Examining the fate of Fukushima contaminants

August 18, 2015, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
WHOI marine chemist Ken Buesseler, pictured on a research vessel off the coast of Japan in 2013, has been tracking the spread of radionuclides released from Fukushima since 2011. In October, Buesseler and the research team will return to Japan to redeploy more sediment traps. Credit: Ken Buesseler

An international research team reports results of a three-year study of sediment samples collected offshore from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in a new paper published August 18, 2015, in the American Chemical Society's journal, Environmental Science and Technology.

The research aids in understanding what happens to Fukushima contaminants after they are buried on the seafloor off coastal Japan.

Led by Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist and marine chemist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), the team found that a small fraction of contaminated seafloor sediments off Fukushima are moved offshore by typhoons that resuspend radioactive particles in the water, which then travel laterally with southeasterly currents into the Pacific Ocean.

"Cesium is one of the dominant radionuclides that was released in unprecedented amounts with contaminated water from Japan's Fukushima Daiichi following the March 11, 2011, earthquake and tsunami," says Buesseler. "A little over 99 percent of it moved with the water offshore, but a very small fraction—less than one percent—ended up on the sea floor as buried sediment."

"We've been looking at the fate of that buried sediment on the continental shelf and tracking how much of that contaminated sediment gets offshore through re-suspension from the ocean bottom," he adds.

The research team, which included colleagues from the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology and the Japan Atomic Energy Agency, analyzed three years' worth of data collected from time-series .

Researchers deployed the pre-programmed, funnel-shaped instruments 115 kilometers (approximately 70 miles) southeast of the plant at depths of 500 meters (1,640 feet) and 1,000 meters (3,280 feet). The two traps began collecting samples on July 19, 2011—130 days after the March 11th earthquake and tsunami—and were recovered and reset annually.

Researchers deployed time-series sediment traps 115 kilometers (approximately 70 miles) southeast of the nuclear power plant at depths of 500 meters (1,640 feet) and 1,000 meters (3,280 feet). The two traps began collecting samples on July 19, 2011 -- 130 days after the March 11th earthquake and tsunami -- and were recovered and reset annually. Credit: Makio Honda, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology

After analyzing the data, researchers found radiocesium from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident in the along with a high fraction of clay material, which is characteristic of shelf and slope sediments suggesting a near shore source.

"This was a bit of a surprise because when we think of sediment in the ocean, we think of it as sinking vertically, originating from someplace above. But what this study clearly shows is that the only place that the material in our sediment traps could have come from was the and slope buried nearshore. We know this because the coastal sediments from the shelf have a unique Fukushima radioactive and mineral signal," says Buesseler.

The data also revealed that peak movements of the sediments with radiocesium coincided with passing typhoons which likely triggered the resuspension of coastal sediments. Radiocesium was still detected in sediment samples from July 2014.

"The total transport is small, though it is readily detectable. One percent or less of the contaminated sediment that's moving offshore every year means things aren't going to change very fast," Buesseler says. "What's buried is going to stay buried for decades to come. And that's what may be contributing to elevated levels of cesium in fish—particularly bottom-dwelling fish off Japan."

While there were hundreds of di?erent radionuclides released from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant during the disaster, after the initial decay of contaminants with half lives (the time it takes for one half of a given amount of radionuclide to decay) less than days to weeks, much of the attention has remained focused on cesium-137 and-134— two of the more abundant contaminants. Cesium-134 has a half-life of a little over two years, and so any found in the ocean could come only from the reactors at Fukushima. Cesium-137 has a half-life of roughly 30 years and is also known to have entered the Pacific as a result of aboveground nuclear weapons tests in the 1950s and '60s, providing a benchmark against which to measure any additional releases from the reactors.

In October, Buesseler and the research team will return to Japan to redeploy more traps. The continued study will help estimate how long it takes to decrease the level of radiocesium in seafloor sediments near the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

Explore further: Trace amounts of Fukushima radioactivity detected along shoreline of British Columbia

Related Stories

Radiation detected 400 miles off Japanese coast

February 21, 2012

(AP) -- Radioactive contamination from the Fukushima power plant disaster has been detected as far as almost 400 miles off Japan in the Pacific Ocean, with water showing readings of up to 1,000 times more than prior levels, ...

Recommended for you

Coffee-based colloids for direct solar absorption

March 22, 2019

Solar energy is one of the most promising resources to help reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to power a sustainable future. Devices presently in use to convert solar energy into thermal ...

EPA adviser is promoting harmful ideas, scientists say

March 22, 2019

The Trump administration's reliance on industry-funded environmental specialists is again coming under fire, this time by researchers who say that Louis Anthony "Tony" Cox Jr., who leads a key Environmental Protection Agency ...

138 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

OdinsAcolyte
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2015
Less than 1% settled as sediment. The rest was carried away...towards the Pacific Islands and Americas.
Fission is nasty and dangerous. Plutonium is essentially, for us, forever.
OdinsAcolyte
1 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2015
Less than 1% settled as sediment. The rest was carried away...towards the Pacific Islands and Americas.
Fission is nasty and dangerous. Plutonium is essentially, for us, forever.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (29) Aug 18, 2015
Nukers are contaminating the entire Earth. Will we have no place to hide from them?
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2015
..are contaminating the entire Earth. Will we have no place to hide from them?
Wind and solar are containing the entire Earth with radioactive rare-earth metals that contain traces of uranium and thorium, nasty and dangerous, forever.
http://en.wikiped...erations
nuclear-phobics have no place to hide from them; they should go to a safer planet; good trip.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (29) Aug 18, 2015
This is my planet, Willie, and I am not going to let you ruin it.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (24) Aug 18, 2015
WillieWard FAILS showing immense & uneducated naive bias claimed
Wind and solar are containing the entire Earth with radioactive rare-earth metals that contain traces of uranium and thorium, nasty and dangerous, forever
Radiation is everywhere WillieWard, there is no point scaremongering, be smarter:-

1. How many micro-grams of radio-nucleotides per gram of typical wind turbine/solar panel ?

2. Where are the micro-grams, on the surface or within the alloys where it is inactive ?

3. What is the energy of the decay products and their type ?

4. How does it compare with the radiation from flyash and CO2 emitted from coal power stations ?

5. What is the total mass of radio-nucleotides produced in a typical nuclear plant over its life,
including the radiated infrastructure ?

6. What is the cost of disposing of the radio-nucleotides from a typical nuclear plant ?

WillieWard, your propagandised blurts betray your failed political intent !

Learn Physics !
gkam
1.2 / 5 (29) Aug 18, 2015
Mike: If you want the manual by GE explaining their BWR's, I'll email it to you.

I found it interesting technically, since we did some studies about them decades ago, . . but especially at the end. It becomes clear all the multiple models and versions and arrangements and modifications were just for one reason:
Finding better ways to keep it from killing us.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2015
How many micro-grams of radio-nucleotides per gram of typical wind turbine/solar panel ?
Just multiply "micro-grams of radio-nucleotides per gram" by thousands/millions of "wind turbine/solar panel", it results a huge radioactivity.
According to Eng. George Kamburoff : "radioactivity contaminates everything it touches."
Radiation will be everywhere, acres and more acres, causing lung cancer in our children, grandchildren, infinite generations. No way to keep it from killing us.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2015
I would live under a wind turbine any day
Be careful "Even low-level radioactivity is damaging, scientists conclude"; a small level of radioactivity is harmful for generations.
http://www.scienc...4224.htm
Nuclear power plants have thick shielding/protection thereby safer than wind farms.
"Neighbors like nuclear power"
"Nuclear produces tiny amounts of nuclear waste"
"The more people know about nuclear power, the more they favor it."
http://nuclear-ec...-summer/
Caliban
3.6 / 5 (17) Aug 18, 2015
Wind and solar are containing the entire Earth with radioactive rare-earth metals that contain traces of uranium and thorium, nasty and dangerous, forever.


What sort of brainless maundering is this? And you double down with even greater stupidiosity when called upon to quantify the magnitude of this radionuclide-laced-rare-earth-wind'n'solar threat by bleating:

Just multiply "micro-grams of radio-nucleotides per gram" by thousands/millions of "wind turbine/solar panel", it results a huge radioactivity.


IOW --just so much gibberish-- which is what we have come to expect from you, dubyadubya.

Don't dodge the question, willy. You made the assertion --now back it up.

Or shut up.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (22) Aug 19, 2015
WillieWard FAILS to quantify
Just multiply "micro-grams of radio-nucleotides per gram" by thousands/millions of "wind turbine/solar panel"
Show quantification

WillieWard, FAILED to back up ANY of his claims and looks immensely uneducated - why ?

WillieWard claims
.. it results a huge radioactivity
How much ?

WillieWard states
According to Eng. George Kamburoff : "radioactivity contaminates everything it touches."
Correct.

Which is safer WillieWard, radiation from coal power station gas & flyash emission spreading in the air or miniscule amounts contained in magnets releasing an occasional alpha particle which loses bulk of its energy in a few cms ?

WillieWard also FAILED to provide ANY comparative stats re cost of dealing with ALL nuclear power radiation.

WillieWard's ignorance AGAIN
Radiation will be everywhere,No way to keep it from killing us
Yes, its called background radiation.

Quantify WillieWard you look foolish ?

Learn Physics !
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (19) Aug 19, 2015
@gkam
Mike: If you want the manual by GE explaining their BWR's, I'll email it to you
No problem, whenever is fine. Am on major project & dealing with immense change in organisation., don't have your luxury of retirement just yet so won't be able to review it for some time...

btw: For the record have seen clear evidence of your service with US armed forces in the fields you mention, its substantive which offers the observation it can only be sad that odd people like the GhostofOtto1923 can so easily influence others too twisting things around to bully at the drop of a hat to do nothing but raise prejudice, nasty...

If you are ok with it, I can make a sub dir on my web area & post whatever you want to make it clear to idle critics you are straight up about your military service, I can understand at your level of seniority & retirement its prob not something you want to focus on given the weird angst you've be subjected to, I can post items no problem :-)
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (22) Aug 19, 2015
WillieWard FAILS claiming
Be careful "Even low-level radioactivity is damaging, scientists conclude"; a small level of radioactivity is harmful for generations.
http://www.scienc...4224.htm
Sure, known for many decades, so what.

By how much has the background radiation level gone up due to coal power station discharge, nuclear disasters & nuclear explosions ?

WillieWard claims
Nuclear power plants have thick shielding/protection thereby safer than wind farms
Really, how much ?

What's the shielding made of ?

Lead perhaps, including all its isotopes, any alpha emitters, beta emitters ?

Why is WillieWard embracing ignorance to be an example of stupidity ?

Evidence must be clear, WillieWard is anti-science & promoting the nuclear lobby ?

Especially as WillieWard FAILS to quantify nuclear power emissions and FAILS to compare decay product quantification re industrial materials ?

Why WillieWard failing to communicate ?
WillieWard
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 19, 2015
Show quantification
"Every ton of rare earth produced generates approximately 8.5 kilograms (18.7 lbs) of fluorine and 13 kilograms (28.7 lbs) of dust; and using concentrated sulfuric acid high temperature calcination techniques to produce approximately one ton of calcined rare earth ore generates 9,600 to 12,000 cubic meters (339,021 to 423,776 cubic feet) of waste gas containing dust concentrate, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid, approximately 75 cubic meters (2,649 cubic feet) of acidic wastewater plus about one ton of radioactive waste residue (containing water)."
http://www.thecut...le=21777

"mining one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste"; and radioactive waste contaminates everything it touches according to Eng. George Kamburoff.
In large-scale wind and solar farms, carcinogenic for generations.
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (19) Aug 19, 2015
WillieWard FAILS again quoting 5 year old claims from this link
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=21777
WillieWard forgets that all industrial processes produce waste and with good management the vast bulk of waste is recyclable

WillieWard claims nuclear power is safe then why can't he offer comparative data for the mining of Yellowcake ie Uranium Oxide ?

WillieWard goes on still FAILING to quantify radio-nucleotides
.. radioactive waste contaminates everything it touches according to Eng. George Kamburoff
Correct.

But, WillieWard FAILS to understand coal discharges air borne & flyash radioactive waste & WillieWard still FAILS to quantify all mass & type of nuclear power waste ?

Also note:- WillieWard FAILS to offer quality peer reviewed science reports, so far he ONLY squirms to find opinion pieces out of date.

WillieWard FAILS again
In large-scale wind and solar farms, carcinogenic for generations.
How & what radio-nucleotides ?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 19, 2015
I offered Wayout Willie a chance for him to own his very own coal plant, and maybe a nuke, but he is too scared to do it. I think he actually realizes the tremendous liability for the cleanup.

Maybe denglish and otto can join hands with Eikka, and they can show us!

Facts is facts, and all we have to do is compare the costs of power from Vogtle to that from PV and wind.

Game over.
WillieWard
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 19, 2015
.. radioactive waste contaminates everything it touches according to Eng. George Kamburoff
Correct.
"Monazite is a reddish-brown phosphate mineral containing rare earth metals."
"Monazite is radioactive due to the presence of thorium.." (4.081 MeV)
http://en.wikiped...Monazite
"radiation (in) paradise - the secret of the sand"
http://www.youtub...HUGwFoJE
Rare-earth metals are used in wind and solar farms; they can spread carcinogenic particles in the air, to everywhere causing cancer in everyone.
According to Eng. George Kamburoff: "..an alpha emitter, and if inhaled can bombard sensitive lung tissue with 5.4 MeV particles, causing cancer."
"Every atom is subject to decay and the expulsion of a 5.4 MeV particle, capable of tissue damage." "...fallout is the MAIN cause of lung cancer"
WillieWard
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 19, 2015
Facts is facts, and all we have to do is compare the costs of power
Germany's cost (mostly wind and solar) is almost two times higher than France (mostly nuclear)
http://www.statis...untries/
and slaughters millions birds and bats
Game over.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (28) Aug 19, 2015
Gosh, Willie, thanks for explaining all that. Did you notice the amounts used? Compare those fractions of a gram to the hundred TONS of it in a reactor core.

And Plutonium IS an alpha emitter, and CAN cause serious damage to sensitive tissue without epidermis for protection. There is NO Plutonium in alternative Energy, it is only made in reactors. Every gram of that terrible stuff is made by us!

And we have to guard it for 240,000 years. Up to doing that? Got the money stashed away? What will the labor costs be for 240,000 years of armed guards??
WillieWard
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 19, 2015
..fractions of a gram to the hundred TONS of it in a reactor core.
"Nuclear produces tiny amounts of nuclear waste"
"The U.S. nuclear industry generates a total of about 2,000 – 2,300 metric tons of used fuel per year."
"If these used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, they would cover a single football field about eight yards deep"
http://nuclear-ec...-summer/
In this sense, the nuclear industry seems to be doing more with less.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (26) Aug 19, 2015
This is my planet, Willie, and I am not going to let you ruin it.
The typical perspective of a psychopathic megalomaniac.

The earth doesnt belong to you, dont you know this?

In reality you are completely impotent in this respect. They feel they have every right to blow things up and burn things down in order to regain their virility.

When psychopaths begin to realize this their thoughts turn to sabotage.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (23) Aug 19, 2015
double post
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 19, 2015
otto seems to have a lot of information regarding psychopaths. Dopes that explain his pathological behavior?

I am glad he posted here, because now we can debate the disasters which are nukes. I think he likes them. Tell him he can buy one now, if he wants.

I'll help put him in touch with a Filthy Fuel plant which is gong to be closed.

All he has to do is to ask,... nicely.
WillieWard
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 19, 2015
Plutonium IS an alpha emitter..
"Plutonium-238 is a very powerful alpha emitter and – unlike other isotopes of plutonium – it does not emit significant amounts of other, more penetrating and thus more problematic radiation."
https://en.wikipe...nium-238
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (27) Aug 19, 2015
I offered Wayout Willie a chance for him to own his very own coal plant, and maybe a nuke, but he is too scared to do it.


May I have one Skippy if he don't want him? Don't matter which, either one you have laying around. Would one of each be to much to ask? Thanks in advance.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (25) Aug 19, 2015
otto seems to have a lot of information regarding psychopaths. Dopes that explain his pathological behavior?
I'M not the one who thinks he owns the entite earth.

Elaborate please on exactly what you are being treated for down at the VA psycho ward.

You seemed to be eager to talk about it. But perhaps it was just another lie.

"Manipulation is the key to the psychopath's conquests. Initially, the psychopath will feign false emotions to create empathy, and many of them study the tricks that can be employed by the empathy technique. Psychopaths are often able to incite pity from people because they seem like "lost souls" as Guggenbuhl-Craig writes. So the pity factor is one reason why victims often fall for these "poor" people."

-So elucidate. Im not feeling any pity yet.
Edenlegaia
2 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2015
Nukers are contaminating the entire Earth. Will we have no place to hide from them?


For years and since nuclear uses (maybe prior to the bombs?), we had no way to hide from them. The Earth you seem to claim for yourself (you surely don't mean it, just be careful with those words ^^") is already filled with reactors and bombs. What we need is to redefine how to use what couldn't be used back then to get energy in a safer way (safer, not safe, because damn, i wouldn't be surprised if 90% of Earth Bombs were ancient.....). Surely it's already possible and will allow us to make the bomb disappear (I know why it may very well never happen. Profits...)
It's a bit too soon or late to scream "WE'RE ALL FUCKED!". We know we have nuclear-use items and wastes. Researches can help us to slowly get rid of them WHILE using them. The bright, ecologic, utopic future anti-nuclear people dream of is not for tomorrow. If we only condemn and point our fingers at nuclear, it'll never happen.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (28) Aug 19, 2015
Ira, you lucky guy! You know, however, you will just squirm out of it, like you did with my proof.

And otto, I suggest you take your question "Elaborate please on exactly what you are being treated for down at the VA psycho ward." and go find one and ask them. I am sure you will get the same respect from them that you afforded those who were injured in the service to their nation. Did YOU serve, or did you just hide?

otto, your cowardice is of no matter here, and your continuous drivel trying to attack my character has only revealed your own. Ask others how they feel about your silly fixation on "getting even" with the guy who beat you at your own silly and adolescent game.

Now, the thread regards contaminants from the meltdown of three nuclear powerplant systems in which I have a (very) little knowledge and experience, but more than you.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2015
...should look up Hinkley. http://www.thegua...industry
"Nuclear power is still the choice that gives reliable baseload power at the same time as helping Britain meet its carbon emissions targets. When the cost of extra back-up needed for intermittent renewables is included, the cost of nuclear remains competitive with any other technology."
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (26) Aug 19, 2015
Ira, you lucky guy! You know, however, you will just squirm out of it, like you did with my proof.


You never sent me any proof that you got master degrees and junior diplomas or six kinds of engineer like you claimed. When you going send it? Have you forget what the names of the schools you got your diplomas and degrees from?

Now if you send me some more proofs that you got some nuclear and coal power stations to give away I sure would love to see that too. Maybe you can put them in the same package as the degree diploma and engineer proofs.

Now, the thread regards contaminants from the meltdown of three nuclear powerplant systems in which I have a (very) little knowledge and experience, but more than you.


I thought it was about you wanting peoples to ask you something about it. And how you are giving away power plants. I asked nice so can I have the one you offered to give Willie that Willie doesn't want?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (25) Aug 19, 2015
I thought it was about you wanting peoples to ask you something about it. And how you are giving away power plants. I asked nice so can I have the one you offered to give Willie that Willie doesn't want?
Well psycho george thinks he owns the entire earth so I guess that means all the power plants as well.
and go find one and ask them
No - I want you to elaborate on what YOURE being treated for as youre the one who brought it up.

If true I think it would explain your psychopathy. But I suspect its just another sympathy ploy.

How old is your daughter? A 71yo man must have a pretty old daughter. Why would a 71yo man be experimenting with her treatment drugs? How do you get these treatment drugs for experimenting on yourself and your wife?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2015
This is why France is now looking to reduce it's nuclear power, and increase it's share of renewables. http://www.busine...islation
Thanks to green lobby and vested political interests.
Millions birds and bats, wildlife's habitats, Nature is that will suffer again by environmental hypocrisy of palefaces. Luckless mother earth.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 19, 2015
Let's look around, shall we, and find some closed coal plants?

Be back with you later.

I'll add some nukes,too. Some which never produced a kWh.

Stop the presses! - I interrupt this thread to announce everybody must read that last reference of Willie.

That includes him.

His last hope for the future of nukes is waning.
WillieWard
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 19, 2015
Big question: why wind/solar is sold sometimes almost for free, 2 cents/kWh?
Response: "supply and demand" wind/solar is out-of-phase with demand, the grid is over supplied when it is not necessary, and when it is needed solar/wind does not supply the grid.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 19, 2015
Hilarious!

Relegated to backup status, the fossil advocates now try anything they can dream up.

They have some power to sell from Vogtle, Willie. You'd better get in contract now, before more delays push the cost even higher.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Aug 19, 2015
Here is a reference for Willie from powermag.com: "Further delays are likely because some components for the AP1000 units have never been built before. The shield building, for example, is a first-of-a-kind design, fabricate, and assemble activity, and the design of the fully digital control system is also a first-of-a-kind activity, staff said. Schedule risks include technical difficulties with development of other key pieces of equipment as well, including the canned rotor coolant pumps, and the squib valves. Meanwhile, startup testing and resolution of problems identified during startup "will take longer than presently planned," Roetger and Jacobs projected."

We are trusting a nuclear powerplant with never-before-built technology?? They are so far behind and over cost now, will they cut corners?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2015
Hilarious!
"When the grid says 'no' to wind and solar power, this company's technology helps it say 'yes' again"
wind/solar does not meet the demand, it is almost in anti-phase, thus it can be the reason it is becoming so cheap/worthless.
http://www.pri.or...es-again
http://www.realcl...258.html
http://publishing...0025.jpg
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2015
We are trusting a nuclear powerplant
"two new 1,100-megawatt(1.1 GW) AP1000 units" able to meet the grid's peak demand.
Moreover, ecologically, it is worth the price.
Millions bats, birds, tortoises, and wildlife's habitats, will thank us.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2015
Germans are smarter...cheap
19.21 ¢/kWh which is almost two times higher than in France.
http://www.statis...untries/
safe
even causing more fatalities and environmental impact per terawatt-hour than nuclear.

Congratulations! Green mafia and vested political interest, through the mass media, are doing an excellent brainwashing on them.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 19, 2015
That's Europe.

How much will power from Vogtle cost? Isn't that the Standard of New Nuclear?

Come to think of it, what is the latest and saddest prediction for Hinckley C power?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2015
dropped the price..thank you Germany
Out-of-phase with demand, cheap/worthless.
"Germany and its neighbors are now facing an unusual problem. With the dramatic increase in green energy usage, Germany is generating so much electricity from renewables that it is finding it hard to handle it. The excess electricity that is generated is being spilled over to its neighboring countries, thereby increasing the threat of a power blackout should there be a sudden supply disruption."
http://oilprice.c...rgy.html
Also it needs to be backed by fossil fuels. Hilarious!
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Aug 19, 2015
"oilprice.com??? THAT'S your choice of unbiased information??

Do you realize who got shut off by the cheaper power from wind?

Do you think it will stop, now?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (26) Aug 20, 2015
If you are ok with it, I can make a sub dir on my web area & post whatever you want to make it clear to idle critics you are straight up about your military service, I can understand at your level of seniority & retirement its prob not something you want to focus on given the weird angst you've be subjected to, I can post items no problem :-)
Good. Let's see it. George also needs to include evidence that said mil service makes him an expert in nuclear tech, surveillance, aircraft engg, energy production, etc.

He needs to show how his service as a lowly tech makes him a valid source of useful info as he claims.

Get the info, Post the link. And he can also send you his (bogus) MS diploma which he promised to ira but never sent.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 20, 2015
Gosh, "otto", let's both admit who we are, shall we?

No guts? Pure cowardice?

I will send that stuff to Mike, and other stuff as well. Believe it or not, there are actually human and personal stories behind the statistics.

Being part of it let me see history.

What did you see, otto? Fifth grade?
WillieWard
2 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2015
"10 Cool things about Nuclear Waste"
"If recycled, the waste lifetime is reduced to around 300 years."
"Cesium 137, a fission product, can be used to protect blood in blood banks, saving lives of babies and the immuno-deficient."
http://www.things...ste.html

"14 everyday helpful uses of...nuclear waste?!"
"Cobalt-60 or Cesium-137 were used to sterilize the syringe, the needle, and possibly even the blood itself."
http://www.things...ste.html

"a solar powered world produces 63,000 times the waste of a nuclear powered world."
http://www.things...ion.html
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 20, 2015
Willie would recycle the high-level radioactive waste at Fukushima into "health bracelets" in the name of Capitalism, because http://www.things...ower.com says so.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (28) Aug 21, 2015
The fate of the Fukushima contaminants is the fate of all of us!

It has spread around the world, and the odds of all of us getting sicker just went up.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Aug 21, 2015
http://www.power-...ite.html

It looks like new nuke trouble is all over the world. Because of costs, Vogtle is already up to three times the cost of alternative power, and it has not even produced a single Watt.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (28) Aug 21, 2015
http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2015/08/construction-halted-at-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-project-site.html

It looks like new nuke trouble is all over the world. Because of costs, Vogtle is already up to three times the cost of alternative power, and it has not even produced a single Watt.


Skippy that is the same thing as you postumed in the other article. You don't need to postem twice, we understood the first one.
gkam
1.1 / 5 (27) Aug 21, 2015
Some of you have trouble getting the message.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (29) Aug 21, 2015
Some of you have trouble getting the message.


Not as much trouble as you have giving the message. EVERYBODY here has told you that dozens of times and more dozens too but you are having your own troubles getting messages.
gkam
1.1 / 5 (27) Aug 21, 2015
What were you and otto doing when some of us were working with power production technologies?
WillieWard
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2015
It has spread around the world, and the odds of all of us getting sicker just went up.
maniac liar. oceans are already naturally radioactive since prehistoric times.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (28) Aug 21, 2015
What were you and otto doing when some of us were working with power production technologies?


Well glam-Skippy, that is about as silly as anything you asked so far. Do you really think your silly postums are witty and smart? That are really lame and flat. You are not very good at it so you shouldn't try so hard to be glibby and witty.

How the heck would I know what otto-Skippy was doing?

I have not idea when you were doing what, so I can't tell you what I was doing then. And no I am not asking you to tell us what you did even though I am pretty sure you are going to try to tell us anyway.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 21, 2015
Looking at Hinckley and Vogtle, the fate of nuclear power is in great jeopardy. They are still building containments around Chernobyl, trying to isolate that huge disaster from the rest of us.

It will take at least 40 years to move the deadly radiation from Fukushima to pollute some other place - if they can actually find a way to do it.

Why are we letting these goobers play with a deadly technology they cannot control?
gkam
1.3 / 5 (26) Aug 22, 2015
Here is what the nukers in Canada want to do with their disgusting intensely-radioactive nuclear waste:

http://america.al...ron.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (26) Aug 22, 2015
Gosh, "otto", let's both admit who we are, shall we?

No guts? Pure cowardice?
Ahaahaaaaa george thinks that using his real name makes the lying bullshit he posts true.

Everybody knows this is ridiculous.

George doesn't have the COURAGE to be who and what he is. He has to lie about his credentials and experience and an MS he never earned in order to be what he never had the skill or talent or commitment to be.

You're a loser george. The people who read your shit know it. The 20+ supervisors who fired you over the course of your sorry career also knew it.

Why do you keep insisting on exposing your sickness to the people here?
WillieWard
2 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2015
Here is what the nukers in Canada want to do with their disgusting intensely-radioactive nuclear waste:
http://america.al...ron.html
Lamentably, people prefer to listen to shameless-alarmists/charlatan-experts rather than to nuclear physicists.
"geologists and nuclear physicists insist it would be entombed safely in layers of rock"
People should be aware that Earth is naturally radioactive, billion years, and that renewable produces much more waste per terawatt-hour than nuclear.
gkam
1.1 / 5 (27) Aug 22, 2015
I just hope this is not one of those sites where you are rated by the quality of your enemies!

We have an emotionally-ravaged leper here who is screaming that others are sick.
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (18) Aug 22, 2015
TheGhostofOtto1923 claims
Good. Let's see it. George also needs to include evidence that said mil service makes him an expert in nuclear tech, surveillance, aircraft engg, energy production, etc
TheGhostofOtto1923 you have some shameless need to be immensely prejudicial, why is that ?

gkam hasn't ever claimed to be an expert or if so Where please ?

Appears TheGhostofOtto1923, you make it up to WANT to appear ill-mannered & devisive wanting a war

TheGhostofOtto1923 claims
He needs to show how his service as a lowly tech makes him a valid source of useful info as he claims
Why are you contradictory ?

First you claim glam claims he is an expert !
Then you claim gkam is a 'lowly tech' !

Yet don't offer Evidence

TheGhostofOtto1923, this is a Science oriented site, you have been here long enough surely to appreciate evidence is essential, please read on & re-consider how you appear on a public forum !

Guys, tone it down please focus on Science

continued
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (18) Aug 22, 2015
continued

TheGhostofOtto1923 why CANT you focus on Science, you're misleading lots of people & even dragging down Ira too !

FWIW.
I fully understand many who have long terms of service & are active well past retirement & are happy to offer commentary on many experiences which often go past 60 yrs eg gkam

But, all SHOULD be smart enough to KNOW its pointless demanding proof of commentary source,
ie 'lowly' or 'expert claiming', as We ALL know its subject to interpretation, besides DETRACTS from Science - this is not a kids IRC !

SMARTER thing for all those tempted to be offensive & ill-mannered is ask for clarification (if one is interested) & NOT to try to find marginal quirky means to exaggerate prejudice, hounding is Immature !

Most here SHOULD know retaliation results in WAR - hasn't GhostofOtto1923 learned that from history ?

So GhostofOtto1923 please be smarter, you and others have things to say, don't be obsessive about attacking people focus on Science
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Aug 22, 2015
Thang kew.
Caliban
3.3 / 5 (12) Aug 22, 2015
There dubyadubya goes again:

Rare-earth metals are used in wind and solar farms; they can spread carcinogenic particles in the air, to everywhere causing cancer in everyone.


An utterly fantabulous assertion.

Back it up --with cold, hard data-- dubyadubya.

Or is it going to be dubyadubyaMAROON?

WillieWard
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 22, 2015
Rare-earth metals are used in wind and solar farms; they can spread carcinogenic particles in the air, to everywhere causing cancer in everyone.
"Rare Earth Elements are not really that rare but they are usually not found as concentrated as some other metals, and come mixed with the slightly radioactive thorium."
http://itheo.org/...e-Earths
"Even low-level radioactivity is damaging, scientists conclude"
http://www.scienc...4224.htm
two sets of standards like gskam
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (28) Aug 22, 2015
Hi Mike_Massen. :)
TheGhostofOtto1923 why CANT you focus on Science, you're misleading lots of people & even dragging down Ira too!......Most here SHOULD know retaliation results in WAR - hasn't GhostofOtto1923 learned that from history ? So GhostofOtto1923 please be smarter, you and others have things to say, don't be obsessive about attacking people focus on Science
Thanks for your timely reminder to all concerned, Mike, especially to the perpetrators of 'personality cult' trolling/stalking/sabotaging etc in lieu of objective discourse. Just so you know, Otto was doing the same to me as he is doing to gkam. He learned a lesson when he found I was correct, especially regarding the ongoing developmental/enhancement trajectory of windpower/solar etc tech/system improvements. Otto recently chided someone for 'not having the imagination to see how tech may improve'....so I know he learned that lesson!

PS for Ghost: Otto, please stop the personal stalking etc. Thanks. :)

gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Aug 22, 2015
I was warned about otto, but will not let a cowardly bully push me around. I usually let chronic malcontents and bullies prove who they are by their own words, and otto complied.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (19) Aug 22, 2015
WillieWard FAILed to quantify when stating
"Rare Earth Elements are not really that rare but they are usually not found as concentrated as some other metals, and come mixed with the slightly radioactive thorium."
What mass of Thorium per what mass of magnets in the wind turbines WillieWard ?

AND what are the decay products WillieWard - why have you FAILed to quantify WillieWard ?

Quantify WillieWard or look like a dumb alarmist who's only pattern is propaganda ?

Why WillieWard can't you be genuine, you are just like ryggeson2 ?

WillieWard, do you claim ANY qualifications, an understanding of Science, any details even MIGHT be relevant to your so obvious pronuclear bias ?

WillieWard added
http://itheo.org/articles/Which-By-product-Thorium-Rare-Earths
Indeed, notice the difference between beta & Alpha particles WillieWard ?

WillieWard, the uneducated, what is the comparative point ?

Heard of background radiation WillieWard, why can't you be honest ?
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (28) Aug 22, 2015
@ Mike-Skippy. Got the message me. Good advice and I think I will take him. Thanks.
WillieWard
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2015
difference between beta & Alpha particles
Most of the radioactive waste does not emit meaningful amounts of neutrons; it emits mostly alpha(helium-4) e beta particles(electrons).

"Unlike other industrial wastes, the level of hazard of all nuclear waste - its radioactivity - diminishes with time. Each radionuclidea contained in the waste has a half-life – the time taken for half of its atoms to decay and thus for it to lose half of its radioactivity. Radionuclides with long half-lives tend to be alpha and beta emitters – making their handling easier – while those with short half-lives tend to emit the more penetrating gamma rays. Eventually all radioactive wastes decay into non-radioactive elements. The more radioactive an isotope is, the faster it decays."
http://www.world-...agement/

"Nuclear wastes are neither particularly hazardous nor hard to manage relative to other toxic industrial wastes."
Caliban
3.2 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2015
Rare-earth metals are used in wind and solar farms; they can spread carcinogenic particles in the air, to everywhere causing cancer in everyone.


"Rare Earth Elements are not really that rare but they are usually not found as concentrated as some other metals, and come mixed with the slightly radioactive thorium."
http://itheo.org/...e-Earths
two sets of standards like gskam


Once again, dubyadubyaMAROON fails to deliver any relevant information, at all.

Thanks, Mr. Massen, for the takedown.

You should consider getting out of your mom's basement and desist with wasting everyone's time here at PO, dubyadubyaMAROON.
WillieWard
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2015
two sets of standards like gskam

Caliban
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 23, 2015
two sets of standards like gskam



Finally, dubyadubyaMAROON manages, with the above bit of self analysis, to say something truthful.

And yes, dubyadubyaMAROON --the double-standard is the only one you employ.

HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 23, 2015
Aaaah so this is where small willie is hiding, i see your ratings as low as ever, alongside your fetish friends donglish shootist potty and gorillacle... all the monkeys ina row, keep showing the world how dumb you can be... we're having a ball :D
WillieWard
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2015

An upsetting truth will chase you: renewables kill much more and produce more impacts in wildlife's habitats per gigawatt produced than nuclear.
http://www.adelai...60446437
http://notrickszo...nNw.dpbs
http://nextbigfut...rce.html
http://www.smh.co...qbq.html
http://theenergyc...r-causes
http://www.forbes...-humans/
WillieWard
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2015
gskam and his gang hate the truth.
gkam
1.1 / 5 (27) Aug 23, 2015
The Truth is at Fukushima.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2015
The Truth is at Fukushima.
"No one has died as a result of the radiation that escaped from the Fukushima reactors."
"Psychological impact of nuclear disasters like Fukushima more damaging than the risk from radiation"
"no substantial increase in future cancer rates is expected as a result of radiation."
http://www.indepe...096.html
"A UN study published last year concluded that while there is a low risk of thyroid cancer among children exposed to radiation, the radiation from Fukushima is unlikely to cause any measurable increases in cancers or health problems."
http://www.tcetod...yrn3HCBU

Scaremongers and sensationalist mass media are more harmful to public's health than Fukushima and Chernobyl.
HeloMenelo
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 24, 2015
Willieward suffering from small willie syndrome today i see, actually trying to justify the Fukushima event as not being harmful or a health hazard to people, takes a really special kind of stupid to have that skew of an outlook, as a test, can you eat that carrot, or are your teeth so skew you need to eat it through a tennis raquet ?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2015
harmful or a health hazard to people
If radiation is a concern, then be careful of renewables using rare-earth metals with traces of radioactive uranium and thorium; wind/solar farms occupy acres and acres spreading radiation to everywhere possibly contaminating soils and foods. Be cautious radiophobics.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (26) Aug 24, 2015
but will not let a cowardly bully push me around. I usually let chronic malcontents and bullies prove who they are by their own words
"The truth - when twisted by good liars, can always make an innocent person look bad - especially if the innocent person is honest and admits his mistakes."

-But youre not even a good liar.

"the psychopath ENJOYS making others suffer. Just as normal humans enjoy seeing other people happy... the psychopath enjoys the exact opposite"

-But like I say I enjoy exposing incompetent psychopaths. Especially when everybody realizes it but them.

George - your zipper's down.

"Manipulation is the key to the psychopath's conquests. Initially, the psychopath will feign false emotions to create empathy"

-Poor george wants us to believe that HE is the victim here.

"What makes psychopaths different from all others is the remarkable ease with which they lie, the pervasiveness of their deception, and the callousness with which they carry it out."
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 24, 2015
Oh, . . I thought a dominating and unrelenting fixation on another was a hallmark of certain psychosis.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (26) Aug 24, 2015
Oh, . . I thought a dominating and unrelenting fixation on another was a hallmark of certain psychosis.
Naw its evidence of what some people will do to inform others of the presence of a lying cheating psychopath.

Im performing a public service. The relentless pursuit and exposure of malcreants is considered a virtue.

And it wont stop.

And there are many people here who are exposing you for what you are arent there? Why just in the last few days youve been attacked by eikka, ira, denglish, and many others because you post lies and expect to get away with it.

Youre not the first and you wont be the last.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 24, 2015
"Youre not the first and you wont be the last."
--------------------------------------
What? To notice how you misuse the apostrophe? I noticed you do it often.

I think you got all emotionally tied up in trying to insult me, getting even for me letting you publicly shame yourself. With filthy language in all caps, your immaturity and emotional instability stood out among the more normal psyches.

I enjoy your attention now, Toots. In comparison to you, anything I say is rational.

Thanks.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (26) Aug 25, 2015
I enjoy your attention now, Toots. In comparison to you, anything I say is rational
So explain for instance what you meant when you said that there was no crater at fukushima because the Pu explosion was an airburst.

Or that fallout is the main cause of lung cancer.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Aug 25, 2015
No, otto, YOU said that. I reported how scientists in the field did analyses of reaction products and found the chain of decay proved there was a small prompt criticality in Unit 3, probably caused by the H2 explosion compressing the Plutonium in the Pu-spiked MOX fuel.

You then assumed all criticalities explode like Hiroshima. No, they do more like the fizzled North Korean test, when it blew itself apart before it could reach full power.

You don't understand this, do you, otto? Go look up the W-87 Warhead, and see how they work, and what efforts are required to time them correctly. Remember the Krytrons I talked about going from Texas to Pakistan? They are Neutron generators, used to seed Neutrons to time the detonation. They are used with tampers and Neutron reflectors to maximize the power before it all comes apart.

When it is not timed, it reacts like Unit Three.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (26) Aug 25, 2015
I reported how scientists in the field did analyses of reaction products
No, you aped what one crank anti-radiation pill salesman had to say about it.
https://en.wikipe...er_Busby
and found the chain of decay proved there was a small prompt criticality in Unit 3
YOU didnt realize that even a MAJOR 'prompt criticality' (a term you didnt even know until I began using it) cant throw debris more than a few km, while leaving a HUGE crater.

And to explain why there was no crater you gave 3 examples of airbursts. Either you didnt realize they were airbursts or that people wouldnt bother to look.

Youve seen all the evidence but refuse to process it in your diseased mind because you put more faith in your crank sources and your own megalomaniac delusions than you do evidence.

You keep bringing this up every month or 2 as if people will forget. This tactic may work on your poor bullied family but not here.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (26) Aug 25, 2015
Pu-spiked MOX fuel... W-87 Warhead... Neutron generators... Krytrons...
-Another of your bankrupt psychopathic tactics. Attempt to dazzle and imply that you know more than you do by using esoteric technical terms you dont understand.

How does your fizzle occurring deep underground still manage to throw debris 130km, when megaton weapons cant throw it more than a few km while leaving enormous craters?

Why do you and your pill salesman concoct an idiot theory to explain this debris when your original source was clearly talking about windborne DUST and not debris?

Still havent come to grips with that one have you?

It points right to the nature of your sickness; the complete inability to admit that you can be wrong, and the extreme lengths you are willing to go to avoid it.

Keep bringing this up. The people here need to see just how your disease functions.

They need to see just how sick you are.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Aug 25, 2015
Yes, otto, the sickness is obvious.

It's a fixation, a psychopathic symptom of something terribly wrong in your head.

This regards Fukushima, and you have no experience in things nuclear, nor in utility power, but only in pseudonyms, lurking, and your admitted "games", of which you brag online.

You can bleat anything you want. Go on, show us your character.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (26) Aug 25, 2015
Answer this question.

How does your fizzle occurring deep underground still manage to throw debris 130km, when megaton weapons cant throw it more than a few km while leaving enormous craters?

Why cant you answer it?

Why cant you answer this simple question george?
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Aug 25, 2015
The fate of the Fukushima detritus is our fate. We are still not sure what the tremendous discharge of radioactive contaminants means in the long term, but additional cancers are promised. It may take a while for us to get the information released, but we will probably get it.

Nuclear power is a fool's game.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2015
tremendous discharge of radioactive contaminants
additional cancers are promised
Scaremongers, like gskam, due to their over-exaggerated/alarmist claims(based on myths, beliefs and fictional data), have unscrupulously raised irrational fear, caused suicides and abortions in populations.
These shameless fear-mongers and sensationalist mass media provoke more deaths than radiation.
They are criminal; crimes against humanity, attack directed against civilian population to raise senseless fright, abortions and suicides.
http://en.wikiped...iophobia
HeloMenelo
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 26, 2015
Willie suffeing from small willie syndrome, trying to get back the braincells he banged out on the wall, unfortunately for him, the world knows how skew his outlook is and understands exactly the dangers and suffering caused by the Fukushima event, now we all know what an escapee from mental school does with his free time ;)
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2015
Fukushima event
No one has died from Fukushima radiation. Wind and solar kill much more per unit of energy generated than nuclear.
WillieWard
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2015
suffering caused
Most of the distress/agony on population's psychological health was caused by sensationalist mass media and unethical alarmists like gskam.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Aug 26, 2015
The fate of Fukushima radiation is our own fate.

https://www.youtu...5dqnZunE
HeloMenelo
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 26, 2015
Fukushima event
No one has died from Fukushima radiation. Wind and solar kill much more per unit of energy generated than nuclear.

So what, many can die and yes there were people exposed to it that is suffering, how stupid are you, radiation KILLS. your lies just as widespread as donglish and his puppet clan, or wait you are one of his puppets.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2015
many can die and yes there were people exposed to it that is suffering
Most of the distress/agony on population's psychological health was caused by sensationalist mass media and unethical alarmists like gskam.
It includes suicides and abortions.
http://www.indepe...096.html
http://www.thenat...r-safety

HeloMenelo
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 26, 2015
That doesn't change the fact that radiation kills and have killed and caused suffering in the past.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2015
That doesn't change the fact
also it doesn't change the fact that wind/solar kills and has killed more than nuclear per unit of energy generated.

"From a safety stand point, nuclear power, in terms of lives lost per unit of electricity delivered, is comparable to and in some cases, lower than many renewable energy sources."
http://en.wikiped...ar_power_debate#Reliability]http://en.wikiped...iability[/url]
http://en.wikiped...d_safety

"In terms of lives lost per unit of energy generated, analysis has determined that nuclear power has caused less fatalities per unit of energy generated than the other major sources of energy generation."
http://en.wikiped...ar_power
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 26, 2015
"In terms of lives lost per unit of energy generated, analysis has determined that nuclear power has caused less fatalities per unit of energy generated than the other major sources of energy generation."
-------------------------------------

Go tell that to the workers in full body suits working at Fukushima.

WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2015
Go tell that to the workers in full body suits working at Fukushima.
"To March 2013 Tepco has employed some 25,837 workers at the site since the accident, keeping records of their radiation exposure as clean-up and remediation proceeded. Of these, over 95% received less than 50 mSv during the 25 month period; 4% received 50-100 mSv and fewer than 1% received over 100 mSv."
http://www.world-...xposure/

"A recent review of studies on exposure to external and internal radiation from plutonium and americum etc. on nuclear industry workers in Hanford, Sellafield, etc. concluded with 95% confidence that there exists no association between their exposure and mortality from cancer."
https://books.goo...vlinks_s
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2015
Go tell that to the workers in full body suits working at Fukushima.
" 'surprisingly' found that workers in the solar industry were vastly more at risk than those working in nuclear."
http://www.thegua...rgy-coal

"Workers in the solar energy industry are potentially exposed to a variety of serious hazards, such as arc flashes (which include arc flash burn and blast hazards), electric shock, falls, and thermal burn hazards that can cause injury and death."
https://www.osha....lar.html

"Wind Energy Has Killed More Americans Than Nuclear"
http://newsbuster...-nuclear

gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 26, 2015
Willie, it does not matter what you cut and paste.

You lost the argument in reality.

Your technologies are being abandoned.

They will be backups until we get good batteries or other storage installed and operating.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 27, 2015
Here ya go, Willie, from the pro-nukers themselves:
http://www.world-...157.html
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2015
it does not matter
Nature always pays the real price for humans' good intentions/insanity. Good bye natural landscapes/seascapes, farewell wildlife's habitats, all that will be covered by ecologically hypocritical means of energy generation.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2015
backups..good batteries or other storage
Coal, oil, natural gas and fracking. Environmental hypocrisy.
Nothing can stop the "greenie lie machine".
Caliban
2 / 5 (8) Aug 27, 2015
backups..good batteries or other storage
Coal, oil, natural gas and fracking. Environmental hypocrisy.
Nothing can stop the "greenie lie machine".


dubyadubya MAROON: what's the matter with Kansas?

gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 28, 2015
The contaminants are washing ashore now on the West Coast. None from wind or PV. All the pollution comes from filthy coal and dirty nuclear power.

Google Chernobyl children if you have the stomach for it.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (27) Aug 28, 2015
The contaminants are washing ashore now on the West Coast.


glam-Skippy, were you hoping that one would not be questioned like all the other things you make up for slogans? The article don't say nothing like that. Just like the other did not say any like mercury coming from China.

Skippy you are not helping the cause with the stuffs you write. Save all that for the new-agey-touchy-feelly interweb places. You are hurting our cause here with your silliness. And please don't pick up classic-plastic-Skippy where you are failing because that is not the improvement. (And using puppets to up vote your self and double down vote the other Skippys is a really stupid thing to do.)
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 28, 2015
Ira, why are you here? Again, you understand no science at all, but only opine about the posts of others. having no education or experience in these matters, you are not exactly the one to make charges and claims.

This article does not say that, others do. You play the goober, and sometimes it isn't an act, but the disposition of those who envy others with educations.

This thread is about radioactive contaminants from Fukushima, not how many catfish are in the mud. If we had that question, we would ask you. Go find the catfish blog.

Meanwhile, google Chernobyl children, if you have the guts, and see where your hubris and smart mouth leads.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2015
nuclear power
Nuclear power stations emit less radiation (30 times less) than Nature.
http://www.epa.go...oses.jpg
http://www.epa.go...ive.html
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2015
Chernobyl children
Fear-mongers, like gskam, by raising irrational fear on population, provoke more deaths, suicides, abortions, than radiation.

"A UN study published last year concluded that while there is a low risk of thyroid cancer among children exposed to radiation, the radiation from Fukushima is unlikely to cause any measurable increases in cancers or health problems."
http://www.tcetod...yrn3HCBU
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (27) Aug 28, 2015
having no education or experience in these matters,


Well Skippy that puts me in the advantage with you. Since I don't have to pretend and make up stuffs like you do. So far you show you and me have about the same experience with this kind of stuffs.

you are not exactly the one to make charges and claims.


You made the claims that the Fukushi radioactive stuffs was washing up on the West Coast.

This article does not say that, others do.


Non, this article does not say that. It says the stuffs is getting mostly pushed around by the typhoons (and typhoons don't wash up on the West Coast.)

Meanwhile, google Chernobyl children, if you have the guts, and see where your hubris and smart mouth leads.


Are Chernobyl childrens washing up on the West Coast too? Or is that just a thing throwed in to try take the attention off what you said and was not in the article?
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2015
The contaminants ... from wind or PV. All the pollution...
Wind/PV(solar) is less energy dense; it requires more acres, mining, materials, workers and equipments, per gigawatt generated, thereby more deaths per terawatt-hour and more environmental impacts than nuclear.
gkam
1.1 / 5 (27) Aug 28, 2015
"Non, this article does not say that. It says the stuffs is getting mostly pushed around by the typhoons (and typhoons don't wash up on the West Coast.)"
------------------------------

We just had some come up from Baja.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 28, 2015
I will send Willie some references to the children of Chernobyol. He will not have the guts to look at the the pictures.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 28, 2015
https://images.se...=yhs-004

Look if you have the guts to see the consequences of hubris and greed-based economies.

These are the consequences of nuclear power!
Estevan57
4.8 / 5 (22) Aug 28, 2015
"(and typhoons don't wash up on the West Coast.)" - Ira

Nice catch on that one, Mr. Ira.

@gkam - Please send us all scary pictures of your obsession, that's what the internet is all about.

"In fact, there's no record of a tropical hurricane ever hitting the West Coast."
http://www.slate...._la.html

http://www.scient...hit-the/

If you are spending your time looking at childrens' birth defects, then you are a sick little turd.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2015
children
Congenital malformations/anomalies have been occurring since early times, about one (severe or not, visible or not) per thousand, there is no significant increase rate but unethical-scientists/charlatan-experts put all it into account of atomic age.
http://www.nature...tics-863
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 28, 2015
We know the sick ones estevan, the ones who hide behind phony names because they are insufficiently mature to take responsibility for their words, let alone actions.

When a real person comes onto this forum, you cannot take it. Just start screaming liar and bullshit in all caps, like the other folk here who "discuss" technical matters.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 28, 2015
"just a bunch of scaremongers saying a lot of BS. "
---------------------------------

Don't those terrible pictures of the children of Chernobyl scare you?

What kind of monster are you?
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2015
terrible pictures of the children
Most of them are unrelated with radiation.
Too sad: https://www.googl...Ch1GkAxm

gskam is the real monster here, the "greenie lie machine" !
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 28, 2015
Willie they are ALL from Chernobyl. ALL OF THEM!

This is the consequence of your inability to understand the dangers of nukes. YOU should have tested those GE BWR safety systems, so you could shut up.
Estevan57
4.8 / 5 (22) Aug 28, 2015
gkam you have again confused someone with Otto. Pull yourself together. And who is this we?

Sick is posting links to deformed children just to fail to prove a point. Now we now what kind of monster YOU are...

Your obsession with "real" vs phony names is a sign of your disconnect with reality. What could possibly happen to a person who gives their personal information out? Hmmmm?

And what words and actions are you talking about? The comments section is links and text. There are only words here. So how does one "take responsibility" for their words?
I hereby swear to take responsibility for my words.
There. Does that make you happy, or is there yet another impossible feat to be considered "real".

I must admit, telling other people they are not real is a hell of a defense mechanism. It works better than a tin hat. And it allows you to avoid messy arguments when you are failing.

You tested those GE BWR safety systems, and you don't shut up, why should he?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 28, 2015
"I must admit, telling other people they are not real, . . "
-------------------------------

Okay, who are you, really?

Hiding behind a phony name in an anonymous blog is the height of non-professionalism. You folk are taggers.
Estevan57
4.8 / 5 (21) Aug 28, 2015
So you are calling everyone on this site taggers? Ha Ha Ha ...

Welcome to the internet, get over yourself.

This is the comments section of a science website that aggregate articles from various sources.

It is not a blog, or a forum.

You don't even work, so calling everyone unprofessional is useless and hypocritical. It means nothing because of the anonymity factor. You don't know anyone so how do you rate calling them names for following the format of the site they are in?

If you don't like the house you are in, then leave. Do you complain about the furniture of your neighbors? I bet you do.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 28, 2015
No, "Estavan", there are several here using real names. The rest of you are not sufficiently mature to take responsibility for your silly comments and attacks.

It is time to clean the commons.
Estevan57
4.6 / 5 (21) Aug 28, 2015
Good luck with that.
You are truly a legend in your own mind.

So gkam, posting under my real name and saying you were a senile dumbass would be taking responsibility for my words and actions, but posting under Estevan57 and saying you were a fine gentleman would be lurking and sniping?

Please clarify this for me.

gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Aug 28, 2015
"So gkam, posting under my real name and saying you were a senile dumbass would be taking responsibility for my words and actions, but posting under Estevan57 and saying you were a fine gentleman would be lurking and sniping?"
---------------------------------------------
Yes!

What don't you get about honesty???
Estevan57
5 / 5 (20) Aug 28, 2015
Hi, my name is Steve, but I go by Estevan57, and you are a senile dumbass.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (26) Aug 28, 2015
What don't you get about honesty???


Uh, glam-Skippy? I sure don't get any thing that feels like honesty from him.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Cher why you don't come down to Port Fourchon in Lafourche Parish ask about town if anybody knows the Ira-Skippy? Hooyeei, you will get the ear full I tell you. That's MY tribe and they are the only peoples I care much about of how or what they think of me.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 28, 2015
I already left you a post about it on the other thread.

Here it is again:

Here is my view of your land and people, and we must do something to save it. You can denigrate my Master of Science, but it will be one of us who helps you out.

http://www.bbc.co...34053365
Estevan57
5 / 5 (19) Aug 28, 2015
How funny, Ira. My wife's mother and grandparents lived in Madisonville, across lake Ponchartrain. The remaining relatives are good people, but drink too much bourbon. Country club types.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (26) Aug 28, 2015
I already left you a post about it on the other thread.

Here it is again:

Here is my view of your land and people, and we must do something to save it. You can denigrate my Master of Science, but it will be one of us who helps you out.

http://www.bbc.co...34053365


And I left you the answer it deserves over there. That's another difference between you and me Cher. I don't need to bother everybody with posteming him three times or twice even.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (26) Aug 28, 2015
My wife's mother and grandparents lived in Madisonville


Well give them my condolences. But at least it was not Texas, eh?

Just fooling around me. That is a beautiful area there and some really good peoples. Not as beautiful as down the bayou but still pretty nice.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (26) Aug 28, 2015
No, "Estavan", there are several here using real names. The rest of you are not sufficiently mature to take responsibility for your silly comments and attacks.

It is time to clean the commons.
Oddly enough, most of them are cranks and nutcases like yourself.

2.2 rating. The people here really hate you, dont you know it?
We know the sick ones estevan, the ones who hide behind phony names because they are insufficiently mature
AND AGAIN we not only know who you are, we know WHAT you are which is far more relevant.

We know from the evidence that he himself has presented that George Kamburoff is a lying, posturing, fabricator of facts and most likely a psychopath.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 28, 2015
" I don't need to bother everybody with posteming him three times or twice even."
--------------------

Well, you missed it, so I told you.

Why do you persist in playing the goober with your lingo? Is it supposed to be cute?
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (27) Aug 28, 2015
Well, you missed it, so I told you.


If I missed him, how come I wrote the answer to him? Maybe you should take a break from the foolishment and catch your breath. You are not faring so good today.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.