's reports state Japan's progress as:
"...there are early signs of recovery in some functions such as electrical power and instrumentation."
Ha. I nominate you to manage
Ha. I nominate you to manage 4 failed reactors then.
What would you do?
so that would make you
so that would make you "plutonium liars" ?
Funny stuff.
Funny stuff.
Just shortly after the
Just shortly after the number 3 reactor explosion, I read a number of reports stating that fuel rods were found two miles away from the Fukushima reactors. Wish I had copied that information down. It was awhile back, and I have read massive amounts of information since. Sorry, I don't remember the sources, other than Gundersen.
error in measurement? TEPCO
error in measurement? TEPCO has a history of retracting information after giving out information to limit the damage to their reputation.
All the nuclear accidents, also Chernobyl always claimed errors in measurement. That is a tactic but obviously it works for people as seen in your comment.
Yes, an error in
Yes, an error in measurement. It turned out to be a nondetection.
I'm still waiting for your big reveal of Plutonium evidence.
I did hear on the German
I did hear on the German news that the French nuclear authorities believe that it is uranium and plutonium oxide.
can't find the source but that is what I heard.