8.8 earthquake hits Japan

The Cs 137 is already much higher than Chernobyl.

Imagine a family named "Putzmeister"

I think, in German , it means "polishing master" but in yiddish it means "king of the DIcks". A putz, in Yiddish is one of the several words used for "penis".
Putz, Schwantz,schmuck.

I remember being mocked for bringing up concrete early in this thread - well, mocked re zeros re thumbs, but that may have been a usual shadow. But High Seas did too, for what I took at the time as good reasons.

Dog rescued today after three weeks at sea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncs1LKuBh-E&feature=player_embedded

This is part of the angst of losing hearing, that I can't get what the tv blossom is saying. I've two friends who were anchors, well, never mind.

I'll try it again.

Nah. I sort of get the gist. Can anyone just tell me what happened?

Here is a brief written article.

Thank you, that is very moving. I'm still worrywarting about the family whose dogs found their way back to the house, family in a shelter quite a ways a way.

This is so typical of what is wrong with the modern world . Tens of thousands of men women and children are killed and some worry about the ******* dogs . How is that fair ?

I thought of that, of course. It is ironic.

I'm not sure about the reason that some of us are so acutely aware of animals - what they are or what we project on them.


******* dogs?
I still haven't gotten over a link from JPB on the tsunami coming through.
That link was later censored by some facility, too ******* horrible, and that one related to humans. Lifetime memorable link. I can hardly breathe thinking of it.

The news is, that we and that dog aren't all that much different.

I definitely agree , but I save my tears for real people not pretend ones .

In my opinion, too many people transfer humanity to dogs for a variety of reasons....too scared to have real children, mjiss the children they have, would rather help something that doesnt threaten to displace their genetic line, etc...none of which do I either like or agree with...."******* dogs" means it is just an animal and if people were even serious about saving them they might want to travel to a Third World country and help the ones there .

Turn their back on humans is what they do, and these people need to feel a 2x4 upside the head. There is a vast a growing problem of people who are too mentally ill to understand that humans matter more than animals.

Its a silly heirarchy you speak of(I mean ANUS). Why cant we do both? I dont understand why compassion for animals automatically must get transferred as an indifference towards people. I suppose its the foodstuff of the troll.
When 3Mile Island was threatening to meltdown in the first several days and there was no solid information available, the biggest issue facing the Middletown Pa area ( once the people were safe) was to transfer hundreds of thousands of head of cattle, pigs, chickens, draft and race horses and sheep to some safe area away from any meltdown threats and atmospheric drift of rad. After it was all settlwed down, We had procedures then put into place to assure the safety of people, livestock, pets, and critical infrastructure as a result of a disaster condition.

We dont have to make choices, our technology and organization allows us to concentrate on saving all.

My thinking these last few days is about a radical overturning of siting criteria. Ive been looking at the SC's for bot nuke plants and temp'and Yucca Mt type storage facilities and Ive hit upon some very glaring omissions in the SC's as they exist. Topography has always favored flat coastal and riverine areas. These have, by means of return frequency, high disaster quotients for the very things like tidal waves and flooding. Also, looking at how many facilities (like Yankee or Susquehanna ) where the whole thing sits in a topographic "reentrant" where water can get piled high by mere gravity forces

With due deference (you know I know nothing of geology), and before you contact anybody on that topic, ask a generalist able to model risk originating in any number of sources AND able to distinguish Cs 137 from Cs 134, their probable origins, ratios to each other, ratios to other isotopes - you get my drift.

Check satellites as well, esp. multi-band signal processing - the foregoing are all observable with suitable filtering as I'm sure you know - and IFF you STILL want to revise SC, consider this overwhelming siting fact: Chernobyl was on solid rock, but Daiichi is on the ocean, where it SHOULD be, and not on the western coast of Japan, a closed sea - where else would they have found enough water to pour on their reactors and used fuel pools? Kindly reconsider:)

I think you are correct in your conclusions; it was the backup system that failed. Otherwise, it seems that the location was okay (not perfect), because Japan doesn't have much to play with on location.

accidents that occur by uperations are separate from those caused by natural occurences. Daichi is in a reentrent that would allwo the welling of water from a tsunami .
"Modelling" needs to reflect reality. When a nuke facility, located downrange of a series of major tectonic double and triple junctions apparently does NOT consider tsunamis topographic induced seiches, or liquifaction of the soil, needs to be rethought.
Chernobyl was an activity in incompetence not Siting criteria,( Three Mile Island was actually both.
Actually, despite the outcome, Chernobyl was not a bad place for a reactor. It sits on quiet regolith overlying quiet bedrock.

I am looking at site crieria of our own nuke plants in coastal areas . They need to be optimized, YAnkee is one that in NOt, neither is Salem I, II or Susquehanna. Locating these facilities five or more miles away from a critical location wont huirt the distribution of power or the cooling too much.

Im not sure what your getting at. These are just sources of data and we always seek to input the best and most reliable data to our siting criteria algorithms. Most of this is done as a sort of a top down process not a self assembly.
Remember, a siting process uses techy data and methods of risk analyses (All done by the technical people who weild the least influence). We, the techys, must explain to, and convince the outer circle of decision making for almost every type of project (nukes, bridges, skyscrapers etc). We explain the risk, then we design to some level in order to reduce or elimanate risk, and then, armed with a believable batch of technical crap, we trundle off and try to convince the pols.

If you actually believe that a Hyspec scans from a satellite or amodel is gonna have some degree of believability to politicians or compact members (Memebership in which, usually is a function of connectedness rather tha brilliance), I have a large let down for you.

We are, as far as I can tell, still screwing around with Yucca Mountain and a low level waste disposal methodology. All Im saying is that, lets recognize the political realities and try to beef up siting so that it would include a realistic "Cradle to grave" design

This from a commercial satellite - take a LOOK at their 8-band imagery, you don't think any of the 15 isotopes of plutonium can be filtered from it?!


http://www.digitalglobe.com/index.php/48/Products?product_id=27

hyperspectral imaging is a trick used in many apps. Im not sure where we are not meeting at Promontory here. Im talking SITING CRITERIA, not retrospective study. Im talking prospective study.

Certainly believe no such thing - politicians wouldn't be swayed by the argument 2+2=4 in my opinion; my hope - only hope - lies in educating the people.