GoogleEarth Based 3D Map Of Real-Time Radioactivity Distribution In Japan; Projected Global Radioactivity Dispersion

Tyler Durden's picture




 
0
Your rating: None
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 03/25/2011 - 20:32 | 1101738 the mad hatter
the mad hatter's picture

Looks like a Malthusian crisis to me.

Fri, 03/25/2011 - 20:38 | 1101753 Cleanclog
Cleanclog's picture

Or a solution to the food and energy crisis developing worldwide.  Though I surely hope not as I live on the West Coast USA.

Fri, 03/25/2011 - 22:15 | 1101980 Matte_Black
Matte_Black's picture

From the article:

"One worker was blasted so forcefully into a rock that all that remained was a gruesome petroglyph."

Interesting post. What a nightmare.

Fri, 03/25/2011 - 23:11 | 1102105 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

Firing a shotgun at a barrel of toxic waste? That should win a Darwin Award.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 02:40 | 1102357 Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

“We scrubbed it down with water and sponges,” Pace said. “We tried mops. They’d get contaminated real quick and that was getting pretty expensive, so we ended up using Kotex.”


All this was done without protective clothing beyond coveralls and cotton caps that read, “Your Safety is Our Business — Atomics International.” There were no fully-enclosed radiation suits with face masks that nuclear workers routinely use today, designed to be dissolved and disposed of after one use.

“This had never happened before,” Pace said, “so it was a learning experience of how to clean up contamination.”

As the workers removed the fuel rods, one broke off. The worker accidentally dropped the broken rod back into the reactor. “He realized what had happened and panicked,” Pace said. “All he could think of doing is run. And as he was running, he was pulling alarms and ran out of the building and got outside.”

Pace said the situation deteriorated from there."

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 04:23 | 1102432 zhandax
zhandax's picture

I would term it more "a learning experience of how NOT to clean up contamination"....not that the knowledge seems to have been widely disseminated.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 08:42 | 1102555 Judge Judy Scheinlok
Judge Judy Scheinlok's picture

Yikes:

“The EPA demanded that they be able to inspect the buildings themselves before they were torn down to make sure they had been cleaned up,” Hirsch said. “When the EPA arrived on the appointed day, three of the five buildings they were supposed to study had been already torn down, including the SRE. And some of the debris from those buildings was taken to regular municipal trash facilities. Radioactive metals went to a metal recycler and got melted into metal products.”

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 00:26 | 1102212 thebark
thebark's picture

by the way...GREAT tits

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 04:45 | 1102441 longorshort
longorshort's picture

Tyler can you ban this fool by ip please. We dont need some guy getting canned trying to read about markets.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 08:58 | 1102568 Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

The first rule of boobies is, you don't complain about boobies.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 07:42 | 1102515 falak pema
falak pema's picture

Well your avatar has enough milk to nourish a tribe so I wouldn't worry too much about survival against Malthusian black swans. I'm sure you'll do your bit to keep the tribe factory churning.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 20:31 | 1104073 shushup
shushup's picture

.

Fri, 03/25/2011 - 20:58 | 1101804 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Explain while I hold back my rage at the mere mention of that vile name.

Fri, 03/25/2011 - 21:32 | 1101898 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Agreed.

Fri, 03/25/2011 - 22:33 | 1102017 DoctoRx
DoctoRx's picture

For those like me not "in the know", what "vile name" are you referring to, and why is it vile?  

Fri, 03/25/2011 - 22:47 | 1102053 krispkritter
Fri, 03/25/2011 - 22:58 | 1102076 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yes, high priest of the cult of death.  He declared that the world would run out of the food in the 70's, and proposed a campaign of "population reduction" to prevent that from happening.

Most "Peak X" theories are intimately related, as they all hold the "solution" as being a drastic reduction in the human population.  Thing is, each and every time the world has been presented with a Malthusian situation, it has been resolved WITHOUT a mass human die-off.  We ran out of charcoal to fuel the burgeoning industrial revolution in England, and switched to coal, which was BETTER.  We ran oil of whale oil for lighting the Eastern US, and switched to kerosene, then electricity.  

We "ran out" of food, and responded immediately by investing in research into increasing food production, and put a quick end to that "shortage".

He has been proven wrong over, and over, and over again.  Yet still, backwards thinking fools feel the need to trot out genocide as a long term solution to our problems.  THey seek death for themselves and all others, not necessarily in that order. 

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 00:11 | 1102186 tekhneek
tekhneek's picture

I agree and well said. Do you think however it's possible that at a minimun his theory has relevance taking exponential happenings into consideration? If for example we have "increased our food supply" to "more than meet" the demand, what if the demand grew exponentially more than the supply in short order? This, in his theory, isn't uncommon. I'm talking about 22 million women deciding to have 4 children in a few decades and those 4 children deciding to have 5 because it's gotten "that much easier"

Science fiction a bit I suppose but it does make me wonder at the rate of growth, if an exponential curve was to begin how much longer we could out-innovate our own mouths and needs as a planet and population.

(we're not the only ones here, and we need a lot of other species to survive in order for us to survive.)

</doom and gloom bullshit falderall>

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 02:45 | 1102362 Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

Thomas Robert Malthus 14 February 1766 -1834

Tmos, he said WHAT about the 70's??

the 1770's?

1870's?

or the Wonder Years?

 

 

 

 

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 07:45 | 1102518 falak pema
falak pema's picture

Lol, what's a century here or there between primates who have the intense urge to mate... To out-shaman the Shaman of death.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 11:38 | 1102880 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Sorry, his FOLLOWERS said that.

The high priest need not be bothered with specifics.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 11:59 | 1102928 Mark McGoldrick
Mark McGoldrick's picture

The "price doesn't matter" mindset is a slippery slope, because, as is documented for everyone to see here, it eventually leads to a mindset where facts and dates don't matter, either.

lol

A few months ago, I saw someone compare you to Cliff Clavin, and I'm beginning to understand why.  You're a know-it-all, who knows nothing and leaves a wake of laughter behind you.

 

 

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 13:55 | 1103226 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

Funny you would say that being our newly self appointed gold and silver expert.

 

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 22:53 | 1104474 tmosley
tmosley's picture

It's funny how everyone who I utterly destroy with logic and sound arguments can only come back and claim that everyone is laughing at ME.  Look at the junks you accumulate, fool.

Also, get out, Libtroll.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 01:20 | 1102276 BaboonAss
BaboonAss's picture

Malthus was an optimist. Didn't understand the ecological concept of overshoot, which "we" are deeply in.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 02:35 | 1102350 Cistercian
Cistercian's picture

Malthus is wrong.He is amply discredited...for some time now.

  Of course those who would kill off the useless eaters still embrace him.Why people still entertain his idiocy is beyond me.

 

 BTW...having a Geiger counter means never having to to depend on others for background data.Right now in Asheville,NC counts are back to normal.This past saturday they were quite elevated, for now...we have a reprieve.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 12:11 | 1102959 Babycatcher
Babycatcher's picture

Thanks for that information.  I'm right outside of Asheville.  Did you get your Geiger counter locally?

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 01:39 | 1102286 trav7777
trav7777's picture

your post is a classic example of normalcy bias.

You ASSUME that scientists will be able to duplicate past feats.  Past performance does not guarantee future results, does it?

Suppose that science does NOT provide a ready alternative for oil...then what?

Or suppose it DOES, but this leap does not take place on the timeframe that you'd like it to?  Suppose oil peaks and the unicorns don't get bred until 30 years later?

Whale oil wasn't a lynchpin to every aspect of global economics...it wasn't used to grow food.  It had a niche application for lighting and there were ready alternatives to it.

So, we not only need a new growable power source, but a replacement for the base of our entire petrochemical industry, including for fertilizer.  To synthesize this chemical base will require astoundingly more power than we presently are capable of generating by any known means.

This simply was not true 150 years ago when you talk the nonsense about whale oil.  If whale oil disappeared, life went on without much difference.  If mineral oil disappeared, all hell would break loose, and literally most of the world population would die.

Peak oil has nothing whatsoever to do with Malthus; Hubbert merely described the natural behavior of oil well production.  It is cornucopians like you who idiotically pretend that there is no problem.  The distance between Rome's exhaustion of wood and the advent of coal was well over 1000 years.

Easter Island never came back either.  Rock oil was KNOWN long before it became the foundation of industrial society.  It was a matter of production.  What do we have now that is an analog?

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 01:45 | 1102298 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

natgas?

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 02:47 | 1102370 trav7777
trav7777's picture

was that a question, bob?

Again, this simply isn't a topic where you have any business disagreeing with me.

What ABOUT natgas, bob?

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 04:58 | 1102438 zhandax
zhandax's picture

Trav, I frequently agree with you but I have to call you out on one minor point; the use of petrochemical fertilizers has been destroying our land for all the years it has been used.  What is wrong with old fashioned shit?  There is no shortage of it, and other than contamination from the pharmacological toxins consumed by it's producers, it is the best and most suited application for the overall end goal.  We spend billions of fiat trying to get rid of it and billions more on petrochemical replacements.  WHY?  (OK, that may not be fair; I haven't discerned whether you have some land roots or have lived uptown all your life.)

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 08:23 | 1102538 falak pema
falak pema's picture

You can be sure of one thing : he has been shitting all his life like the rest of us. In India you see cow dung every where in the villages on their mud walled huts...as what?...i don't know but it was an impressive eco-system use...

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 08:53 | 1102562 Judge Judy Scheinlok
Judge Judy Scheinlok's picture

"What is wrong with old fashioned shit?"

Yields.

Newfangled shit has greater yields. Larger populations grow dependent on the output of ag-commerce.

The nuke dirty bomb scenario is going to fix the imbalance real soon.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 12:26 | 1103005 trav7777
trav7777's picture

what's wrong with it?  It's not going to generate the crop yields of petrochem.  That's all.

i've got no problem with it but some of the billons who have to go just might.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 12:49 | 1103062 imaginalis
imaginalis's picture

True enough. Organic crops have higher yields of vital nutritients. 

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 13:38 | 1103180 tmosley
tmosley's picture

No, they don't.  Sorry.  

They just don't have pesticides.  That is not the same as having "more nutrients".

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 16:10 | 1103551 Steaming_Wookie_Doo
Steaming_Wookie_Doo's picture

Not consuming stuff that will wreck your liver, kidneys, etc is *relatively* life extending.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 22:55 | 1104482 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yes, but don't fall into the "sympathetic magic" trap, where one thing is good for one reason, therefor it must be good in ALL areas.  All things have their pros and cons.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 13:19 | 1103135 MayIMommaDogFac...
MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

Trav maybe you should go tell Niagara Falls that it is just flowing the wrong way.  Damn water is too stupid for its own good.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:56 | 1103517 Green Leader
Green Leader's picture

Relax man,

Try planting a garden first, making your own compost, harvesting crops and then get back to us.

Thank you.

G/L

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 22:09 | 1104385 tekhneek
tekhneek's picture

Agreed. I have my own organic garden and use a bokashi composting system as well as a typical leaves/organic matter etc. The bokashi compost system creates a concentrated micronutrient tea that grows plants 4-5-6x bigger than your average "higher yields" fertilizer you're talking about.

It also brings the necessary microorganisms/worms that breathe new life into crappy old soil. You take all your food scraps, put them in the bin, let them ferment, drain it every 2-3 days and then soak your plants roots and literally in a few days they grow more and more and more. The average yield increase is about 3x and you're cycling nutrients from your soil, back into your soil. Typically it takes 6-8 months to get a traditional compost pile soil ready and balanced, but you can do the same work in 4 weeks or less with bokashi bran.

I can compost: bones, egg shells, whole chickens, beef, pork, noodles, vegetables, tofu... literally anything that's organic matter within a few weeks. You put it in the ground and within a month it's 100% raw organic soil. I'm growing potatoes right now over my previous compost pile that I buried and they've exploded.

I think we NEED to remove petrochemical fertilizers from our soil as the nutrient density of our food is 1/3rd what it was when our parents ate fresh fruits and vegetables from mass produced so called "fertilized" crops.

Instead of trading food, try starting an organic garden to really understand all that goes into it. It's clearly not as easy to grow enough food for 7 billion people without oil, but regardless it's going to run out and there will only be the classic, old, handy-dandy old fashioned agricultural modernizations we've created that don't rely on oil.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 23:09 | 1104514 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

Good post. Excellent post, actually.

The problem that does exist, I think, is that if you've had occassion to speak with dedicated organic farmers, they admit it's simply not feasible to get nearly the yields per acre that make farming a commercially viable business, unless commercial fertilizers and pesticides are resorted to - and now, GM seed, also.

It's one thing if a farmer is growing crops for their family and maybe a dedicated list of premium-willing customers, like an organic restaurant or grocer.

It would be nice to see more R&D go into improving organic farming yields, which could save commercial farming from the menace that is Monsanto and their ilk, one day.

Also, few people talk about the serious threat of soil erosion, whereby we're losing not only quantity of topsoil, but quality of topsoil, and that's translating into less nutritionally less 'packed' fruits and vegetables. Potatoes, for example, have far fewer minerals in their skins than they did 40 years ago.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 11:48 | 1102902 tmosley
tmosley's picture

We do.  Graphene solar.  Genetically engineered fuel producing microbes.  Space elevator based solar.  Geothermal in places.  SAFE nuclear designs utilizing thorium.

Energy is EVERYWHERE.

Easter Island was not a result of "too much population", but "too much government".  Competing tribal chiefs just HAD to have bigger and bigger statues in their honor, until they used up everything.  That is the ONLY thing that will kill off humanity.  And it doesn't really kill us, just as it didn't really kill the Easter Islanders.  It just made it more difficult to build ships.

Here you come with "oh that's impossible".  That attitude is exactly what makes you a loser in ever aspect of your life.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 12:28 | 1103009 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Easter island was a result of overconsumption, Cliff.

As far as the rest of it, just say unicorns...bc that's what most of your pie in the sky stuff may as well be.

NONE of that is going to be available as a bridge technology anytime soon.

Space fucking elevator ROTFL

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 13:22 | 1103143 MayIMommaDogFac...
MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

So go ahead, Trav, let's all in on where you go for nanotech information on the web?

Such a floater you are...

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 13:41 | 1103188 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Men fucking flying through the sky like birds?  Men on the fucking moon?  ROFL

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 22:10 | 1104392 tekhneek
tekhneek's picture

yeah jesus, wtf is it with people? who the fuck cares about the moon? just stop killing this perfectly good planet. that's a good start.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:07 | 1103377 Leraconteur
Leraconteur's picture

You ASSUME that scientists will be able to duplicate past feats.  Past performance does not guarantee future results, does it?

Except that never in 12,000 years has your scenario ever panned out on a global scale. Never. I vote with the historical record in favor of human necessity driving a solution to be found before you get your wish.

To synthesize this chemical base will require astoundingly more power than we presently are capable of generating by any known means.

LFTR. You simply do not want to admit that solutions exist that are thwarted by politics, not science. China is building LFTR but the USSA can't seem to get it together to do much of anything these days except bail out bankers.

 


Sat, 03/26/2011 - 17:50 | 1103778 buzzard
buzzard's picture

It is not a problem to be solved. Humans are good at solving problems. This is, however, a predicament in which we find ourselves. For those you find ways to adapt to the predicament or die. Many of us will die anyway. It is to the stage of "bargaining" many of us are stuck. Technology may have brought us to the dance. But don't expect technology to take you home.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!