Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[theseeker]

So, for those of you who don't know, the earthquake in Japan caused a tsunami, which damaged many things (homes, buildings, factories, the coastline) has also been causing issues with nuclear power plants (specifically their cooling systems). I thought we should make a thread about it, where we can talk about updates, disaster relief (and what places to donate to), and possible lasting effects of the potential meltdown, as well as the effects that the disaster will have on the world. Do you think that the events worldwide these past couple weeks will lead to a greater number of safety precautions? Will Canadian nuclear power plants be shut down? Should other countries seal the nuclear power plant before more harmful things occur? Also, this won't affect gay marriage, will it? Sorry, it's a weird thing to say... But it seriously might. GRGSFD.

My thoughts: I think that all areas experiencing aftershocks should be evacuated. Supplies and power are running short, and having a bunch of panicing people around, endangered by aftershocks is a bad idea. Search and rescue teams should be sent out, and I think that other countries should provide aid in making these teams, because the survivors should not have to sift through rubble after the trauma, especially because they haven't been trained in finding people.

On the nuclear power plant: at the start of Chernobyl, there was much bullshitting. Foreign nations were told that there were some minor complications but that everything was going well. It wasn't until much later that the entire world was alerted to the disaster. Japanese officials have already shared that there may be a meltdown and have already evacuated residents near the plant. When the situation gets more serious (it's very likely that it already has) everything will need to be contained, and it has to happen quickly, so material won't contaminate everything. I really hope they'll just come out and say when they need assistance containing the plant; our enviornment is fucked but nuclear debris is not a nice way to go.

[Pope Totalfrog]

So, for those of you who don't know, the earthquake in Japan caused a tsunami, which damaged many things (homes, buildings, factories, the coastline) has also been causing issues with nuclear power plants (specifically their cooling systems). I thought we should make a thread about it, where we can talk about updates, disaster relief (and what places to donate to), and possible lasting effects of the potential meltdown, as well as the effects that the disaster will have on the world. Do you think that the events worldwide these past couple weeks will lead to a greater number of safety precautions? Will Canadian nuclear power plants be shut down? Should other countries seal the nuclear power plant before more harmful things occur? Also, this won't affect gay marriage, will it? Sorry, it's a weird thing to say... But it seriously might. GRGSFD.

My thoughts: I think that all areas experiencing aftershocks should be evacuated. Supplies and power are running short, and having a bunch of panicing people around, endangered by aftershocks is a bad idea. Search and rescue teams should be sent out, and I think that other countries should provide aid in making these teams, because the survivors should not have to sift through rubble after the trauma, especially because they haven't been trained in finding people.

On the nuclear power plant: at the start of Chernobyl, there was much bullshitting. Foreign nations were told that there were some minor complications but that everything was going well. It wasn't until much later that the entire world was alerted to the disaster. Japanese officials have already shared that there may be a meltdown and have already evacuated residents near the plant. When the situation gets more serious (it's very likely that it already has) everything will need to be contained, and it has to happen quickly, so material won't contaminate everything. I really hope they'll just come out and say when they need assistance containing the plant; our enviornment is fucked but nuclear debris is not a nice way to go.

You do realise that the aftershocks are affecting most of the country? Where are they supposed to go? The power issue is also affecting the whole country.

Search and rescue teams are being sent from other countries. Japan has some of the most skilled search and rescue teams on the planet. Waiting for foreign help would be pretty ridiculous when they are there and they do know what to do. They have earthquake preparedness day in Japan. They run drills and everyone in the country trains for this kind of event every year. 

The plants in Japan are nothing like Chernobyl. The situation isn't good but it isn't anything like that. They already have accepted assistance from America but there isn't really a lot anyone can do. If the plants do meltdown (and they think a couple already have) then as long as the reactor cores are contained quickly then the only environmental damage will be in the immediate area.

Why would they shut down Canadian power plants?  

[CeeGBee]

A couple quick thoughts:
Aftershocks will be felt throughout the region, so unless you're planning to evacuate the
entire Japanese archipelago, it won't work.  Also, Japanese architecture is as close to
earthquake-safe as you'll find anywhere....  as long as it isn't asked to soak up a 9.0......


At Chernobyl, the Russians had no one to blame but poor design and inadequate maintenance,
so they tried to downplay the severity of the problem.  In Japan, they've just had an earthquake
of historical proportion, and while the power plants in question weren't immediately destroyed
or 'cracked open' by the spectacular forces applied to them, they did suffer damage that has
led to much more severe secondary issues.  There's no shame in that, and there may be some
good to come from prompt action, so they're willing to work with anyone who can help.

[theseeker]

Ugh can't quote, my computer will bother me. I was actually suggesting that the whole region be evacuated. By doing this however, there would be a lot of people left behind, so search and rescue teams should remain to find more people, and more should be sent in so that the teams can be as effective as possible. People were saying that the aftershocks are just as terrifying as the initial disaster because of their scale, and further issues could arise.

The meltdowns that may occur in Japan could have a far more severe impact on the entire ecosystem than Chernobyl's did. Some of the plants are right on the shore, and nuclear matter will be spread everywhere. The situation has been downplayed; at first, officials from Japan denied anything occuring, and despite their containment systems in the case of the meltdown (which are their responsibility), people near the plants have been evacuated. It's not just containing the reactors, a large portion of the land will probably have to be covered in cement, but the materials will still get into the sea. They're downplaying the situation in hopes that they can control it before it turns into an issue too severe to be dealt with properly (by anyone). Also, Cherbobyl's cause could have been human error, though there were many outdated items being used, and the lack of information regarding radiation that fire fighters had... ug. 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/953132--japan-meltdown-fears-draw-closer-look-at-nuclear-power-safety It's not just Canada, of course. Everyone's freaking. And there are a couple power plants in California in high-risk zones that are being talked about. Everyone's re-evaluating nuclear energy.

[The Angel Raliel]

the Japan cores are not anything like Cernobyls and thus are highly unlikely to explode..the explosions are hydrogen/oxygen explosions from superheated water and not the core.... the radiation contamination is from secondary isotopes (such as iodine) that are a by product of the nulear reaction and not the really bad stuff from the actual core

[theseeker]

Ei, sorry for being freaked out about it. There seems to be a fairly serious thing happening, and explosion or not, it's still dangerous.

[CeeGBee]

Well it IS dangerous, but not imminent-radioactive-mushroom-clouds-and-global-extermination dangerous...

The explosions we've seen HAVE released some radioactive material into the atmosphere,
but not much...  not that you'd wanna breathe the clouds of steam released there...


...and so far none of the radioactive fuel itself has escaped (uranium and plutonium), but
what of some of it does leak?

[Blue Canary]

http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fallout.asp

[Pope Totalfrog]

http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fallout.asp

That map is insane. Just insane.

[Captain Oblivious]

http://www.benlambert.co.uk/japan/

[CeeGBee]

http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fallout.asp

That map is insane. Just insane.

That map is also almost totally irrelevant to the actual situation at hand, as "full meltdown",
meaning escape of the radioactive fuel itself, is very unlikely in this case.

[Pope Totalfrog]

http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fallout.asp

That map is insane. Just insane.

That map is also almost totally irrelevant to the actual situation at hand, as "full meltdown",
meaning escape of the radioactive fuel itself, is very unlikely in this case.

Even if full meltdown occurred the consequences wouldn't be as dire as that map predicts. It is a bad, naughty map.

[CeeGBee]

http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fallout.asp

That map is insane. Just insane.

That map is also almost totally irrelevant to the actual situation at hand, as "full meltdown",
meaning escape of the radioactive fuel itself, is very unlikely in this case.

Even if full meltdown occurred the consequences wouldn't be as dire as that map predicts. It is a bad, naughty map.

I dunno....  I don't like the prospect of breathing really-radioactive air.  There's lots of barfing,
diarrhea, and oh yeah, dying....  Oh well, as long as it stays west of the Rocky Mountains.

Anybody notice that the head of the IAEA is Japanese these days?  Coincidence?

[theseeker]

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/14/explosion-heard-at-japan-nuclear-plant/

Okay, not Chernobyl-scale. Doesn't mean I can't feel bad for the people potentially affected.

[lentower]

A couple quick thoughts:
Aftershocks will be felt throughout the region, so unless you're planning to evacuate the
entire Japanese archipelago, it won't work.  Also, Japanese architecture is as close to
earthquake-safe as you'll find anywhere....  as long as it isn't asked to soak up a 9.0......

At Chernobyl, the Russians had no one to blame but poor design and inadequate maintenance,
so they tried to downplay the severity of the problem.  In Japan, they've just had an earthquake
of historical proportion, and while the power plants in question weren't immediately destroyed
or 'cracked open' by the spectacular forces applied to them, they did suffer damage that has
led to much more severe secondary issues.  There's no shame in that, and there may be some
good to come from prompt action, so they're willing to work with anyone who can help.

The Japanese should feel a lot of shame here.

There have been earthquakes of this size and perhaps larger in recorded Japanese history.
Because seismographs weren't invented yet, an exact number can't be assigned.
But the descriptions of the damage puts them in the neighborhood of this quake,
perhaps a little less intense, perhaps a little more intense.

Ditto for tsunamis in Japan.  There it's easier to say there have been larger ones.
How high the waves and mud flows went are recorded.

Nuclear is the most dangerous technology humans have made so far.
(Bio-tech is likely to succeed it.)

Nuclear plants should be designed to survive the worst disaster where they are located.
Not the most likely.

The plants in California are better designed and safer than those failing in Japan,
But they have not been designed for the worst earthquakes that occurs there.

Granted that shareholder profit, professionals that move between regulators and industry,
and the other problems that greed and ambition cause, I doubt we will ever design
nuclear power plants to be safe for the worst natural disasters.

Note that the organization with the best safety record with nuclear reactors does not have a perfect one.
The US Navy.  
The money they spend is beyond what industry can afford to spend for nuclear reactors.

Oh, the nuclear industry in the US wasn't, until Congress passed a limit on liability per plant.
It's small compared to the risk.  Yet another federal 'bailout' waiting to happen.

[N.U.]

len, please stop talking out of your ass.

This is the largest earthquake known about in Japan's history. Due to the massive differences in Japan now and Japan hundreds of years ago, you cannot look at eyewitness reports as being reflective of any size of earthquake. Feudal Japan also did not have 40% of their coastline covered by seawalls. Seawalls designed to protect from 25 foot tsunamis, not the 33 foot tsunamis they got hit with.

There comes a point where designing for the most likely top end earthquake is all you can expect to do. The Japanese, BTW, designed their reactors to be the most earthquake-resistant in the world. Yes, they should feel shame for making their reactors the most earthquake proof in the world. Yes, they should feel shame that the 180 workers who stayed behind to, literally, try and save the rest of the region will all most likely die painfully.

It's a shame we're seeing a domino effect and assuming it was the earthquake.

[lentower]

len, please stop talking out of your ass.

please get your head out of the sand.
now, can we get back to more polite
discussion without the off-point verbal pyrotechnics?

this is neither the largest earthquake
(yes, largest near Japan, measured with seismographs),
nor the largest tsunami in Japan's history.

domino effect?  not an unknown one.
when there is a large earthquake in many places, a tsunami results.
In the Japan Trench, it hits Japan shortly thereafter.
this appears to have been known and taken into account with these
reactors.  it's not designing for the maximum possible
domino effect that is the problem.

it's designing for the 'most likely' disaster instead of the
maximum possible that killed those 180+ workers.
how many more deaths happen will depend on just how much
worse this disaster gets.  
(100,000s of cancer deaths over the years are likely.)
as will how much land is unuseable for a century+.
how long radioactive fish are pulled out of the sea.
how long until people can come back inside the evacuation zone.
etc.

reactors should not be built, if they can't survive the maximum possible
natural disaster, and non-nuclear terrorism.
the costs are much too high.

oh, the maximum possible earthquakes and tsunamis
can be deduced from geologic principles, as well as
careful analysis of of eyewitness reports from Feudal Japan.
the differences can and have been accounted for in those reports.

'unknown' domino effects can be designed for.
just list the maximum possible kind of each disaster for a locale,
and see what happens if two, three, four of them all happen,
in all orders,
while a reactor is operating, or down/broken by the first one.

(what happens if a nuclear bomb goes off too close to a nuclear
reactor, just can't be stopped by any design we can afford to build.)

[Agonistes]

you just plain can't build a reactor that cannot be destroyed in a natural disaster.  nor is it possible to prepare effectively for the 'most likely'' disaster without a goddamned time machine.

first, i'm not sure i would be comfortable knowing mankind could produce something indestructible.  we haven't yet.  and secondly, anything can be disassembled.  this isn't an issue pro or con nuclear power in the first place, it's about the reality of what's going on.

it's pretty easy to point out what one thinks should have been done, and what should be done now, but the reality is what it is.  casting shame from a warm dry place in environmentalist rhetoric isn't really palatable, nor particularly effective.  nor is it accurate.

[N.U.]

len, please stop talking out of your ass.

please get your head out of the sand.
now, can we get back to more polite
discussion without the off-point verbal pyrotechnics?

this is neither the largest earthquake
(yes, largest near Japan, measured with seismographs),
nor the largest tsunami in Japan's history.

domino effect?  not an unknown one.
when there is a large earthquake in many places, a tsunami results.
In the Japan Trench, it hits Japan shortly thereafter.
this appears to have been known and taken into account with these
reactors.  it's not designing for the maximum possible
domino effect that is the problem.

it's designing for the 'most likely' disaster instead of the
maximum possible that killed those 180+ workers.
how many more deaths happen will depend on just how much
worse this disaster gets.  
(100,000s of cancer deaths over the years are likely.)
as will how much land is unuseable for a century+.
how long radioactive fish are pulled out of the sea.
how long until people can come back inside the evacuation zone.
etc.

reactors should not be built, if they can't survive the maximum possible
natural disaster, and non-nuclear terrorism.
the costs are much too high.

oh, the maximum possible earthquakes and tsunamis
can be deduced from geologic principles, as well as
careful analysis of of eyewitness reports from Feudal Japan.
the differences can and have been accounted for in those reports.

'unknown' domino effects can be designed for.
just list the maximum possible kind of each disaster for a locale,
and see what happens if two, three, four of them all happen,
in all orders,
while a reactor is operating, or down/broken by the first one.

(what happens if a nuclear bomb goes off too close to a nuclear
reactor, just can't be stopped by any design we can afford to build.)

What you're saying, len is we should go back to coal and oil-fired power plants. Whether that was your intent or not, that is exactly what you're pushing for with these laughably panicky, uninformed, and unsupported talking points.

I really think we should let this disaster in Japan fully disasterfy before discussing the future of US energy policy. I also, in no way, believe that fossil fuel energy is less harmful that nuclear energy. The IAEA doesn't, either. Nobody can prove THAT point, but that seems to be exactly what len is saying.

now len, I would like some links supporting the "facts" you have put out in here or are you simply 'soap-boxing'?

[Agonistes]

fossil fuels AND nuclear technology both exist right now because of two reasons; economics being the big one, of course, and also because well, it is the best we have, in production.

the problem isn't with supply, regarding either of these fuels; it is demand.  demand, demand, demand.  the billions of people waving cash and demanding power NOW, not in ten years when len discovers cold fusion, or we have another reasonably foolproof way of providing it, like biotech, whatever that is.  they want cars NOW, not in five years when they can run electrically or on poo or whatever.

of course the people making money on it now are all too happy to provide, but demand = supply.  always has, always will.


unhappily for the environmentalists, of course, it is usually the military that is the main proponent of technological change and refinement.  when the army stops using gasoline, there will be a demand for tech that supports whatever fuel replacement, and so will follow the rest of the culture.

[CeeGBee]

I heard an interesting commentary piece on the radio yesterday morning - I wish I could quote the
exact numbers, because they were (say I, taking them on faith) eye-opening.  The guy (on the
tree-hugging, uber-Lefty radio show) was comparing the deaths-per-unit-of-electricity-generated
by nuclear, coal and oil...  including mine-cave-ins, well explosions and the like, and even setting
aside the impossible-to-measure health costs of fossil-fuel exhaust, nuclear power comes out far
ahead...

Solar and wind are clearly the way to go, but for now, I'm happy with nukes (which get safer every
year as they improve containment, backups, sensors and fail-safe systems...)

[N.U.]

Not to mention that nuclear energy was developed as an afterthought to developing nuclear weapons. Focusing on it directly has allowed countries like Japan and France to make leaps ahead in nuclear energy.

And just so we're clear, the Japan accident was not caused by the earthquake nor the tsunami. They definitely lent a hand but it was the lack of power for the water pumps that is the real culprit here.

Focusing on conversion tech allowing us to take nuclear waste and essentially recycle it into usable fuel again is the future of nuclear energy if we'll allow it to be developed and not hide in the sand again.

Solar and Wind are not efficient enough (yet) to be a viable alternative for the amount of power production that nuclear provides.

Wind's biggest hurdle is that there are only three spots on the planet that give the most bang for the buck: The North Sea, Northern CO/Southern WY, and Mongolia. There are many spots that will eventually become profitable but require years of constant generation to get to that point. Eastern Montana is one of those places (I was looking into investing in the technology and building there), but the turbines themselves are still prohibitively expensive to build (lots of fossil fuels burned/used to manufacture), transport(half the loads are wide loads requiring specialized permits/drivers), and maintain (anyone who maintains the turbines once in place get paid very high fees doe to the height off the ground where their job takes them). All of this is the result of my researching the tech because I wanted to invest. Not as happy and convenient as pseudo-scientific talking points, but still.

Solar's biggest issue is one of efficiency. Solar in practical use tops out at around 21% efficiency. Meaning for every 100 kw the solar cell takes in it generates 21 kw. That sort of efficiency makes it impossible for solar to produce the same electricity with the same footprint as nuclear or fossil fuel plants. There is talk of a theoretical solar cell tech that is close to 80% efficient, but no practical models have been constructed. If that sort of solar tech were to become widely available, we could get rid of the majority of fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, but we're not there yet.

[The Angel Raliel]

funnily enough it is relatively easy to build power stations that use  our waste but for some reason everyone sees them as bad even though they are less polluting than fossil fuel generators and actively get rid of the millions of tonnes of trash we so wastefully chuck into landfills at the moment

[CeeGBee]

Solar and Wind are not efficient enough (yet) to be a viable alternative for the amount of power production that nuclear provides.

Wind's biggest hurdle is that there are only three spots on the planet that give the most bang for the buck: The North Sea, Northern CO/Southern WY, and Mongolia. There are many spots that will eventually become profitable but require years of constant generation to get to that point. Eastern Montana is one of those places (I was looking into investing in the technology and building there), but the turbines themselves are still prohibitively expensive to build (lots of fossil fuels burned/used to manufacture), transport(half the loads are wide loads requiring specialized permits/drivers), and maintain (anyone who maintains the turbines once in place get paid very high fees doe to the height off the ground where their job takes them). All of this is the result of my researching the tech because I wanted to invest. Not as happy and convenient as pseudo-scientific talking points, but still.

Solar's biggest issue is one of efficiency. Solar in practical use tops out at around 21% efficiency. Meaning for every 100 kw the solar cell takes in it generates 21 kw. That sort of efficiency makes it impossible for solar to produce the same electricity with the same footprint as nuclear or fossil fuel plants. There is talk of a theoretical solar cell tech that is close to 80% efficient, but no practical models have been constructed. If that sort of solar tech were to become widely available, we could get rid of the majority of fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, but we're not there yet.

True, but also largely distortion spread by the nice people who want to make sure you & I have
to keep paying them for power each month.  Very simple, small, literally 'bolt-on', wind-driven
generating units are available today that can, without grossly disfiguring your home, put a significant
dent in your monthly electric bill.  Likewise, rooftop solar cells are extremely cost-effective in most
of the United States...  and, like all this other stuff, these devices are getting cheaper, more efficient,
and easier to make every year.

I hate to sound like some paranoid tree-hugging hippie, but do you really believe for a second that the
oil companies, the coal companies (like the one that just convinced my state legislature to prohibit the
testing of streams near coal mining operations for runoff toxins), and the electric utilities themselves
aren't doing everything they can to keep people from adopting these technologies?

[N.U.]

Are you kidding? I guarantee they are doing everything to keep folks on the fossil fuel teat. The voters of Colorado had to force Excel energy via voter mandate (80% for) to produce a minimum of 10% of their power from renewable resources, even with all the warning from Excel that our electric bills would go up by 20%. Guess what? They didn't go up at all. In my state, personal solar requires about a $25,000 outlay to start with, just so your power storage is what is considered "safe", even if you end up feeding the grid (which is what 99 % of people who have some sort of solar build). Basically that means you are required pay for something you don't need if the power company is going to pay you back for the power you generate. Pretty crappy that they end up holding all the cards in this arrangement.

It is my personal belief that the future of US energy policy must be a decentralized model with households everywhere generating clean power through various means (Solar/wind/tidal/water wheel) to reduce the need to draw form the large polluting energy producers. I even have my own condo HOA looking to get solar panels placed on all the roofs to reduce the common area power consumption to almost 0.

[Agonistes]

I hate to sound like some paranoid tree-hugging hippie, but do you really believe for a second that the
oil companies, the coal companies (like the one that just convinced my state legislature to prohibit the
testing of streams near coal mining operations for runoff toxins), and the electric utilities themselves
aren't doing everything they can to keep people from adopting these technologies?

of course they don't want anyone making money off what they are doing, no matter how clean or efficient it might be.  the auto industry has already proven that fact.  remember the fuel-efficient carburetor?  the one that got a hundred miles to the gallon or whatever?  no you don't, because when a guy in florida invented it, chrystler bought it for a sweaty wad of cash, tossed it in a vault, and told the guy he could never make another one, on pain of getting sued all the way through next century.

this, of course, is one of the main reasons for governmental overhaul.  the fact that these guys are working with our politicians basically contributes towards making our politicians criminals.  not that they aren't already criminals, but we're not watching them closely enough.  politics should not mean privacy; in fact quite the opposite.

this is basically what i mean by demand.  these guys couldn't get away with this kind of thing if consumers decided not to let them.  we actually, as consumers, have the power to take their business away, period, without striking a blow...if we could stand a few days without power, to show them we didn't need them.  they couldn't keep selling fossil fuel cars if we didn't keep buying them right up and leasing them.  fixing things is going to be a group effort, unless we just keep on as we are and allow everything to grind to a halt before we realize it's time to give up immediate gratification for smarter, more efficient fuel.

we're probably moving soon, and my first order of business is to power my shed without electricity.  oh by the way--did i mention the (mostly hydro) power company around here is an illegal monopoly?

[N.U.]

it is not illegal. It is a sanctioned public/private partnership, which is how utility companies avoid anti-trust violations.

[Agonistes]

it is not illegal. It is a sanctioned public/private partnership, which is how utility companies avoid anti-trust violations.

in other words, it's still completely illegal, except they have a note from their mom.

[N.U.]

Even better. They got a note from the federal government that says "yes, this would normally be a violation except we say it isn't"

[Agonistes]

Even better. They got a note from the federal government that says "yes, this would normally be a violation except we say it isn't"

i want the federal government to be my mom.  i've wanted goddamn diplomatic immunity all my life.  not so i can kill anyone or anything.  i just want to park wherever i want.

[Pope Totalfrog]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/5sakN2hSVxA" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/5sakN2hSVxA</a>

[lentower]

have a read
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/weekinreview/20chernobyl.html

a large part of why we we won't ever be
able to use this technology safely

[N.U.]

That article fails to mention the difference in the Chernobyl reactor and the Fukushima reactors.

[Agonistes]

remember when ronald reagan took the solar panels off the white house in 86 or so?  the ones jimmy carter installed around '77?

[N.U.]

To be fair, they never had the cost benefit they were advertised as having.

[Agonistes]

yeah but how awesome would it be for obama to put them up now that we have them better-made and so on and so forth?


not that he will, but it would be awesome.

[CeeGBee]

I dunno...  They planted a garden up there.  Solar panels could be a logical next step.

[Agonistes]

are you sure?  i planted a fig tree and braided a wisteria a few weeks ago and never felt the urge to rewire anything.

[CeeGBee]

Yes, but your fruit trees are actually fruit trees, not political statements....


Or are they political statements?

[Agonistes]

some would argue that everything is a political statement.  a fig tree is definitely a metaphor, but i'm not sure a wisteria is a fruit, nor a tree.

[theseeker]

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/22/chernobyl-cleanup-survivors-message-for-japan-run-away-as-qui/?ncid=webmail

I feel like I'm off-topic now

[lentower]

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/22/chernobyl-cleanup-survivors-message-for-japan-run-away-as-qui/?ncid=webmail

I feel like I'm off-topic now

Nothing wrong with thread hijacking.

And this is QUITE on topic.

[N.U.]

except that the Chernobyl reactor and Fukushima reactors are of entirely different designs.

[lentower]

except that the Chernobyl reactor and Fukushima reactors are of entirely different designs.

makes much less difference than you think

[N.U.]

len, not one "fact" that you've mentioned in this thread has had any supporting evidence presented by you, which means either:

1. You're too lazy to post links, which makes for bad debate or presentation.
2. You're unable to find supporting links, which means you're voicing unsubstantiated statements (i.e. opinions), which makes for bad debate or presentation.

Read and Learn, please.

[theseeker]

except that the Chernobyl reactor and Fukushima reactors are of entirely different designs.

Agreed completely. They don't even talk about in that article.

That doesn't mean radiation has no side effects, or that the Japanese government's going to tell everyone what's up...

[CeeGBee]

len, not one "fact" that you've mentioned in this thread has had any supporting evidence presented by you, which means either:

1. You're too lazy to post links, which makes for bad debate or presentation.
2. You're unable to find supporting links, which means you're voicing unsubstantiated statements (i.e. opinions), which makes for bad debate or presentation.

argument ad hominem...  Logically invalid, and somewhat rude.....
Let's try to keep the name-calling and similar flaming to a minimum, please?
[Damn...  Sorry: once again, I am not 'that kind' of mod, and the appeal
for civility is that of a normal user, with no force in law.]

Read and Learn, please.

Most informative.  I'd assumed most of this material in a general sense, but it's nice
to have actual factual material to back up optimistic assumptions.

[lentower]

len, not one "fact" that you've mentioned in this thread has had any supporting evidence presented by you, which means either:

1. You're too lazy to post links, which makes for bad debate or presentation.
2. You're unable to find supporting links, which means you're voicing unsubstantiated statements (i.e. opinions), which makes for bad debate or presentation.

argument ad hominem...  Logically invalid, and somewhat rude.....
Let's try to keep the name-calling and similar flaming to a minimum, please?
[Damn...  Sorry: once again, I am not 'that kind' of mod, and the appeal
for civility is that of a normal user, with no force in law.]

ftr, Cee has been a proponent of civility on this board, since before I joined it.

Read and Learn, please.

Most informative.  I'd assumed most of this material in a general sense, but it's nice
to have actual factual material to back up optimistic assumptions.l

yes, this reactor design is different from Chernobyl.
but it doesn't matter much.

more when I have some time.

[lentower]

btw, for those intrigued by this technology,
you might want to look into thorium reactors,
compared to other research designs

for reasons,
that have more to do with lobbying,
they have yet to go into commercial use

[Agonistes]

i for one would be fascinated to read something by proponents of alternative power sources other than nuclear, and what their objection to nuclear power is (and why they assume one plant is the same as another).







shhhh, cee, calm down.....there has been no name-calling.  adjectives are not names.  frustration is not the same as actual persecution.

[CeeGBee]

i for one would be fascinated to read something by proponents of alternative power sources other than nuclear, and what their objection to nuclear power is (and why they assume one plant is the same as another).

Well, they do have some similarities...  if you crack open the fuel containment of virtually any nuke plant,
very bad things can happen.  Plutonium (present in the Japanese reactors, not at Chernobyl) burns pretty
much immediately when exposed to oxygen, creating spectacularly toxic smoke... There are safer plants
and less-safe, but all have the risk of very very very bad if a number of everyday sort of things just happen
to go wrong all at the same time - imagine if your house would explode if it ever ocurred that you had
a blown fuse, backed-up drain, and locked-up computer at the same time.

That said, historically, nukes are safe.  The systems that would have to glitch to create a worst-case are
massively redundant, and there are lots of fail-safes, and every time something happens like this Fukushima
business, or 3MI, or Chernobyl, or the ones most people don't hear about, they learn more about what can
go wrong and how to keep it from happening.

shhhh, cee, calm down.....there has been no name-calling.  adjectives are not names.  frustration is not the same as actual persecution.

Sorry, ah tend to forget that some of our fellows heah are (pardon the phrase) yankees,
and westerners and such, and occasionally use less-civil language in civil discussion.

[Agonistes]

i for one would be fascinated to read something by proponents of alternative power sources other than nuclear, and what their objection to nuclear power is (and why they assume one plant is the same as another).

Well, they do have some similarities...  if you crack open the fuel containment of virtually any nuke plant,
very bad things can happen.  Plutonium (present in the Japanese reactors, not at Chernobyl) burns pretty
much immediately when exposed to oxygen, creating spectacularly toxic smoke... There are safer plants
and less-safe, but all have the risk of very very very bad if a number of everyday sort of things just happen
to go wrong all at the same time - imagine if your house would explode if it ever ocurred that you had
a blown fuse, backed-up drain, and locked-up computer at the same time.

That said, historically, nukes are safe.  The systems that would have to glitch to create a worst-case are
massively redundant, and there are lots of fail-safes, and every time something happens like this Fukushima
business, or 3MI, or Chernobyl, or the ones most people don't hear about, they learn more about what can
go wrong and how to keep it from happening.

i get what went wrong.  and i know of at least one american nuclear power plant that hasn't reported a huge geiger-counter reading reading in a corner of a locker room, or something, that took something like ten years to clean up.  i don't know any numbers, but it wasn't something you want to carry home stuck to your collar.

i'm really, in the instance of my own ass, more concerned about the chemical weapons incinerator nearby (and inclinations some local yahoos have found that hey, it might be a source of power!).  because conceivably, if they do find a way to power this strip of land with the wretched thing, my computer could lock up and cause ww2 to get broken open and spill out everywhere.  yes, ww2, they're still disposing of leaky canisters of mustard gas.  they havent even gotten to the vietnam junk.  it's been rumored since i was a child that the depot has drums of that stuff stored underground--within ten miles of my damn house.

hey, i wonder if the incinerator and chemical weapons storage is built to survive a worst case scenario disaster?

shhhh, cee, calm down.....there has been no name-calling.  adjectives are not names.  frustration is not the same as actual persecution.

Sorry, ah tend to forget that some of our fellows heah are (pardon the phrase) yankees,
and westerners and such, and occasionally use less-civil language in civil discussion.

i knows it.  it's been a culture shock since i got here.  the internet, i mean.  certain unexplainable civilities you take for granted just don't exist on the interwebs.  nice job whipping out the latin, however.

[CeeGBee]

Do y'all have any stuff from THE War (War of Northern Agression, Regional Unpleasantness, whatever)
in your neck o' the woods? Every few years, somone here digs up an unexploded shell... The last guy
tried to use a band-saw to cut open a 10" mortar shell - blew off both his legs, one arm, bled out before
the rescue squad got there...  and dropped a large chunk of jagged iron through his neighbors' roof.
Granted, that stuff is all just black powder...  If you want ancient unstable chemical weapons, you
should go to Belgium, where I understand people still routinely plow up WW1 munitions, both explosive
and chemical of various sorts... A little light reading, if the subject interests you....


...and of course, there's also "Anthrax Island" off Scotland...
They say it's safe, but I think I shall leave it off my itinerary should I ever manage to visit Scotland.

[lentower]

len, not one "fact" that you've mentioned in this thread has had any supporting evidence presented by you, which means either:

1. You're too lazy to post links, which makes for bad debate or presentation.
2. You're unable to find supporting links, which means you're voicing unsubstantiated statements (i.e. opinions), which makes for bad debate or presentation.

argument ad hominem...  Logically invalid, and somewhat rude.....
Let's try to keep the name-calling and similar flaming to a minimum, please?
[Damn...  Sorry: once again, I am not 'that kind' of mod, and the appeal
for civility is that of a normal user, with no force in law.]

ftr, Cee has been a proponent of civility on this board, since before I joined it.

N.U.

Cee is right: "argument ad hominem...  Logically invalid, and somewhat rude....."

also some what arrogant:
no one will ever tell me how to post to this board,
or how to make my arguments here,
though I see the wisdom in
http://www.theshadowbox.net/forum/index.php?topic=12409.0
and respect it

also some what narrow minded:
there are many, many reasons why i or someone else
might choose to not do things your way,
beyond those you state

how i spend my time is my choice

how i invest my time is my choice

not yours

previous posts of yours in this thread about me,
if read literally, has you putting "words in my mouth"
stating that i believe things, I haven't said

Agonistes may be right, and your behavior is due
to frustration

what ever the reason for your behavior,
it is NOT constructive


i realize,
that what i do not post may not change your mind,
etc.

but i have found in almost 62 years of life,
that people who demand that you play by their rules
often aren't open to other's point of views

[Agonistes]

Do y'all have any stuff from THE War (War of Northern Agression, Regional Unpleasantness, whatever)
in your neck o' the woods? Every few years, somone here digs up an unexploded shell... The last guy
tried to use a band-saw to cut open a 10" mortar shell - blew off both his legs, one arm, bled out before
the rescue squad got there...  and dropped a large chunk of jagged iron through his neighbors' roof.
Granted, that stuff is all just black powder...  If you want ancient unstable chemical weapons, you
should go to Belgium, where I understand people still routinely plow up WW1 munitions, both explosive
and chemical of various sorts... A little light reading, if the subject interests you....


...and of course, there's also "Anthrax Island" off Scotland...
They say it's safe, but I think I shall leave it off my itinerary should I ever manage to visit Scotland.

not long ago i visited a battlefield near atmore that was as yet un-forensic-ed.  it seems nowadays they can trace every single bullet back to the rifle it came from, almost to the name of every soldier who fired, and how many times.  you're allowed to clamber about on the breastworks, but no digging, and no carrying away anything interesting you see lying around.

there were also a few areas we couldn't go into because of possible ordinance.  i was fine with that; it was godawful hot.

honestly, ill probably skip the reading.  shit we leave lying around tends to get redundant.  at least no one's come up with the bright idea of jettisoning dangerous things into space, who knows who we will piss off then.

[lentower]

Do y'all have any stuff from THE War (War of Northern Agression, Regional Unpleasantness, whatever)
in your neck o' the woods? Every few years, somone here digs up an unexploded shell... The last guy
tried to use a band-saw to cut open a 10" mortar shell - blew off both his legs, one arm, bled out before
the rescue squad got there...  and dropped a large chunk of jagged iron through his neighbors' roof.
Granted, that stuff is all just black powder...  If you want ancient unstable chemical weapons, you
should go to Belgium, where I understand people still routinely plow up WW1 munitions, both explosive
and chemical of various sorts... A little light reading, if the subject interests you....


...and of course, there's also "Anthrax Island" off Scotland...
They say it's safe, but I think I shall leave it off my itinerary should I ever manage to visit Scotland.

it's good to have a southern gentleman on the board

in this vein, go take
POLL: How close to a nuclear reactor are you willing to live?

[lentower]

just came across my twitter:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-23/fukushima-engineer-says-he-covered-up-flaw-at-shut-reactor.html

of course, this incident needs more investigation,

but do you really believe this kind of coverup and cutting corners on safety
hasn't happen, often enough,
with nuclear reactor builds and operation?

[show me]

It seems like everything has stabilized now.  No more 24 hour streaming news on tv about the plant.

[Agonistes]

just came across my twitter:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-23/fukushima-engineer-says-he-covered-up-flaw-at-shut-reactor.html

of course, this incident needs more investigation,

but do you really believe this kind of coverup and cutting corners on safety
hasn't happen, often enough,
with nuclear reactor builds and operation?

i'd be willing to bet money it's happened more than a few times in america.  of course, this is a country entirely built by the lowest bidder.

[The Angel Raliel]

on the subject of weapons establishments....there is a large chunk of Salisbury plain in Wiltshire that is home to our wonderful biological weapons and research establishment...Portham Down over the decades all sorts of nasties have escaped from there and been quietly hushed up....green monkey disease (human strain)being but one

[Pope Totalfrog]

on the subject of weapons establishments....there is a large chunk of Salisbury plain in Wiltshire that is home to our wonderful biological weapons and research establishment...Portham Down over the decades all sorts of nasties have escaped from there and been quietly hushed up....green monkey disease (human strain)being but one

Please tell me it actually turns you into a green monkey.

[N.U.]

but i have found in almost 62 years of life,
that people who demand that you play by their rules
often aren't open to other's point of views

interesting. I will wait (but not too patiently) for evidence supporting your assertions.

[lentower]

It seems like everything has stabilized now.  No more 24 hour streaming news on tv about the plant.

the 24 hour screaming news cycle is now focused on Libya.
so many more people are effected by the the natural and nuclear disasters in Japan ...

the reactors are not 'stabilized' yet.  it will be a while.
not clear if any of them can be returned to service,
or what the long term costs to Japan will be.

[N.U.]

My prediction is None of those reactors will be returned to service due to their using Seawater (which is HIGHLY corrosive) in their attempts to keep the fuel rods cool.

It's just my prediction, but all the experts have been saying essentially the same thing. Introduction of Seawater is their last effort to keep things cool but, even if 100% successful, the reactors can never be used as reactors again.

[lentower]

My prediction is None of those reactors will be returned to service due to their using Seawater (which is HIGHLY corrosive) in their attempts to keep the fuel rods cool.

It's just my prediction, but all the experts have been saying essentially the same thing. Introduction of Seawater is their last effort to keep things cool but, even if 100% successful, the reactors can never be used as reactors again.

it's not clear if the seawater was added inside the core,
or outside the core.  either would help cooling.
and it might be different for each reactor

if outside, a reactor can be repaired

the combination of the news being managed and not transparent,
and it being given in Japanese in the Japanese manner,
has left this unclear to date

[N.U.]

I'll give the Japanese govt kudos for controlling the message, but the lack of transparency really rubs me the wrong way.

[Agonistes]

on the subject of weapons establishments....there is a large chunk of Salisbury plain in Wiltshire that is home to our wonderful biological weapons and research establishment...Portham Down over the decades all sorts of nasties have escaped from there and been quietly hushed up....green monkey disease (human strain)being but one

wow, i would so rather live near chemical weapons than bio.  do they pass out 'shelter in place' kits there?  we used to get gasmasks, now we only get duct tape, a tag for the front door, a holiday inn towel, and some plastic, so you can seal all the air out of a room and they know where to find all the bodies.

[N.U.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats_Plant

This is just a couple of miles from Downtown Denver, CO. Quite eye-opening.

[Agonistes]

that's a sexy roomful of computers.  what is that magnificent seventies technology for, a calculator?


i cant help but wonder if it still looks about the same technology.

[N.U.]

no. All the buildings were dismantled.

[Agonistes]

yeah, i read more after i posted and felt like a jackass.


once they took a field trip to fort mclellan, which is in my town, like actually in it.  parts of it are for sale by the way.  anyway they had this giant-ass computer into which they singled out one of the class (me) and fed names into it.  it produced about a foot of paper (stacked, not length.  computer printer paper used to be perforated and come in a long-ass roll in the dark ages.  it was very wide, had lines of holes on the edges, and was striped green and white, and when it came out of the printer it would fold itself into a stack.  you hoped.) on the subject of five-year-old me.  eerie.

i remember you had to type out a card with a typewriter that violently punched holes in it, and then give the computer the card to enter a command.  there were no monitors anywhere at all.

[N.U.]

Think that's bad? Try needing to feed a stack of cards into the computer in order, only to have someone come by and scatter the cards to the 4 winds.

[Agonistes]

Think that's bad? Try needing to feed a stack of cards into the computer in order, only to have someone come by and scatter the cards to the 4 winds.

in 1980, the redstone arsenal computer in huntsville, alabama was a hewlitt-packard.  i still have a drawing it made of my name because omg it would print in DIFFERENT COLORS OMG

[N.U.]

late 1930s Fiesta dinnerware. Bright, happy colors. Pulled after discovering they were also radioactive.

...Fiesta is well-known for having contained significant amounts of radioactive materials in some of its glazes. It was described as "one of the most radioactive commercial products you could buy." Uranium oxides were used for its red-orange glaze...

[CeeGBee]

late 1930s Fiesta dinnerware. Bright, happy colors. Pulled after discovering they were also radioactive.

...Fiesta is well-known for having contained significant amounts of radioactive materials in some of its glazes. It was described as "one of the most radioactive commercial products you could buy." Uranium oxides were used for its red-orange glaze...

I've always sorta wanted a few pieces of vaseline glass, just to say I had 'em.....

...and maybe a few pairs of lead undies....


Edit:  YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK (no, seriously...  Just search for "pottery"...)

[Agonistes]

i hope that when we discover cold fusion, the power source or core or whatever is a sickly luminous blue glow instead of a sickly green glow.  i'm getting really tired of the green.

[imaginary friend]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZJNOC6omJU0" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/ZJNOC6omJU0</a>


 

#@!

[The Angel Raliel]

I think that much of what portham Down gets up to is all kind officially nonexistent so they do not really feel the urge to make locals aware of what they are up to

[lentower]

today's news is that things are worse than previously reported:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/world/asia/26japan.html

[lentower]

this article is worth a read too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/world/asia/27nuke.html

[lentower]

worth the 55 minutes, if you can see video on your
computer, or get PBS on your TV
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/japan-killer-quake.html

very little on the reactor, mostly on the tsunami and the earthquake.
the big new fact to me, is that the northeast coast of japan
subsided/lowered/dropped three feet in elevation during the earthquake,
which let the tsunami do a lot more damage

there is also an estuary in Japan that had (mostly has) thirty feet
high tsunami walls,
which after the earthquake were three feet too short

this is from NOVA, a PBS science hour produced here in Boston by WGBH.
like with many of the PBS web pages, there is a lot of extra material.
i haven't looked at it (yet?), but it's usually worth the time

i suspect there will be a NOVA on the reactor disaster in Japan
in a year or two, after the reactors are as stable as they can be,
and journalism can get behind the corporate and governement
'smokescreen'

######################################################################

on ABC news about 3am earlier in the week,
they mentioned a tsunami in the 8th century AD
on that coast of Japan, that was at least as high

also that TEPCO, the reactors operators,
thought it too unlikely to occur again,
when having the reactor designed.

since a reactor sight has to be kept
safe for a 100,000 years after it's
decommissioned - that's adds to their negligence

[lentower]

from the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/asia/06nuclear.html
U.S. Sees Array of New Threats at Japan’s Nuclear Plant

as i suspected this disaster is getting worse.

i suspect it will continue to for a year or two,
until it's gotten under "control".

that is, what the problems and costs will be for generations.

[N.U.]

I think they're going to be stuck simply burying the raectors under thousands of tons of cement at this point.

[lentower]

I think they're going to be stuck simply burying the raectors under thousands of tons of cement at this point.

Like Chernobyl,
and they will also have the problem of water pollution ....

[imaginary friend]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42498312/ns/world_news-asiapacific



#@!

[lentower]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42498312/ns/world_news-asiapacific



#@!

sad, that no one looked out for him

[lentower]

from http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/04/11/world/asia/AP-AS-Japan-Earthquake-Rating.html
Japan to Raise Alert Level of Nuclear Crisis, Reports Say
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 11, 2011 at 8:33 PM ET

TOKYO (AP) — News reports say Japan has decided to raise the severity level of the crisis at its tsunami-stricken nuclear power plant to 7 — the highest level and equal to the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union.

Quoting sources at Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, Kyodo News agency and public broadcaster NHK both said Tuesday that NISA would raise the severity level of the nuclear radiation disaster at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant to 7 from the current 5.

NISA spokesman Minoru Oogoda declined to confirm the reports.

[The Angel Raliel]

massive note.....this is not and has never been a chernobyl style meltdown....the levelof disaster has been raised to the maximum limit due to full appraisal of the environment....it is still producing at most 10% of chernobyl radiation levels..
7 is the max on the scale so a full nuclear explosion from a reactor would also rank at 7
it is terrible and a complete disaster but constant comparisons to the core explosion of chernobyl are simplistic and fear mongering

[N.U.]

and inaccurate.

[lentower]

massive note.....this is not and has never been a chernobyl style meltdown....the levelof disaster has been raised to the maximum limit due to full appraisal of the environment....it is still producing at most 10% of chernobyl radiation levels..
7 is the max on the scale so a full nuclear explosion from a reactor would also rank at 7
it is terrible and a complete disaster but constant comparisons to the core explosion of chernobyl are simplistic and fear mongering

you all are way too sensitive about this.

all this news flash is saying about Chernobyl is that it was the last time
a level 7 was assigned.


i suspect the major difference between this disaster in Japan and Chernobyl
will end up being much less radioactive fall out in the air.
Oh, and more than one reactor being mothballed imperfectly.

[N.U.]

in fact, it's the ONLY time a level 7 has been established.

I fully expect a new classification system to result from the Fukushima disaster.

[The Angel Raliel]

indeed I am sure it has a lot to do with UK s sending conflicting messages and constantly using the chernobyl model as comparison .....anyway....what is possibly more worrying is that the tectonics plates have clearly not settled at all and the chances of major volcanic/earthquake activity along other faultlines is GREATLY increased.......

[lentower]

Physicist Reviews Nuclear Meltdowns
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/science/12nuclear.html

gives a brief history of the
non-secret (close to non-military) core meltdowns,
and some numbers on how often they might
happen - several different sets of numbers.

(the ny times is now behind a pay wall,
 but non-subscribers get 20(?) free articles a month.
 for that reason, i've been posting fewer ny times links,
 than are worth reading.
 apologies if they require a free account for the access.
 if they aren't, it might be cookie based,
 and blanking out your nytimes.com and associated cookies
 could get reset the free article counter,
)

[N.U.]

interesting article, but a good deal of it stuck the mathematician in me as "fun with statistics" rather than cold, hard facts. Good read, though, len! Thanks!

[lentower]

Culture of Complicity Tied to Stricken Nuclear Plant
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/world/asia/27collusion.html?pagewanted=all

This is a problem elsewhere as well.
As I said before:
profit and safety in the nuclear industry don't co-exist

[N.U.]

Safety = expense
expense =/= profit

[lentower]

Safety = expense
expense =/= profit

yes.

exactly why we should not be building nuclear reactors

[N.U.]

Power should either be:

A: completely private, actual competition or
B: completely public, meaning no competition and no profit.

[lentower]

Power should either be:

A: completely private, actual competition or
B: completely public, meaning no competition and no profit.

neither ensures safety.
safety is usually higher,
when a public agency has the power
to enforce it

[N.U.]

True. But then profit shouldn't come into it.

[lentower]

True. But then profit shouldn't come into it.

guess, we disagree about this.

to me, if you have the goals of both competition/profit and safety,
you need two separate entities.  one responsible for each goal.

[Shock G]

True. But then profit shouldn't come into it.

guess, we disagree about this.

to me, if you have the goals of both competition/profit and safety,
you need two separate entities.  one responsible for each goal.

But as we have seen in countless industries the companies will look at every path they can take to maximize profits and just barely pass the regulations....if at all.

[lentower]

http://www.babelation.com/feed/center-public-integrity-more-likely-nuclear-nightmare

[lentower]

more about why nuclear power is a bad idea
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/world/asia/17japan.html

[N.U.]

How many folks have died from either the Fukushima or Three Mile Island accidents?

Hint: it's less than 1.

[CeeGBee]

How many folks have died from either the Fukushima or Three Mile Island accidents?

Hint: it's less than 1.

Actually, a Fukushima worker died last week (but initial reports say it had nothing to do with
the radiation leakage or anything like that - dunno whether to believe that or not).

[J_Beck]

more about why nuclear power can be a bad idea
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/world/asia/17japan.html

I fixed the post for you, no worries  

Nuclear power has dangers, as do all our current methods of generation.  The issue is where are the safest places for such plants, and ironically the most successful push to close one down is in one of these safer areas with the Yankee plant in Vermont, while we have some on the ocean/major fault lines.

[lentower]

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/19/4132989/medical-journal-article-14000.html

The US population is about 4.4% of the world population,
so that's about 300,000+ world wide.