Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is the South East so full of high radiation levels on that map? It's not near the Pacific.
(And please don't post it's from all the toxic conservatives there)
that was an oops 75 thousand gallons of highly radioactive water,, but you know what I meant ohh wait I know you are a perfect soul..
yeah i knew what you meant, i was just correcting a massive error, even though we all make them, i so try to make them much smaller though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
1) It would literally take hundreds of billions of nuclear blasts to push the moon towards the Earth at a speed enough so that it would eventually reach the Roche limit. The moon is currently receding from the Earth at a rate of ~4 cm/year.
2) The aforementioned Roche limit; when the Moon reached an orbit of approximately 18,500 km, the Earth's tidal forces acting upon the Moon would overcome the self-attraction of the matter of the moon, and it would be destroyed, its remnants becoming rings orbiting the Earth.
all true except number two, the earth isnt large enough to rip the moon apart enough to create a ring system, imo. it might start to tear the moon apart, but there would still be a large enough body that would hit the earth, and make for a very bad day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cruxan
I don't see the thread title about nuking the moon..
no but there was a suggestion in an earlier post about using nukes to move the moon out of its current orbit and send it crashing into the earth.
I read about that a few months ago.. I guess once they get that system fully installed they will have to pump out excess water, because that water will have to go somewhere and if it cant go into the ocean the only place it can go is up. kinda like new Orleans being a big bowl.. personally I think it will be a freaking nightmare.. once that water gets to a certain level they will have to pump it into tanks. and at 300 plus Tepco liar tons that's a lot of tanks they will be filling in the future..
It is more like a wall. You can see the plan is to have it drain into the ocean. They are trying to save ground water.
Plutonium is the really nasty stuff out of all of it, even though that is in smaller quantities. The feeling is the ocean is the most capable of handling it. Unfortunately, given the options that is probably true, but not without consequences. Only so much a person can do about it though. Just use common sense.
The burning of radioactive waste they are doing disperses the contaminants even farther and helps balance out the effects over a broader population. This helps with corporate liability.
Why is the South East so full of high radiation levels on that map? It's not near the Pacific.
(And please don't post it's from all the toxic conservatives there)
The Southeast US has all the home grown nuclear nuclear facillities needed to elevate the radioactive background level from the K25 and Y10 plans at Oak Ridge TN, The enrichment plant at Paducah KY to the Savannah River plant were graphite reactors were used to make Pu238 and Tritium H3 Most of these plants were up and running by the 1950s and the Oak Ridge plants were Man hattan Project vintage.
In the early days most nuclear waste was dispossed of b y injection wells or simply put in 55 gallon drums and buried just like chemical waste. Standards were different too. If a reactor was air cooled the low level radioactivity in the air was simply vented out a tall smoke stack. Water with a low level of activity was simply dumpede in the Tennessee, Ohio or Savannah Rivers.That is why those water cooled reactors were sited on the banks of those rivers or there tributaries The Savannah River goes to the Atlantic and one of America's best shrimp fisheries. Remember that when you order up that all you can eat shrimp deal at Red Lobster.
No they won't. We aren't capable of destroying it. Making it inhabitable? maybe, but not destroy it. The planet will outlive every single life form that currently exists and regenerate itself in time.
The lament for civilization is lost in extreme literalness. When the poster says 'detroy the planet', I'm pretty sure that means making life unviable on the planet.
No they won't. We aren't capable of destroying it. Making it inhabitable? maybe, but not destroy it. The planet will outlive every single life form that currently exists and regenerate itself in time.
I should have said destroy it for human habitability, but I thought that anyone would understand that was what I meant. Of course the planet will recover and re-populate in various ways with vegetation and critters, but that is as long as humans are not around to hinder and destroy again. Humans are the most invasive and destructive life forms. The planet cannot heal itself while humans are adding insult to injury.
Last edited by sickofnyc; 11-01-2013 at 09:02 PM..
The lament for civilization is lost in extreme literalness. When the poster says 'detroy the planet', I'm pretty sure that means making life unviable on the planet.
Yes, exactly and I posted my last post (#56) prior to reading yours. I took it for granted that everyone would get it.
I hear people making jokes about the Fukushima disaster like its nothing.. they better hope nothing else goes wrong with it, if those pools holding all those spent rods had collapsed they wouldn't be making jokes, when it comes to Fukushima it is not over by a long shot!!! their is over 4000 tones of spent rods at that facility..
If you have looked at those detailed sat photos floating around you can see it looked really bad.
Since when did you Pubs start caring about the environment? I don't pay attention to these misinformed rants from the Right. You people don't know what the hell you're talking about, and as usual, you don't have all the facts. You take things out of context to suit your unpopular agenda.
only 75 thousand tons of highly (radioactive) water every day and I bet its a lot more!! believing Tepco is almost as bad as believing what Obama says
You said 300 tons. Now you're saying it's 75,000 tons?
And I'm not believing anyone - I used the figure YOU provided. So are you saying that you shouldn't be believed?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
ohh wait I know you are a perfect soul..
Ridiculous perspective from the Right
