Aestu wrote:
Jubbergun wrote:
I'm telling you, this is procedure
they have back-up plans for their back-up plans coming out of their ass
they don't care that the water is being exposed to radiation, because they don't want to release it
they are managing the pressure of that water turning to steam through controlled venting
shielding has nothing to do with distance
the site has probably been remotely handled since this started
the workers that were exposed and became ill were probably the last ones outw
we don't have the money to lend, anyway
maybe they're too busy putting out the melting reactor
You want to talk about "assumptions", there's a bunch of them.
None of that fits the description of "assumption."
Flooding Gen-I/II reactors in the event of pump failure is part of the procedure.
There are multiple layers of contingency covering "what if" events (like total pump failure).
They don't want to release the water they're pumping into the core. They honestly don't want to release the steam, either, but releasing it is the lesser of two evils, and it is being closely monitored and controlled.
The method of determining exposure is a formula that calculates three factors: time exposed, distance from the source, and shielding. Distance is not shielding in regards to radiological exposure, and your insistence that it is merely reinforces how little you know about the subject.
Aestu wrote:
You seem incredulous they use diesel pumps. Yes, they do, and there's a damn good reason why: so the pumps can operate even if the grid is disabled.
The pumps aren't diesel powered, they're electric. Even if (and this is a big "if") they were to be powered by back-up diesel power generators, that doesn't make them diesel pumps. Regardless, once the pumps fail, it doesn't matter what powers them. Everything in and around the core is taking massive heat/particle damage, and those pumps are in and around the core. One of the reasons Gen-III reactors would be an upgrade is that they can operate without pump using basic thermodynamic principles that would still allow significant cooling.
Aestu wrote:
Shielding is most definitely a function of distance; I mentioned "shielding" in this context should someone make a lame argument like, "Well, maybe there's mountains in the way, or something". The amount of radiation absorbed by a barrier is a direct function of the distance * whatever is in the way. Even air provides significant impediment to radiation, if enough of it is in the way. By contrast, it's mathematically impossible for any barrier, however thick, to actually block 100% of radiation, although the trace amount that passes through may be incredibly marginal.
Shielding represents physical barriers designed to provide protection from the effects of ionizing (charged particles) and indirectly ionizing (neutrons, gamma rays, and x-rays) radiation. Gases (air) do not generally fall under this heading, so you can stop reading about alpha particles (I thought taking your GOOGLES out of context was bad, MKAY?). In fact, read what you wrote: "The amount of radiation absorbed by a barrier is a direct function of the distance * whatever is in the way." You have parts of the equation right, but the concepts wrong, because EXPOSURE is determined by distance in relation to "whatever is in the way" in relation to time exposed...the "whatever is in the way" is SHIELDING.
Aestu wrote:
The "debt ceiling" you mentioned is for the federal government. It doesn't apply to banks and other institutions that do loans to other governments. And even the debt ceiling is just a piece of paper; it gets raised all the time as Congress so needs. I'm not saying that's a good thing, simply that the debt ceiling isn't an obstacle to anything. Not that it's even relevant in this context.
Your original implication (and this is backed up by your 'money-shuffling' assertion) was that the US government was going to loan this money, and they clearly aren't in a position to do that. Don't expect that they'll keep raising the debt ceiling...and even if they do, there is going to come a point where we are a bad risk and no one will loan to us. If you want to talk about 'relevance,' none of this money or whaling crap has anything to do with the discussion at hand, but
you brought it up.
Aestu wrote:
Eturnalshift wrote:
...his clearly fact-driven assessment that there is more radiation closer to the plant...
So, what you're saying is, it's entirely possible that there is more radiation 100 miles away from a leaking nuclear reactor than there is at the point of the leak. Am I understanding you correctly?
You're making the
assumption that the radiation detected was from the leaking (is it leaking, that's news to me?) reactor and not from other sources and/or equipment malfunction/false positive. However, if you want to make this case, it certainly does put a fucking cock right in the ass of your "distance is shielding" argument, don't you think?
Your Pal,
Jubber
