HuSä

Povedz to tisicom zasypanych bannikov v uholnych baniach, znecistenym moriam od ropnych skvrn atak dalej ...

To su argumenty asi ako letecka doprava je najnebezpecnejsia lebo ked padne jedno lietadlo tak padne naraz 200 ludi. Akurat to sa stane za dobu za ktoru nabura 20 autobusov, 5 vlakov a 100 aut. Go figure ...

napr. to aby ten beton nepraskol, prezil zemetras a pod.

a ked ti to rachne na rampe, tak mas cernobyl plus plus, lebo mas fallout v kozmodrome.

Along with reliable sources such as the IAEA and WNN updates, there is an incredible amount of misinformation and hyperbole flying around the internet and media right now about the Fukushima nuclear reactor situation. In the BNC post Discussion Thread – Japanese nuclear reactors and the 11 March 2011 earthquake (and in the many comments that attend the top post), a lot of technical detail is provided, as well as regular updates. But what about a layman’s summary? How do most people get a grasp on what is happening, why, and what the consequences will be?

Here is the worst-case scenario that was avoided: If the seawater could not have been used for treatment, the operators would have continued to vent the water steam to avoid pressure buildup. The third containment would then have been completely sealed to allow the core meltdown to happen without releasing radioactive material. After the meltdown, there would have been a waiting period for the intermediate radioactive materials to decay inside the reactor, and all radioactive particles to settle on a surface inside the containment. The cooling system would have been restored eventually, and the molten core cooled to a manageable temperature. The containment would have been cleaned up on the inside. Then a messy job of removing the molten core from the containment would have begun, packing the (now solid again) fuel bit by bit into transportation containers to be shipped to processing plants. Depending on the damage, the block of the plant would then either be repaired or dismantled.

Now, where does that leave us?

* The plant is safe now and will stay safe.
* Japan is looking at an INES Level 4 Accident: Nuclear accident with local consequences. That is bad for the company that owns the plant, but not for anyone else.
* Some radiation was released when the pressure vessel was vented. All radioactive isotopes from the activated steam have gone (decayed). A very small amount of Cesium was released, as well as Iodine. If you were sitting on top of the plants’ chimney when they were venting, you should probably give up smoking to return to your former life expectancy. The Cesium and Iodine isotopes were carried out to the sea and will never be seen again.
* There was some limited damage to the first containment. That means that some amounts of radioactive Cesium and Iodine will also be released into the cooling water, but no Uranium or other nasty stuff (the Uranium oxide does not “dissolve” in the water). There are facilities for treating the cooling water inside the third containment. The radioactive Cesium and Iodine will be removed there and eventually stored as radioactive waste in terminal storage.
* The seawater used as cooling water will be activated to some degree. Because the control rods are fully inserted, the Uranium chain reaction is not happening. That means the “main” nuclear reaction is not happening, thus not contributing to the activation. The intermediate radioactive materials (Cesium and Iodine) are also almost gone at this stage, because the Uranium decay was stopped a long time ago. This further reduces the activation. The bottom line is that there will be some low level of activation of the seawater, which will also be removed by the treatment facilities.
* The seawater will then be replaced over time with the “normal” cooling water
* The reactor core will then be dismantled and transported to a processing facility, just like during a regular fuel change.
* Fuel rods and the entire plant will be checked for potential damage. This will take about 4-5 years.
* The safety systems on all Japanese plants will be upgraded to withstand a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami (or worse)
* I believe the most significant problem will be a prolonged power shortage. About half of Japan’s nuclear reactors will probably have to be inspected, reducing the nation’s power generating capacity by 15%. This will probably be covered by running gas power plants that are usually only used for peak loads to cover some of the base load as well. That will increase your electricity bill, as well as lead to potential power shortages during peak demand, in Japan.

Ten clanok bol napisany pred tym ako buchli dalsie dva reaktory, co? 13.3. - hej, to je dost neaktualne. Hlavne ten posledny treti vybuch, vcera, bol dost zly, vraj praskla aj ta zelezna krabica okolo jadra?

Zvysenu radiaciu uz namerali az v Tokyu, co je dost daleko. Ale snad sa im to este podari vyriesit.

• Radiation Levels

o At 9:37AM (JST) on March 14, a radiation level of 3130 micro sievert was recorded at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.

o At 10:35AM on March 14, a radiation level of 326 micro sievert was recorded at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.

o Most recently, at 2:30PM on March 15, a radiation level of 231 micro sievert was recorded at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.

From the early morning Saturday nuclear activists were on TV labelling this ‘the third worst nuclear accident ever’. This was no accident, this was damage caused by truly one of the worst of earthquakes and tsunamis ever. (The reported sweeping away of four entire trains, including a bullet train which apparently disappeared without a trace, was not labelled “the third worst train accident ever.”)

Ohladom 'nebezpecnosti' jadra mas pravdu, ale ten argument s tymi lietadlami je epic propaganda bullshit (5 vlakov s mortality rate 5% a 1 lietadlo s mortality rate 95% je setsakra rozdiel).

1) Napisal som kombinaciu a napisal som ju schvalne pretoze general porovnanie je lietadlo vs. zvysok dopravy
2) Ked zoberies iba jeden druh dopravy vs lietadlo nic necrashuje menej ako lietadlo
3) Malokedy derail vlaku = 10 mrtvych / 400 cestujucich a v Indii derail = 200 mrtvych / 300 takze ...

huh?

Toto je dost dobry argument.

Enemze ked sa bavis o bezpecnosti, je to o tom, aka je sanca pre teba ako pouzivatela dopravneho prostriedku, ze zomries pri jeho pouziti. To je jedine meradlo nebezpecia.

V USA je za rok 32 milionov letov a nehod styridsat sedem.

Cele je to o fobii z lietania a fobia plynie z toho, ze zomries v lietadle.