Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Cooling plant fails at yet another Japanese reactor. I'll be in my bunker   (cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, doses, nuclear reactors, Explainer, Japanese, presumptions, fuel rods  
•       •       •

6142 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Mar 2011 at 5:25 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



472 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2011-03-14 07:10:32 AM  

PH Neutral: The sadest thing to me about this whole situation (well, maybe not the saddest but it's up there) is that there are people like Corvus who get excited when tragedy happens. I bet he popped a goddamned boner and jizzed himself every time a report came in that a nuclear plant was having trouble.

Nice of you making personal attacks against me.

That's usually what people do when they have no logical reply to make.

You think people should be attacked if they question safety of nuclear power plants in the US or their costs?\

I wish thousands of people were not being evacuated from their homes because of nuclear radiation and I don't want to see it happen here.

That's not "being happy about a disaster" that's learning lessons from history.
 
2011-03-14 07:10:34 AM  

Corvus: Seussie: Also, I hope you guys are right, and they're safe as houses, because:

Link (new window)

General Electric-designed reactors in Fukushima have 23 sisters in U.S.

But aren't you reading the thread, "it can't happen here", just because.


Give a reason it can. Explain where a 9.0 quake followed by a super-tsunami is going to come from for any of those plants.

Maybe some other disaster can happen, but can you at least back up something you say with something other than your word? You seem like a total nut the way you choose to call everything a lie rather than attempting to make your point constructively.
 
2011-03-14 07:10:46 AM  

Corvus: aphexcoil: Corvus,

You are getting hysterical.

Let's just agree that you're wrong and over-exaggerating the dangers of nuclear power. One day we might get thorium based fuel reactors or possibly even fusion based reactors. We won't get there with ignorance fueled paranoia.

So what is happening in Japan right now is a lie?


Funny how people are trying to spin that what is happening in Japan now is not actually happening.

How is pointing out what is actually happening is "exaggerating"?


I never said everything was peachy-keen in Japan with the nuclear reactors. There are some issues that need to be worked out. However, you're taking one data point and globalizing it into something greater than what it is.

Here are the facts:

* Nobody has died from radiation leakage
* 10,000+ people have died from the tsunami and the earthquake

Are coastal areas always safe? No? Then why did we build so many cities on them? Because it's economically the best decision (for transportation, trade, etc.)

Are nuclear plants always safe? No? Well they're the best economic decision for power *AS OF RIGHT NOW*

What are you suggesting? I really want to know what you are suggesting? Should we just turn off all the nuclear plants? You want to cover half the U.S. in solar panels and increase global warming due to the extra heat generated from absorption of energy from the sun? Did anyone do a study on that?

We know the dangers and benefits of nuclear technology because it is a tried and proven science.
 
2011-03-14 07:11:00 AM  
raab:
Can your house atomize an F4 Phantom?

Why, no, no it can't!

/good one
 
2011-03-14 07:11:24 AM  

Corvus: That's usually what people do when they have no logical reply to make.


www.thelibertyvoice.com
 
2011-03-14 07:12:27 AM  

Corvus: I can't believe this bullshiat.


You'll get over it.
 
2011-03-14 07:13:38 AM  

Asplenium: Corvus: aphexcoil: Corvus:

...

C) this is a lie. I pointed out earlier and magically everyone ignored it. Nuclear energy is not cheap. The US government has wasted millions on looking at waste storage. Also costs like dismantling the stations after they are old is not figured in the cost and this is expensive. I pay a "tax" for this and will be paying one for years if not decades. Everyone else will be too that is why they are pushing for new nuclear now before everyone starts seeing "Nuclear plant dismantle taxes" on their electric bills and find out the real costs.

...

They've already got an optimal storage facility built. It's called Yucca Mountain (probably something about nuclear waste storage after that). It might have cost millions, but it's done now and too late to regain that money. It'll hold a lot of waste, and is in a perfect spot. EXCEPT, alarmists in Nevada don't want waste stored in their state, so they cock-blocked it. So it's pretty much empty right now.


Yes the plant that was killed. Millions (probably billions) of tax payer dollars gone to wasting in the planning of it (no I am not saying building the facility that electricity consumers paid for).

There is still no location.
 
2011-03-14 07:14:20 AM  

Tamyu: You know, it is really irritating to me to see people out there saying that Japan should have planned for this as it is a "fact of life" here...

If it were a normal "fact of life" for seriously massive earthquakes and tsunami to happen I am pretty sure this wouldn`t have been the first in 100+ years.

Earthquakes and tsunami ARE a fact of life and a regular occurrence. Earthquakes and tsunami of THAT SIZE simply are not. If they were, people sure as hell wouldn`t have been living along the coast.

People planned for something huge... And something even larger came along, together with bad luck.


There is a huge chance a earth quake of this magnitude will happen on the west coast in the next 20 years.

Humans suffer from the herd mentality. They naturally group together and build where it's convenient for them. Safety is not the first concern.
 
2011-03-14 07:14:21 AM  
Jesus Christ. Corvus, when the hell did you go off your rocker? God help you if you're trolling.

/A lot of people are dead. This isn't the place to have some stupid 'my energy is safer than your energy' dick-waving contest for fark's sake. Stow it already and stop making yourself look like a gigantic ass.
/Still haven't heard about a friend of mine who might have been in Sendai. Getting really tired of people ranting about shiat they don't know jack about while waiting.
 
2011-03-14 07:15:17 AM  

Corvus: Yes the plant that was killed. Millions (probably billions) of tax payer dollars gone to wasting in the planning of it (no I am not saying building the facility that electricity consumers paid for).

There is still no location.


Because of people getting hysterical about nuclear power. Just like you.
 
2011-03-14 07:15:35 AM  
Interesting article from the NYT: Radioactive Releases in Japan Could Last Months, Experts Say. So, take into account when making your arguments please, that it looks like the best case scenario right now involves releasing radioactive steam repeatedly, and that steam will become more and more contaminated as time goes on.

What really ticks me off is how every step of the way, nuclear proponents say "well, this is the worst thing that can happen, it won't get any worse" and anyone that dares look forward to see what might happen beyond that point is 'fearmongering'.

The situation is getting worse every day, and I sincerely look forward to the day that it stops getting worse, because a nuclear disaster isn't worth any 'I told you so' smugness.
 
2011-03-14 07:15:43 AM  

davidphogan: Give a reason it can. Explain where a 9.0 quake followed by a super-tsunami is going to come from for any of those plants.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2011-03-14 07:16:20 AM  

Corvus: Seussie: Also, I hope you guys are right, and they're safe as houses, because:

Link (new window)

General Electric-designed reactors in Fukushima have 23 sisters in U.S.

But aren't you reading the thread, "it can't happen here", just because.


Corvus. Imagine that the Fukushima #1 reactor was in your back yard. Now imagine that you somehow survived both the tsunami and earthquake, and an evacuation order was issued.

You GTFO.

You get dosed with a month's worth of radiation in a day.

The reactor is still contained. No damage to anything.

Working as designed, I'd say.
 
2011-03-14 07:17:50 AM  

davidphogan: Corvus: Yes the plant that was killed. Millions (probably billions) of tax payer dollars gone to wasting in the planning of it (no I am not saying building the facility that electricity consumers paid for).

There is still no location.

Because of people getting hysterical about nuclear power. Just like you.


Yeah Nevada is the home of Hippie environmentalists. That's a laugh.


Why doesn't a "real 'merican" state like Texas decide to put it there?

Oh wait those states don't want it either. Maybe they should of had a plan before they made the problem.
 
2011-03-14 07:18:27 AM  

Corvus: davidphogan: Give a reason it can. Explain where a 9.0 quake followed by a super-tsunami is going to come from for any of those plants.


I already explained that California's coast doesn't have a subduction zone of the type that can cause a quake/tsunami combo like this.

Still, I'm sure they'll be doing a thorough review now so just in case something impossible (as far as geology is understood today) happens, they won't make the same mistakes that happened in this case.
 
2011-03-14 07:18:54 AM  
I'm thinking of going into therapy. There must be something wrong with my head to be participating in threads like these....
 
2011-03-14 07:19:04 AM  

TsukasaK: Corvus: Seussie: Also, I hope you guys are right, and they're safe as houses, because:

Link (new window)

General Electric-designed reactors in Fukushima have 23 sisters in U.S.

But aren't you reading the thread, "it can't happen here", just because.

Corvus. Imagine that the Fukushima #1 reactor was in your back yard. Now imagine that you somehow survived both the tsunami and earthquake, and an evacuation order was issued.

You GTFO.

You get dosed with a month's worth of radiation in a day.

The reactor is still contained. No damage to anything.

Working as designed, I'd say.


Well why are they evacuating houses? Why did the USS Reagan have to move if everything there is safe?
 
2011-03-14 07:19:14 AM  
It's so sad that this disaster has shaken Corvus away from his long held belief in nuclear power.

I has a sad.
 
2011-03-14 07:19:51 AM  

Corvus: Yeah Nevada is the home of Hippie environmentalists. That's a laugh.


Who mentioned hippies?

Corvus: Why doesn't a "real 'merican" state like Texas decide to put it there?

Oh wait those states don't want it either. Maybe they should of had a plan before they made the problem.


Okay, now you're just making it obvious you're trolling. Way too over the top.
 
2011-03-14 07:20:32 AM  

thespindrifter: What I want to know is, how many plants built since this older design was kaboshed now use the default "drop down" safety feature where the rods fall back into the containment shielding if the SHTF? And of those, how many at the Savannah River site are of that design? I ask because Savannah is damned close to Charleston, and Charleston is WAY overdue for another "Big One".


The reactors at SRS have all been deactivated. There has not been a planned nuclear criticality there since the end of the cold war and there has never been an unplanned nuclear criticality. The biggest risk on any of the Department of Energy sites is the loss of negative pressure in the contaminated buildings resulting in a slow radiation leak. That would be nothing compared to a reactor meltdown.
 
2011-03-14 07:20:33 AM  
blogs.technet.com
 
2011-03-14 07:20:39 AM  

Corvus: Asplenium: Corvus: aphexcoil: Corvus:

...

C) this is a lie. I pointed out earlier and magically everyone ignored it. Nuclear energy is not cheap. The US government has wasted millions on looking at waste storage. Also costs like dismantling the stations after they are old is not figured in the cost and this is expensive. I pay a "tax" for this and will be paying one for years if not decades. Everyone else will be too that is why they are pushing for new nuclear now before everyone starts seeing "Nuclear plant dismantle taxes" on their electric bills and find out the real costs.

...

They've already got an optimal storage facility built. It's called Yucca Mountain (probably something about nuclear waste storage after that). It might have cost millions, but it's done now and too late to regain that money. It'll hold a lot of waste, and is in a perfect spot. EXCEPT, alarmists in Nevada don't want waste stored in their state, so they cock-blocked it. So it's pretty much empty right now.

Yes the plant that was killed. Millions (probably billions) of tax payer dollars gone to wasting in the planning of it (no I am not saying building the facility that electricity consumers paid for).

There is still no location.


Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and blame people with your mentality on that one. If people don't want the money to be wasted (and who would want that), just let them store waste there. It's a perfect site, people are just getting NIMBY about it. Could be the 'State over Country' attitude that some Americans seem to have.
 
2011-03-14 07:22:35 AM  

davidphogan: I already explained that California's coast doesn't have a subduction zone of the type that can cause a quake/tsunami combo like this.


Umm you know California was on a tsunami watch for this earthquake.

California can have earthquakes. California can have Tsunamis.

Are you trying to say San Onfre is impossible for any leaking radiation from any earthquake?


Because many peo-nuclear people in this thread were saying that was not true before.

I would be feeling a lot better but half of the people it's:

We are all safe in the US. Impossible to happen here!

And the other apologist saying:

It can happen here, nothing is safe.

Which is it?
 
2011-03-14 07:22:52 AM  

Corvus: Well why are they evacuating houses? Why did the USS Reagan have to move if everything there is safe?


Nobody is saying it is "safe."

Stop thinking in black and white terms. Things can fall anywhere on the scale between "cuddling with fuzzy puppies and kitties" and "omgomgomg we're all gonna die armageddon!!1!"

Wipe the froth off your mouth and go take a nap or something before you hurt yourself.
 
2011-03-14 07:25:23 AM  

Asplenium: Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and blame people with your mentality on that one. If people don't want the money to be wasted (and who would want that), just let them store waste there. It's a perfect site, people are just getting NIMBY about it. Could be the 'State over Country' attitude that some Americans seem to have.


To pretend Nevada is a hippy environmentalist state pretty much makes you look foolish.

Once again why doesn't Texas or some other state with out the "Nevada hippies" take it?

And the reason is irrelevant. The point is nuclear is expensive and many of the costs are hidden. Solar and most other alternative fuel becomes cheaper every year.
 
2011-03-14 07:25:59 AM  

Asplenium: Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and blame people with your mentality on that one. If people don't want the money to be wasted (and who would want that), just let them store waste there. It's a perfect site, people are just getting NIMBY about it. Could be the 'State over Country' attitude that some Americans seem to have.


Hell, if money is the issue then why not start up reprocessing facilities (AFAIK we don't have any in the US) then use Yucca Mountain as a repository for unprocessable waste, and a strategic nuclear fuel reserve and a storage site until we can get fourth-generation nuclear power plants online?

Yeah yeah NIMBY hippies whatever I know, but the anti-nuke sentiment in the US is just ridiculous.
 
2011-03-14 07:26:13 AM  

davidphogan: Corvus: Yeah Nevada is the home of Hippie environmentalists. That's a laugh.

Who mentioned hippies?

Corvus: Why doesn't a "real 'merican" state like Texas decide to put it there?

Oh wait those states don't want it either. Maybe they should of had a plan before they made the problem.

Okay, now you're just making it obvious you're trolling. Way too over the top.


He's probably trolling, but there are likely others reading these posts who are curious so why not:

Nevada's geography is ideal to store nuclear waste. It's dry, which helps from a ground water contamination angle. Plus it's far from coasts, which protects itself from a lot of potential problems, like natural disasters or 'enemy invasions'. The exact location of Yucca Mountain is far from cities (to please alarmists), and has a good chunk of altitude to it (again for the ground water thing).

There are probably a ton of other reasons, but I'm doing all this from memory.
 
2011-03-14 07:27:00 AM  

ByOwlLight:
Wipe the froth off your mouth and go take a nap or something before you hurt yourself.


While I agree he's become a little unhinged, I do think this is a discussion we should be having. If because of the disaster unfolding in Japan we should wait, ok. If not in this thread, fine. But I really would like some answers on safety and current nuclear practices.

/still on fence, but I was very pro nuke before this.
 
2011-03-14 07:27:38 AM  

ByOwlLight: Corvus: Well why are they evacuating houses? Why did the USS Reagan have to move if everything there is safe?

Nobody is saying it is "safe."


Yes they are. They are doing it in this very thread.

davidphogan is making that very argument. Is he wrong?

Also I showed above a link from the Nuclear industry front group declaring how safe nuclear energy is. People ARE saying it's safe.
 
2011-03-14 07:28:34 AM  

Corvus: Yes they are. They are doing it in this very thread.

davidphogan is making that very argument. Is he wrong?

Also I showed above a link from the Nuclear industry front group declaring how safe nuclear energy is. People ARE saying it's safe.


It's 100% safe
 
2011-03-14 07:28:51 AM  

Corvus: davidphogan: I already explained that California's coast doesn't have a subduction zone of the type that can cause a quake/tsunami combo like this.

Umm you know California was on a tsunami watch for this earthquake.

California can have earthquakes. California can have Tsunamis.

Are you trying to say San Onfre is impossible for any leaking radiation from any earthquake?


Because many peo-nuclear people in this thread were saying that was not true before.

I would be feeling a lot better but half of the people it's:

We are all safe in the US. Impossible to happen here!

And the other apologist saying:

It can happen here, nothing is safe.

Which is it?


It's incredibly safe but there is a very, very remote chance that a problem could happen as a result of an earthquake. There's also a chance that a meteor could strike the earth and wipe out all life on the planet, but I'm not shiatting my pants in fear about that either.

And yes, California can get earthquakes, but not of the type that occurred causing a tsunami of this size. For that you have to go a lot farther up the coast than any nuclear plants that currently exist.

And again, US engineers will learn from this, and make things that much safer.
 
2011-03-14 07:29:02 AM  
We are all safe in the US. Impossible to happen here!

And the other apologist saying:

It can happen here, nothing is safe.

So which is it?
 
2011-03-14 07:29:25 AM  
Dude, Corvus is hilarious. He's like the Bevets of alternative energy.
 
2011-03-14 07:29:36 AM  
Corvus,

Read this. This guy is from MIT and knows his shiat. Just take a coffee break and read it, please.

Link (new window)
 
2011-03-14 07:29:51 AM  

Corvus: Asplenium: Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and blame people with your mentality on that one. If people don't want the money to be wasted (and who would want that), just let them store waste there. It's a perfect site, people are just getting NIMBY about it. Could be the 'State over Country' attitude that some Americans seem to have.

To pretend Nevada is a hippy environmentalist state pretty much makes you look foolish.

Once again why doesn't Texas or some other state with out the "Nevada hippies" take it?

And the reason is irrelevant. The point is nuclear is expensive and many of the costs are hidden. Solar and most other alternative fuel becomes cheaper every year.


I never mentioned hippies. At all. You might have inferred that, but I never attempted to imply it.

Plus, I'm not American. So maybe there is a big hippy movement in Nevada that I'm unaware of. Stranger things have happened.
 
2011-03-14 07:30:40 AM  

epoc_tnac: What really ticks me off is how every step of the way, nuclear proponents say "well, this is the worst thing that can happen, it won't get any worse" and anyone that dares look forward to see what might happen beyond that point is 'fearmongering'.


No, the fearmongering comes in when that "look forward" is based on speculation (note the use of COULD), and when it's used as ammo for the NIMBY folks who lack perspective.

Perspective check:

EVEN WITH the damage done to Fukushima, there's still less radioactivity floating around from the damage than there would be from a coal-fired plant.

EVEN IN THE WORST POSSIBLE CASE SCENARIO, which would be the core completely melting down, the radiation would still be contained. The damage would be primarily economical.

There have been a grand total of 99 significant accidents in the history of nuclear energy. (Significant meaning either loss of life, or more than US$50k damage).

The one everybody likes to point at, Chernobyl, can not happen again. The design has changed in such a way that what killed chernobyl could not possibly kill another reactor. Full stop.

Three Mile Island? Another famous incident. Not a single death, and two different studies could not find any evidence that the small amount of radiation released was responsible for any health effects.

In short, of the realistic power generation options available, Nuclear is the only one that combines relative safety with environmental concerns and scalability. Solar and geothermal fail on scalability, wind fails on the last two (hopefully not for too long), coal fails on safety.

I would be perfectly comfortable to live with a nuke plant in my back yard. If the damn thing can take a tsunami AND a magnitude 9 earthquake and remain intact enough to only give me less radiation than a farking x-ray, I cannot find anything to be scared over.
 
2011-03-14 07:31:21 AM  

Corvus: Yes they are. They are doing it in this very thread.

davidphogan is making that very argument. Is he wrong?

Also I showed above a link from the Nuclear industry front group declaring how safe nuclear energy is. People ARE saying it's safe.


I'm saying it's relatively safe. There's a chance of a problem, but we can learn from bad things that happen to.

Your response seems like the equivalent of banning airplanes after 9/11 because people can just drive instead.
 
2011-03-14 07:31:47 AM  

davidphogan: And yes, California can get earthquakes, but not of the type that occurred causing a tsunami of this size. For that you have to go a lot farther up the coast than any nuclear plants that currently exist.


So you are saying the only possible way is for an earthquake followed by a tsunami just like this?


I don't believe that.


davidphogan: It's incredibly safe but there is a very, very remote chance that a problem could happen as a result of an earthquake. There's also a chance that a meteor could strike the earth and wipe out all life on the planet, but I'm not shiatting my pants in fear about that either.


But if we could do something to prevent it with cleaner, safer and cheaper energy why should we not do it?
 
2011-03-14 07:32:07 AM  
SO FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI No. 2 is DRY! Fuel rods are no longer submerged, Link (new window)
 
2011-03-14 07:32:13 AM  

Seussie: While I agree he's become a little unhinged, I do think this is a discussion we should be having. If because of the disaster unfolding in Japan we should wait, ok. If not in this thread, fine. But I really would like some answers on safety and current nuclear practices.

/still on fence, but I was very pro nuke before this.


Discussion I'm fine with. Slinging a bunch of bullshiat to work people up over something I'm not. Not for this.
 
2011-03-14 07:32:53 AM  
I got my degree in Nuclear Physics at Fark University thread #6030976.
 
2011-03-14 07:33:02 AM  

Tamyu: Earthquakes and tsunami ARE a fact of life and a regular occurrence. Earthquakes and tsunami of THAT SIZE simply are not. If they were, people sure as hell wouldn`t have been living along the coast.

People planned for something huge... And something even larger came along, together with bad luck.


Exactly. The plant was designed to cope with a 8.2 quake. It's held up against something 5 times that size (remember Richter is logarithmic) Link (new window). It was also designed to cope with a 6.5m tsunami ... unfortunately the wave was over 7m. Link (new window)
 
2011-03-14 07:33:17 AM  

Corvus: But if we could do something to prevent it with cleaner, safer and cheaper energy why should we not do it?


I want a citation that there's a cleaner, safer and cheaper energy source available. Back that claim up.
 
2011-03-14 07:33:24 AM  
god hates hello kitty why?
 
2011-03-14 07:34:04 AM  

davidphogan: Corvus: Yes they are. They are doing it in this very thread.

davidphogan is making that very argument. Is he wrong?

Also I showed above a link from the Nuclear industry front group declaring how safe nuclear energy is. People ARE saying it's safe.

I'm saying it's relatively safe. There's a chance of a problem, but we can learn from bad things that happen to.

Your response seems like the equivalent of banning airplanes after 9/11 because people can just drive instead.


NO

Driving is much slower. It is impractical alternative. I am saying to replace it with a cheaper, safer, cleaner alternatives that will out the US in the forefront of technology.

China government is spending almost 1 trillion dollars in green energy. The US is going to be left behind.
 
2011-03-14 07:34:08 AM  

Corvus: But if we could do something to prevent it with cleaner, safer and cheaper energy why should we not do it?


Because everything else. EVERYTHING. Is FAR more dangerous than nuclear power. I am talking riding on the tea cups at Disney Land. MORE DANGEROUS!!!
 
2011-03-14 07:35:10 AM  

Corvus: Well why are they evacuating houses? Why did the USS Reagan have to move if everything there is safe?


Standard procedure in the event of ANY problem with a nuclear reactor. Even if the amount of radiation being released is absolutely miniscule (we're talking hundredths of a percent above background), you try to get away from it because radiation damage is cumulative.

Someone over on SA actually crunched the numbers and determined that you would have to basically be outside 24 hours a day for 6 weeks or so, while drinking the nearby water in order to recieve even the beginnings of radiation sickness.
 
2011-03-14 07:35:34 AM  

Corvus: NO

Driving is much slower. It is impractical alternative. I am saying to replace it with a cheaper, safer, cleaner alternatives that will out the US in the forefront of technology.

China government is spending almost 1 trillion dollars in green energy. The US is going to be left behind.


I want a citation that there's a cleaner, safer and cheaper energy source available. Back that claim up.
 
2011-03-14 07:36:17 AM  
So several reactors are essentially melting down, but the containment on all of them has remained intact and no major* amount of radiation has been released...

So everybody panic?

*major as in more radiation than you'd receive from a few x-rays
 
2011-03-14 07:37:13 AM  

Corvus: So you are saying the only possible way is for an earthquake followed by a tsunami just like this?


I don't believe that.


Believe it. The only reason the reactors are failing is because of the one-two punch. Geological sensors immediately shut down the reactors the moment there was a hint of a tremor, while backup generators are meant to continue circulating coolant in order to get rid of the decay heat.

Only problem was, the tsunami wiped those out.
 
Displayed 50 of 472 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report