Radiation cloud heading to US from Japan?

LA Times and NY Times have had stories on Japan's nuke plant explosions.



They say the radiation cloud is projected to hit Cali on Fri. Depending on how strong the cloud is -- could be Sat or Sun before it hits Utah(if its strong enough to hit Utah)



True or False?



If true... Got your Potassium Iodide Pills? Better safe than sorry. I wouldn't want any of us to have kids born with 12 fingers.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

true...and we will get so much radiation that it will not even equal 1/4 of one chest x-ray.

Could it affect me like those of the Fantastic 4 and make me good looking?

kiwibacon wrote:
true...and we will get so much radiation that it will not even equal 1/4 of one chest x-ray.

Agreed. It is shameful how our antinuke activists have been pimping this event to their own ends.



And by the way, potassium iodide is only for protecting the thyroid gland from radioactive iodine isotopes ingested from an otherwise minimally radioactive environment. It does nothing to stave off real, multisystem radiation sickness.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

urroner wrote:
Could it affect me like those of the Fantastic 4 and make me good looking?

Nope, but nice try!



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I am willing to contribute to a fund for your radiation treatment. My eye doctor wants to help too.

urroner wrote:
Could it affect me like those of the Fantastic 4 and make me good looking?

I thought all along that it had already effected you. ;)

urroner wrote:
Could it affect me like those of the Fantastic 4 and make me good looking?

It could only help. :lol:

The media is blowing this WAY out of proportion. The Navy sailors being exposed to radiation was the top headline on CNN and FoxNews for over 24 hours--they were exposed to the same amount of radiation as a usual person gets from "the sun and rocks for one month." EGAD!!!!

I HATE YOU GUYS!!!!!!!!

:angry: :angry: :angry:



I bet you all love going around dashing a young man's hope, especially if it desparate.

BOID wrote:

true...and we will get so much radiation that it will not even equal 1/4 of one chest x-ray.

Agreed. It is shameful how our antinuke activists have been pimping this event to their own ends.

I'm not a scientist nor do I claim to have any knowledge on nuclear energy. But my first initial thoughts of why does Japan has so frickin many(I know the US has to have way more if Japan has as many as they do)?



Do we honestly need that many? Not Japan in general, but in the world as a whole?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

BigCougsFan wrote:
I'm not a scientist nor do I claim to have any knowledge on nuclear energy. But my first initial thoughts of why does Japan has so frickin many(I know the US has to have way more if Japan has as many as they do)?



Do we honestly need that many? Not Japan in general, but in the world as a whole?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

One of the reasons why Japan entered WWII was because they felt they needed more oil and they decided to attack the countries in SE Asia that had oil deposits and to prevent America from entering the conflict, they attack Pearl Harbor. After the war, it was decided that in order to prevent this type of problem, that Japan should go nuclear.



France also decided the same thing because they didn't want to become beholden to other countries for their electrical energy.

BigCougsFan wrote:

kiwibacon wrote:
true...and we will get so much radiation that it will not even equal 1/4 of one chest x-ray.

Agreed. It is shameful how our antinuke activists have been pimping this event to their own ends.

I'm not a scientist nor do I claim to have any knowledge on nuclear energy. But my first initial thoughts of why does Japan has so frickin many(I know the US has to have way more if Japan has as many as they do)?



Do we honestly need that many? Not Japan in general, but in the world as a whole?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

We actually need more. Many, MANY more. Nuclear is really the best (only??) option for the world to sustain growth and this quality of life going forward without polluting the hell out of it with greenhouse gases.



You do realize that just today was the Japan incident upgraded to the same threat level as the Three Mile Island "disaster," right? You know, the meltdown in Pennsylvania fortyish years ago that resulted in zero lives lost initially and project one or two additional lives would eventually be lost to cancer. So, with all the sensationalist media goings on about Japan, it has just been upgraded to an event where they estimate at MOST five or so lives will be cut short 10+ years down the road by cancer, and those are only first-responders and/or people living within 10 miles of the facility.



So, why are Californians so paranoid about the "fallout cloud"? Because the media is stoking the same paranoia they built with Three-Mile Island (no lives lost) and Cherynobyl (maybe 60 lives lost due to Russian idiocy). Nuclear remains one of the safest sources of energy (more lives were lost than Three Mile Island and more environmental damage done than 10 Cherynobyls by the Gulf oil spill just last year). The difference is the spectacular media coverage that feeds the public misperception that a nuclear meltdown ends in a mushroom cloud and cancer for everyone within a thousand miles. If people would simple look for the facts and educate themselves, they would realize that nuclear power and weapons are not nearly as frightening as what you have learned on TV. Most people don't realize that there was almost zero fallout from the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima--when you detonate a nuke at an adequate height from the ground, all of the damages is done by the shockwave and pretty much anyone who would be subject to enough radiation to die from it is going to be dead from the shockwave or buildings collapsing on them before their body has enough time to develop cancer. Japan rebuilt the city by 1949.....that's how little radiation was left on the ground.

Well... If anyone has any Zelp or Potassium Iodide(I believe they may be the same thing) lying around. I hear they're going for $100 a bottle on eBay. Money to be made off the "uneducated"?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I agree with the previous posters. Nuclear energy is the only viable solution we have. I wish we had twice as many nuclear power plants as we do.

I like what you've said, Sno, except the part about how bad the greenhouse gasses are. We do have a great need for leadership that will have the courage to confront radical environmentalism, and to begin to disabuse the public consciousness regarding the safety and affordability of nuclear energy. The bigger picture here is not GW/CC (which has not been demonstrated to be related to or influenced by anthropogenic CO2), but is actually the issue of finite reserves of easily reachable fossil fuels, and how long they can meet our needs. The whole solar/wind farm concept is a pipe dream (not sufficiently potent), and neither hydrogen or ammonia production are cost effective (takes more energy than it yields).



It has been estimated that the earth's crust may yield enough fossil carbonaceous deposits to fuel us for as much as one thousand years. But they could become more and more difficult to reach. Hopefully, we will some day acquire the ability to supplement heavy metal fission with fusion reactions involving lighter elements. This could help delay the exhaustion of easily minable uranium. Although an intimidating frontier, we will certainly not reach it unless we continue to use and develop nuclear energy. Without nuclear development, we are doomed to eventual technological regression, even to the extent of return to agrarian fiefdoms, in which we end up cutting down remaining forests to fuel our wood stoves.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

With Japan's current situation. How they haven't been able to cool the reactors down. Which led to them exploding(I believe), leaking, whatever.



Do we, as Americans, have a way to fix a situation like that, if we're faced with that sort of thing here in the US?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

BigCougsFan wrote:
With Japan's current situation. How they haven't been able to cool the reactors down. Which led to them exploding(I believe), leaking, whatever.



Do we, as Americans, have a way to fix a situation like that, if we're faced with that sort of thing here in the US?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Short answer: Yes

CougarPeasant wrote:

With Japan's current situation. How they haven't been able to cool the reactors down. Which led to them exploding(I believe), leaking, whatever.



Do we, as Americans, have a way to fix a situation like that, if we're faced with that sort of thing here in the US?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Short answer: Yes

Yes we do, because we too have brave men & women first responders who will risk their lives to rebuild/expand containment systems and securities. We have the technology, resources and will power to respond to huge natural disasters.

The problem is that "greenhouse gases" are bad because we add a tiny drop in the bucket to the grand scheme of things that supposedly creates global warming...err...climate change (sorry, forgot that they had to change the name to account for the natural cycles of the Earth's weather). So, we can't use coal, even clean coal, which we have mountains of, we can't use already drilled wells for oil or drill new ones, even with the new sideways drilling that we have. So, what's left? The only real, viable other solution would be nuclear, and there's no REAL reason not to use it, so we have to run the scare machine so that we can cover the whole of the great plains with wind turbines and cover our roofs with solar panels that generally don't last long enough to make themselves financially viable.