End Times

[Pulgasari]

Originally Posted by Ennewi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

https://youtu.be/SLxVQYuvToo
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world...318223572.html

Except neighboring countires, South Korea and China.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/04/1089852

I'm with the elderly fisherman. You're spreading the 'damaging rumors' he referred to.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pres...al-grossi-says

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by Pulgasari [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm with the elderly fisherman. You're spreading the 'damaging rumors' he referred to.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pres...al-grossi-says

That was part of the point, it looks/sounds bad and so it's going to be bad for business. That's why I linked it. Even in the best case scenario, the disaster was going to have a lasting negative impact on other forms of income. How should people, such as the fisherman, be compensated? You're siding with the UN (watchdog) which means, no, you aren't on the side of the fisherman. That demands another Simpsons clip...

https://youtu.be/g2wpk8lPUQQ

And another article...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...anese-disaster

Tue 15 Mar 2011 16.34 EDT
The UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has come under fire for its response to Japan's nuclear crisis and its record in monitoring nuclear safety.

The scrutiny has focused on the agency's secretary general, Yukiya Amano, a Japanese diplomat who got the job in 2009 after energetic lobbying by Tokyo. Amano and his team have been blamed for long delays in issuing updates on the disaster at Fukushima.

Nuclear officials argued that the fault lay not so much with the agency in Vienna as with its largely toothless mandate, which leaves it dependent on member states for voluntary compliance and control of information.

The fiercest criticism came from a former Soviet nuclear expert who helped organise the clean-up after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Iouli Andreev said that corporations had deliberately ignored the lessons of Chernobyl in the pursuit of profit and had been abetted by the negligence of the agency.

"After Chernobyl, all the force of the nuclear industry was directed to hide this event, for not creating damage to their reputation. The Chernobyl experience was not studied properly because who has money for studying? Only industry. But industry doesn't like it," Andreev told Reuters news agency.

He once ran the Soviet Spetsatom agency involved in the Chernobyl clean-up. He now teaches on nuclear safety and has served as an adviser to Austria's environment ministry.

Andreev said that in order to cut costs, spent fuel rods at Fukushima had been too closely stacked in pools near the nuclear reactors. One of those pools caught fire, dispersing radioactivity into the atmosphere.

"The Japanese were very greedy and they used every square inch of the space. But when you have a dense placing of spent fuel in the basin, you have a high possibility of fire if the water is removed from the basin," Andreev said.

He said the agency was too close to the corporations to enforce standards properly. "This is only a fake organisation because every organisation which depends on the nuclear industry – and the IAEA depends on the nuclear industry – cannot perform properly ... It always will try to hide the reality."

[Pulgasari]

Originally Posted by Ennewi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That was part of the point, it looks/sounds bad and so it's going to be bad for business. That's why I linked it. Even in the best case scenario, the disaster was going to have a lasting negative impact on other forms of income. How should people, such as the fisherman, be compensated? You're siding with the UN (watchdog) which means, no, you aren't on the side of the fisherman. That demands yet another Simpsons clip...

https://youtu.be/g2wpk8lPUQQ

And another article...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...anese-disaster

I didn't know IAEA was under the UN, which is a captured body. Best not to listen to them except the security council and even then [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Cheerfully withdrawn

[Jibartik]

Enewi people's tap water is flammable. Have some perspective.

Also you ALREADY. CANT. EAT. FISH. BECAUSE OF POLLUTION.

So stop acting like you're afraid of potential radiation in fish.

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Enewi people's tap water is flammable. Have some perspective.

Also you ALREADY. CANT. EAT. FISH. BECAUSE OF POLLUTION.

So stop acting like you're afraid of potential radiation in fish.

http://dailyorange.com/2020/09/mercu...dlife-decades/

Taking into consideration the possibility of a second Chernobyl is lacking perspective...how? The point being made wasn't solely about fish. I know, hard to believe since my guild makes every effort to down Koi, Fay, etc.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by Ennewi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://dailyorange.com/2020/09/mercu...dlife-decades/

Taking into consideration the possibility of a second Chernobyl is lacking perspective...how? The point being made wasn't solely about fish. I know, hard to believe since my guild makes every effort to down Koi, Fay, etc.

Chernobyl disaster came from a lack of knowledge of nuclear physics and communist beurocracy.

And if you have something against Chernobyl, then focus your energy at beurocracy because that is what caused that disaster, not the plant.

If you took ALL the damage nuke power has caused, and put it up against the best case scenario for all other forms of power the damage to the environment is literally a puddle, next to an ocean. That's the perspective I think we screwed up, ironically it was the same political group that is for fixing the environment, that was against nuclear power.

[reznor_]

Chemical and biological pollution is far, far worse to humanity and the food chain than radioactive water leaking into the sea.

There were entire studies done on this. Yeah, it's shitty, there's no denying that, but the average person doesn't understand order of magnitudes when it comes to Curies or Becquerels. Suffice to say, the dilution of tritiated water (which is the issue here) really isn't a public health concern. It's hard to make a good argument online about it, so I tend to stay out of them (plus, most people make up their minds and can't be convinced otherwise). People fear what they can't see -- which is ironic, because no one seems to take COVID seriously -- but I digress.

But, succinctly, the burning of coal for power has put more radiation into the atmosphere than any nuclear plant, or nuclear weapon, ever has.

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCL...62/9362611.pdf
http://large.stanford.edu/publicatio...s/hvistendahl/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17777943/

That list continues on and on, just hard to get some of them because they're subscription only material. There's no nuclear power conspiracy. We don't make much money off of it. Coal, gas, oil -- now that's the money you want to trace. These people don't care about anything, just the accumulation of wealth. Most folks in the nuclear industry understand that what they do is far better for the environment

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And if you have something against Chernobyl, then focus your energy at beurocracy because that is what caused that disaster, not the plant.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...781-story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/26/w...chernobyl.html

Yes, the choice was made in order to save money.

https://www.mydenveraccidentlawfirm....-of-the-pinto/

But again, according to the quote made by Andreev, no studies were conducted on Chernobyl by the industry.

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lastly, if you took ALL the damage nuke power has caused, and put it up against the BEST CASE SCENARIO for all other forms of power the damage to the environment is literally a puddle, next to an ocean. That is why you lack perspective. You are comparing fantasy to reality.

You're asking me to be afraid of movies and a lack of understanding.

I haven't asked anything other than how is taking into consideration other potential outcomes lacking perspective? There has been no attempt to appeal to anyone's emotions, other than through humor(an overlooked pun). No movies were referenced. Instead, cartoon clips were linked which seemed to help keep things in perspective except in your case because you have contributed precisely zero Simpsons links.

Chernobyl is still a reality, which I am comparing to other real events like the one in Fukushima. The only fantasy elements mentioned? Water dragonses. A missed opportunity on your part to speculate on custom content related to Bertoxxulous.

Also, the article about Onondaga Lake detailed the effect of mercury levels dating back to the 1940s, providing yet more perspective on the topic.

[Jibartik]

reminder doesn't even matter though we're in the thread title.



and even if another chernybol is a reality it still pails in comparison to the best case scenario of the other options.

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by reznor_ [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Chemical and biological pollution is far, far worse to humanity and the food chain than radioactive water leaking into the sea.

There were entire studies done on this. Yeah, it's shitty, there's no denying that, but the average person doesn't understand order of magnitudes when it comes to Curies or Becquerels. Suffice to say, the dilution of tritiated water (which is the issue here) really isn't a public health concern. It's hard to make a good argument online about it, so I tend to stay out of them (plus, most people make up their minds and can't be convinced otherwise). People fear what they can't see -- which is ironic, because no one seems to take COVID seriously -- but I digress.

But, succinctly, the burning of coal for power has put more radiation into the atmosphere than any nuclear plant, or nuclear weapon, ever has.

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCL...62/9362611.pdf
http://large.stanford.edu/publicatio...s/hvistendahl/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17777943/

That list continues on and on, just hard to get some of them because they're subscription only material. There's no nuclear power conspiracy. We don't make much money off of it. Coal, gas, oil -- now that's the money you want to trace. These people don't care about anything, just the accumulation of wealth. Most folks in the nuclear industry understand that what they do is far better for the environment

The original point of the thread, I assumed, was to cover all aspects of humankind's self-destructive tendencies, not to compare one form to the other and debate which was worse overall.

https://youtu.be/ZwY2E0hjGuU