Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Meltdown
 

The alternative news on YouTube reports the Fukushima radiation problem is a LOT worse than the Japanese and US gov't is disclosing.

Some countries warn citizens it's unsafe to be in the rain without an umbrella. The US gov't doesn't give such a warning. Figures.

This pretty much seals my eventual move to Medellin, Columbia after my Mum "departs".

Whatcha think about this Fukushima fiasco?

I heard stories about Fukushima as well. There was a time when all the MotoGP riders wanted to boycott the Japanese Grand Prix because there were concerns with regards to air, water, rain and harm to the human body. There was a test done by a third party and it was acceptable (they said) to host the race, and all the racers showed up. Having said that, Casey Stoner's wife stayed home that race because she was pregnant, and she went to all the races with Casey except that one.

I remember when Chernobyl happened, I was living in Former Yugoslavia at the time. It was raining that day and the government sent out an emergency message that everyone that was in the rain should go home and take a shower immediately because the wind was blowing from Ukraine and it probably picked up particulates.

I saw a documentary about Medellin a few times and it wasn't about affordable housing. Columbia is a beautiful country ruined by the drug dealers who run the country. I also feel very sorry for the farmers that live there.

I read many Columbian farmers moved to the big cities, like Medellin, to escape the countryside drug violence.

Although there's still drug trafficking it's nothing as it was when Escobar was alive. In fact, that time in history is still a sore subject among the natives, because many know someone that was killed during that era. Tourist report nasty reactions when they mention Escobar, even jokingly.

I can't imagine living south of the U.S. anywhere. Wouldn't do it if they paid me. Far too unsafe overall. There are very few places outside the country I'd consider living though due to safety or rights infringements or both.

Really? Infringements of rights? What parts of Europe do you consider unsafe and for what reasons?

I think most of Europe is probably safe although some areas have more than their share of questionable refugees and likely aren't so safe anymore. And to my knowledge most if not all prohibit firearm ownership without some to complete infringement.

LDB, what got me thinking about moving to Medellin were the reports posted by this American YouTube vlogger:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCW0...view=0&sort=da

Cartess, the vlogger, just LOVES life in Medellin. So much so, he's buying a 3-bedroom condo in a high rise building for around US$85k. The USD goes amazingly far down there.

Yes and the weather is supposed to be very agreeable but I don't trust anywhere south of the border.

Don't want to advertise anything, but if you love abandoned and/or derelict spaces, there's a book just released by a photographer who was allowed into the Red zone recently. Return to Fukushima it's called. She documents the tragedy in detail, and describes the horrible scene of a farm, where animals left to starve were still tied in thier pens. Creepy.

I find post-human apocalyptic desolation quite intriguing to say the least. Saw 33 photos she took, it's made me want the book!

Hmmm. Paul, I never knew THIS side of you. You're twisted enough that I hereby grant you temporary American citizenship. Go get yourself a gun and celebrate!

No thanks Doug, weapons are for cowards. The only weapon man needs is his voice ;)

Back on topic, does anyone play the Fallout games? The most recent one set in
Massachusetts 200 years in the future, you have to battle your way through a post Nuclear war. The world is huge, it's pretty epic.

That's EXACTLY what ISIS wants you to believe (plus, your future American wife, who will divorce you and take everything you own, INCLUDING that nice, red car, away).

You have an obsession with ISIS don't you Doug? I'd be more worried about Asteroids, as the chances of being killed by an asteroid in the US are higher than being killed by a jihadi immigrant ;)

How does one's voice solve the problem of a home invasion or any number of other potentially violent crimes being committed against them? Guns are for cowards is a silly thing to say, silly being the keeping it friendly filler.

Bah I was worried this topic would creep up again. Most of the other 95% of the World's population don't need to murder thieves, not sure why you guys feel you need to ;)

Asteroids are now controlled by ISIS?! :(

Yes, I hope Trump can stretch a super strong net from each side of his famous wall, that will keep them out :D

The point isn't to murder a thief. The point is when they come in ready, willing, and eager to use a gun on you. And newsflash, criminals don't obey the law so even if you outlaw (insert any inanimate object name here) the criminals will still have them.

I respect your points, I would try to agree if there was any evidence to back that up, but there simply isn't. It's been proven hundreds and hundreds of times. There are some interesting facts about it here,
10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down | Mother Jones

Lots of questionable points by a very anti-gun group.

Paul, must you believe EVERYTHING you read on the internet? ;)

Care to put up evidence that counters the government sources and peer reviewed scientific articles used in his link than discrediting it out of hand.

I'm going to side with numerous scientific proven surveys and factual evidence published in various impartial articles over the previous decades, rather than the rights obsessed, gun hugging patriots know as "the National Rifle association" which is obscenly biased.

I'm all for rights and freedom, every Western civilization has them, but weapons are not needed to protect either.

Yeah, they've done so incredibly well on the whole coming ice age morphing into global warming morphing into global climate change because the global warming proved to be just as much a hoax as ice age. Time magazine even had the ice age and meltdown covers about 30 years apart to prove it. Yeah, I put tons of faith in those scientists who are vehemently anti-gun and test for their desired outcome as opposed to those defending our rights.

I’d like to offer these thoughts to you before I leave this dialog:

In the United States, a great many people have been fooled into believing the NRA (National Rifle Association) represents “the will of the people.” Most folks don’t know that the firearm manufacturers in the US have created (and they massively fund) an immensely powerful and influential Pro-Gun Lobby to promote and defend their own interests: high profits through brisk sales. They accomplish this by getting laws passed that support their cause[1], and preventing laws from being passed that could work against their cause[2].

The Pro-Gun Lobby is exceptionally well organized, very well-funded, and obviously, effective in the extreme. This is an example of how a relatively tiny group of fabulously wealthy and influential people has far more control than all the “voices” of a democracy combined. (By the way, the Pro-Gun Lobby is not an isolated example of this phenomenon at work.)

Mass-shootings and “terrorism” in the US are good for business, because after each well-publicized shooting (i.e., free ads for gun manufacturers), concerned and fearful citizens rush out to buy yet more firearms in the belief that they’ll be safer. This always results in a gun sales spike (AKA more profit for gun manufacturers) after a mass shooting.

Closing remarks: A decade ago, I’d spend hours and days supporting my views by provide data, proof, links to research, etc. I’ve since learned this: It’s like arguing atheism to a religious fundamentalist, in that nothing I can say or reveal can change a believer’s thinking.

_____
[1] Examples: (1) by law, you cannot sue a gun manufacturer for injury or death caused by their product, and (2) the law prevents the paper-based data used for forearm background checks from being computerized; the checks are time-limited and default to a “yes” if they cannot be performed in a timely manner.

[2] Example: (1) law prohibits the Center for Disease Control (CDC) from researching firearm injuries/fatalities and compiling data on same, (2) while laws exist for (trivial) background checks before purchasing a firearm at a bricks-and-mortars store, no such checks are required at gun shows or online purchases.

Wrong on several counts including in your examples but as you say it's pretty pointless to provide facts to those who have made up their minds otherwise.

The wasn't the scientist. That was the news papers and magazines reporting on science matters by choosing what would lead to the best head lines. The Ice Age predictions from 30 years ago were from a minority of the climate science community. The majority were talking about the warming we see today.

If guns made you safer, and prevent crime, the US wouldn't have the highest homicide rates or highest crime rates of developed countries, and it wouldn't have the highest prison population in the World. The trend so far is increasing every year, there's been 100 mass shootings this year in the US, 3 yesterday and 5 the day before, every year pretty much the record is broken for the previous year. More guns = more crime/shootings, it's very basic mathematics.

Lining up all violent felons and mass executing them would save us a ton of money AND virtually eliminate crime in the US.

The point being missed here is the 2nd amendment addresses oppression, be it by a criminal or by government, by giving the people a powerful tool to force both govt and criminal to think twice about breaking into my house to impose their will on me without me being capable of resisting that effort.

The simplistic analogy about gun possession and crime-murder rates falls far short of even approaching a rational analysis. No way to remove one weapon category and then see what the effect of that removal would actually be. It would be as futile as trying to name the total number of lethal weapons in a single household and I can easily kill you with a number 2 pencil or even my bare hands. One good karate chop to your larynx will do the job fine.

Now you have to understand crime. Criminals cross a threshold where their respect for your well being is sacrificed so they can rationalize their actions and ignore the catastrophic consequences to their victims. Considerable analysis of two examples, Switzerland and Germany, under Hitler would be interesting.

I could name 100 "weapons of mass destruction" in my own garage. Tie you up, put a plastic bag over your head and watch you suffocate. A file, even a coat hanger will do the job, 250cc of air in a syringe.

Fukushima was predictable, bottom line, they screwed up and built it where the largest fault on the globe (parts of the marianas trench) should have been obvious to any same person of minimal intelligence.

The scientific method requires skepticism until the evidence overwhelms that skepticism, something you WILL NEVER SEE IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS FORUM.

One of the nuclear plants, not TMI, in eastern Pennsylvania is built on a fault line.

But that wasn't the issue in Fukushima's case. The problem was poor emergency design. The main cause of the accident was a loss of power for operations. There was back up diesel generators in case of such loss, but they were installed in a basement, and that flooded by the tsunami. Considering Japan's history with such and earthquakes, it was an inexcusable oversight.

Similar to Katrina, the emergency pump engines were underwater, DUH. I always thought some recycled destroyer engines feeding into chutes would have worked well to move the water out of New Orleans. Build the houses to float up on piers in case of a 20 foot tidal surge. That assumes you want to fight mother nature who always seems to be capable of overwhelming you best measures.

How high can a tidal wave be, how about 1700 feet, Latuya Bay Alaska, less than 50 years ago.

Study the building codes in Bermuda, where they can literally be trapped in a cat 5 hurricane. Houses like pillboxes. Probably not if that large chunk of one island in the Azores breaks away and slides into the sea.

If guns were a problem Switzerland would be a disaster. Inanimate objects are not the problem, as much as lefties want to believe them to be. Our crime rate is not due to guns, it's due to lack of consequences sufficient to deter all but the truly insane from engaging in a given activity. What's truly simple isn't some ridiculous leftist talking point, it's that inanimate is just that, inanimate. That's what's simple as it gets.

I propose the problem can be traced back to the designers’ beliefs. They built anti-tsunami walls that were high enough to withstand historically high water levels, plus added height for a margin of safety. Armed with the belief that this would be an effective barrier to the sea, the designers concluded it was unnecessarily costly (and unnecessary) to build a much reinforced building that could house the backup generators on the roof.

Unfortunately, the designers’ beliefs did not account for the possibility of subsidence. In the case of Fukushima, when the earthquake hit, the land upon which the facility was built subsided by about 2 meters, which effectively reduced the height of the anti-tsunami walls by 2 meters. The rest is history.


Again, I propose the problems can be traced back to people’s beliefs. They included:

• Harsher consequences deter gun crime (Texas and other states with the death penalty do not enjoy lower gun crime than other states, let alone eliminate it).
• Guns make you safer (The US has the highest firearm murder rate per capita of any at-peace nation on the planet)
• Gun killings are perpetrated by insane people (Stats show that legally insane people make up very low single-digit percentages of firearm homicides)
• The US is the “land of the free” (The USA has the highest per-capita incarceration rate of any nation: about 1% of its entire population! It also has more lawyers per capita than the next 5 nations combined)

With respect to the USA being No.1 in mortality by firearm (of any at-peace nation on the planet), I believe the root causes are three things that are unique to the US (the US has all three):

1. Widespread “Not My Fault” attitude. See my previous comments about the most lawyers per capita. The US is the land where a drunk guy can try to trim his hedges by lifting a running lawn mower over his head, get injured, sue the manufacturer, and WIN... because the manufacturer failed to print a warning label indicating their lawn mower should not be used as a hedge trimmer. (No, that’s not a joke.)
   
2. Popular “Don’t get mad, get even / Don’t get even, get ahead” mindset. Raised on Hollywood movies of vigilantes, John Wayne-style heroes, and “getting even” movies, fueled with a mindset that glorifies war (and warriors) while ridiculing peace-loving people as being weak, lesser beings, we coin terms like “road rage” as euphemisms for our acceptance of violence as a part of everyday life. Walking away rather than fighting? Letting someone dis you and do nothing about it? That’s for wusses.
   
3. Ready access to firearms. This, in and of itself, is not a problem, as we can see in Switzerland where every male of military age must, by law, have an assault rifle and ammo in their home. However, when you combine ready access to firearms with the previous two items I mention, it results in the conditions we see in the United Stated today, and which its citizen accept as “normal” and “the cost of freedom.”

I’m a firm believer of “Change your thoughts; change your life.” As long as these three conditions exist in the US, mass murders and >11,000 firearm deaths per annum (excluding suicides and peace officers acting in the line of duty) will continue to be a way of life in the US. And as long as the first two conditions (ways of thinking) permeate significant portions of the US’s population, there will continue to be no will to the change the status quo in any meaningful manner.

The solution to mass murders? Arm more good guys with guns!
The solution to 11,000 firearms deaths per year. Round up and kill the bad people! (but ignore the 1% of the population already in prison).
The solution to violence? Go to war, send out the killer drones!
This way of thinking makes perfect sense to a great many people in the US. To me, it’s like proposing that the solution to drug addiction is to prescribe yet more drugs.

Please note I am NOT saying that the people of America are wrong for thinking as they do. I merely point out that their circumstances – mass violence domestically and abroad – are the logical consequences of popular modes of thought (beliefs, opinions, assumptions, expectations, and understandings of “the way things are.”)

The death penalty is a joke as currently implemented, with minimal deterrent capacity other than the criminal finally executed decades after committing their crime. Guns provide a means of keeping yourself safer if you properly train and practice with them. The U.S. being the land of the free has nothing to do with the number of inmates. That has to do with liberal leftists and jurists who legislate from the bench who corrupt the legal system and fawn all over the criminals while ignoring the victims.

It's no coincidence, places like Japan and the UK have the lowest gun crime rates/homicides because.....wait for it.... they have low gun numbers. The theory that a gun is just an inanimate object is silly, if a child chokes on a small object, we stop giving small objects to children, if a drink driver gets caught drink driving, we take away their ability to drive. If something proves to be more dangerous than beneficial, we should stop making it available to the public. Why do you think there are hundreds of inanimate objects banned from flights? Water bottles, hair clips, scissors etc. The nuclear warheads in Korea are just inanimate objects, they haven't killed anyone so why is the US worried?

Assuming you're probably dismissive of this report, a US study, as it argues against your points. https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...n-deaths-study

Re US Guns: See Jim Jeffries' videos on gun control (Parts 1 & 2)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...uLr658QRubgfzS

Funny as hell, but on point, accurate, and true :-)

I've seen that piece before, it's truly brilliant how he conveys his message whilst being amusing, informative, hilarious and inoffensive. He makes some very valid points too.

Then by your logic you and everyone else must surrender their vehicles since some will be used illegally by drunken drivers or escaping criminals. Too bad for you and the 99.9831742% who never do that but we're going to blame the object not the person. Oh, and order up a lot of concrete to fill in every swimming pool in the nation since they will drown innocent people and children. No pools for anyone. Nope, unsafe objects. Banned.

Landslide tsunami's can be massive, but is Lituya BAy's case, I don't think the wave did any damage outside of the fjord.

There is evidence of a massive landslide induced wave that hit the Mediterranean Sea 8000 years ago, but the Sea is still a contained body of water compared to an ocean.

Compared to an earthquake induced wave, a landslide doesn't displace much water. An earthquake can lift and drop the seafloor ove an area measured in acres or square miles. These waves can hit large areas of shorelines and cause damage. The largest of these on in the 30 to 40 meter range.