View Single Post
nikkkom
#666
Feb20-12, 05:48 AM
P: 611
Quote Quote by LKofEnglish View Post
would you argue that Tepco has been this way all along? It seems fairly straightforward to call Tepco's response to the crisis as at best "evolving." Are their dangers of radioactive material spreading through the debris of the tsunami throughout the Pacific Ocean? Why isn't this patently obvious issue even being discussed? What about the possibility of recriticality? "Blaming the instruments" seems rather incredulous. How can one have poor instrumentation on the biggest industrial accident in human history? What about the disposal of nuclear waste into landfills in and around Tokyo Bay?
I have no idea what you are talking about. But assuming some mildly contaminated material is indeed used that way - why is that bad? What do you propose instead? Remember - the less contaminated material is, the more there is of it. For example, there will be A LOT (many tons) of ground scraped in various "hot spots" during decontamination, but ground from even the most dirty hot spot is not particularly dangerous. Say, 20000 Bq/kg? As long as no one _eats_ it, it's not a big deal. But where to put all these tons?

Are these people insane?
No.
Are you done with screaming and ready for adult dialogue?

what is the implication of radioactive flotsmam washing ashore the islands of Hawaii and the State's of Washington, Oregon and California even if only at the theoretical level?
There is no radioactive flotsam from Japan. If you'd have just a little bit of common sense, you'd know that.