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.

(The New York Times)   Cooling system at Fukushima nuclear plant fails for the second time in a week after workers fark it up trying to keep rats from eating it. D'oh   (nytimes.com) divider line 58
    More: Fail, Fukushima, nuclear plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company, electrical power industry, spent fuel pool, rats, cooling water, reactor core  
•       •       •

4381 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2013 at 9:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-05 09:42:02 AM  
Is this the second first time or the third?
 
2013-04-05 09:42:23 AM  
images.nationalgeographic.com
 
2013-04-05 09:42:38 AM  
I mean *second second time.
 
2013-04-05 09:42:41 AM  
If only there were a way to cool things off and kills rats at the same time.
Like liquid nitrogen?
 
2013-04-05 09:43:24 AM  
I for one, bow to our soon to be radioactive giant mutant rat overlords.
 
2013-04-05 09:44:16 AM  
 
2013-04-05 09:44:20 AM  
They really need to stop making everything out of rice paper.
 
2013-04-05 09:44:22 AM  
On the bright side, more glow-in-the-dark souvenirs washing ashore near Seatle half a decade after the next tsunami.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-04-05 09:47:11 AM  
The entire situation is pretty fukushima'd up.
We make light of it, but this shiat WILL have repercussions in many ways, for many people.
Sucks.
 
2013-04-05 09:47:58 AM  
upload.wikimedia.orgWere there four turtles seen in the vicinity?
 
2013-04-05 09:49:37 AM  
mw2.google.com
 
2013-04-05 09:50:33 AM  
D'oh!
 
2013-04-05 09:50:37 AM  
I have repeatedly been told by the most eminent nuclear experts on Fark that it is entirely impossible for anything bad to happen at Fukishima.
 
2013-04-05 09:52:29 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I have repeatedly been told by the most eminent nuclear experts on Fark that it is entirely impossible for anything bad to happen at Fukishima.


or at Fukushima for that matter.
 
2013-04-05 09:56:33 AM  
cubs.topbuzz.com

RIP Fukudome
 
2013-04-05 09:59:11 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Philip Francis Queeg: I have repeatedly been told by the most eminent nuclear experts on Fark that it is entirely impossible for anything bad to happen at Fukishima.

or at Fukushima for that matter.


Oh, for fuks sake!
 
2013-04-05 10:01:53 AM  
'"We were installing wire nets to keep the rats out. But the end of one of the wires may have momentarily come into contact with a live terminal," said Masayuki Ono, general manager at Tepco's Nuclear Power and Plant Siting Division. "The next moment, there were sirens."' and lots of pants that needed to be cleaned....
 
2013-04-05 10:02:04 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I have repeatedly been told by the most eminent nuclear experts on Fark that it is entirely impossible for anything bad to happen at Fukishima.


I don't really remember that being said. I do remember a lot of hyperbole about worst-case scenarios, though.

Can you link to a news story about a single death caused by Fukushima?

Clearly Fukushima is the greatest disaster in history.


There were no casualties caused by radiation exposure, approximately 25,000 died due to the earthquake and tsunami. Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima are predicted to be extremely low to none.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Cas ual ties

Just to keep things in perspective, every method we've ever come up with to generate power is associated with a death rate. In terms of deaths/kilowatt-hour, I strongly suspect nuclear power looks pretty good.

With the installation of industrial sized wind turbines numbering in the thousands, there have been at least 40 fatalities of workers due to the construction, operation, and maintenance of wind turbines, and other injuries and deaths attributed to the wind power life cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Saf ety
 
2013-04-05 10:02:08 AM  
admissions.vanderbilt.edu
/hot
 
2013-04-05 10:05:02 AM  

s2s2s2: I mean *second second time.


wouldn't second second time be the fourth?
 
2013-04-05 10:08:02 AM  
Simple, just bring in some snakes and release them in the plant.  They'll eat the rats.

// Have the snake-eating gorillas ready.
 
2013-04-05 10:09:34 AM  
One summer, we came for a visit and discovered the whole place had been infested with rats...
 
2013-04-05 10:10:04 AM  

draypresct: Philip Francis Queeg: I have repeatedly been told by the most eminent nuclear experts on Fark that it is entirely impossible for anything bad to happen at Fukishima.

I don't really remember that being said. I do remember a lot of hyperbole about worst-case scenarios, though.

Can you link to a news story about a single death caused by Fukushima?

Clearly Fukushima is the greatest disaster in history.


There were no casualties caused by radiation exposure, approximately 25,000 died due to the earthquake and tsunami. Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima are predicted to be extremely low to none.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Cas ual ties

Just to keep things in perspective, every method we've ever come up with to generate power is associated with a death rate. In terms of deaths/kilowatt-hour, I strongly suspect nuclear power looks pretty good.

With the installation of industrial sized wind turbines numbering in the thousands, there have been at least 40 fatalities of workers due to the construction, operation, and maintenance of wind turbines, and other injuries and deaths attributed to the wind power life cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Saf ety


How about I just link to your post?

See folks, nothing bad happened, or will happen.
 
2013-04-05 10:10:28 AM  
l1.yimg.com

One summer, we came for a visit and discovered the whole place had been infested with rats...
(a second time...)
 
2013-04-05 10:11:04 AM  

Arkanaut: Simple, just bring in some snakes and release them in the plant.  They'll eat the rats.

// Have the snake-eating gorillas ready.


And the gorilla eating elephants, and elephant eating lions, and then poachers. And then PETA.
 
2013-04-05 10:18:11 AM  
Well...that's...something that happened
 
2013-04-05 10:24:29 AM  

draypresct: Philip Francis Queeg: I have repeatedly been told by the most eminent nuclear experts on Fark that it is entirely impossible for anything bad to happen at Fukishima.

I don't really remember that being said. I do remember a lot of hyperbole about worst-case scenarios, though.

Can you link to a news story about a single death caused by Fukushima?

Clearly Fukushima is the greatest disaster in history.


There were no casualties caused by radiation exposure, approximately 25,000 died due to the earthquake and tsunami. Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima are predicted to be extremely low to none.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Cas ual ties

Just to keep things in perspective, every method we've ever come up with to generate power is associated with a death rate. In terms of deaths/kilowatt-hour, I strongly suspect nuclear power looks pretty good.

With the installation of industrial sized wind turbines numbering in the thousands, there have been at least 40 fatalities of workers due to the construction, operation, and maintenance of wind turbines, and other injuries and deaths attributed to the wind power life cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Saf ety

Which can only be attributed



The impact of this can only be attributed to the workers and emergency personnel. If someone has a bad sleep deprived dayat the windfarm they might die. I f someone has a bad day at the reactor, the country might die. It's a game of statistics at some point.
 
2013-04-05 10:27:16 AM  
That headline needs more consecutive words.
 
2013-04-05 10:30:53 AM  

draypresct: Philip Francis Queeg: I have repeatedly been told by the most eminent nuclear experts on Fark that it is entirely impossible for anything bad to happen at Fukishima.

I don't really remember that being said. I do remember a lot of hyperbole about worst-case scenarios, though.

Can you link to a news story about a single death caused by Fukushima?

Clearly Fukushima is the greatest disaster in history.


There were no casualties caused by radiation exposure, approximately 25,000 died due to the earthquake and tsunami. Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima are predicted to be extremely low to none.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Cas ual ties

Just to keep things in perspective, every method we've ever come up with to generate power is associated with a death rate. In terms of deaths/kilowatt-hour, I strongly suspect nuclear power looks pretty good.

With the installation of industrial sized wind turbines numbering in the thousands, there have been at least 40 fatalities of workers due to the construction, operation, and maintenance of wind turbines, and other injuries and deaths attributed to the wind power life cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Saf ety


What I think is cute about those wind fatality statistics is that they attempt to include possible highway deaths, based on miles driven by shipped equipment and worker commuting.

Apparently to whoever came up with those stats didn't bother to include the same assumption for any of the other sources of electricity. They seem to nuclear power plants have no equipment shipped during construction, no deaths during construction and none of the builders or operators of nuclear ever step foot in a car.

In no way are those statistics biased against renewables.
 
2013-04-05 10:32:47 AM  

Spartapuss: draypresct: Philip Francis Queeg: I have repeatedly been told by the most eminent nuclear experts on Fark that it is entirely impossible for anything bad to happen at Fukishima.

I don't really remember that being said. I do remember a lot of hyperbole about worst-case scenarios, though.

Can you link to a news story about a single death caused by Fukushima?

Clearly Fukushima is the greatest disaster in history.


There were no casualties caused by radiation exposure, approximately 25,000 died due to the earthquake and tsunami. Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima are predicted to be extremely low to none.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Cas ual ties

Just to keep things in perspective, every method we've ever come up with to generate power is associated with a death rate. In terms of deaths/kilowatt-hour, I strongly suspect nuclear power looks pretty good.

With the installation of industrial sized wind turbines numbering in the thousands, there have been at least 40 fatalities of workers due to the construction, operation, and maintenance of wind turbines, and other injuries and deaths attributed to the wind power life cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Saf ety
Which can only be attributed

The impact of this can only be attributed to the workers and emergency personnel. If someone has a bad sleep deprived dayat the windfarm they might die. I f someone has a bad day at the reactor, the country might die. It's a game of statistics at some point.


It's not like designers and operators study risk minimizations or redundant fail safes or anything.

That being said the Japanese are awful at it
 
2013-04-05 10:33:06 AM  
they just need to bring in some cats...then when the cats get to be a problem...some dogs...then when the dogs get to be a problem....
 
2013-04-05 10:40:01 AM  
Sounds like they need Hattori Hanzo steel.
 
2013-04-05 10:49:48 AM  

vudukungfu: If only there were a way to cool things off and kills rats at the same time.
Like liquid nitrogen?


Perfectly logical response...

i614.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-05 10:58:37 AM  

MrSteve007: Apparently to whoever came up with those stats didn't bother to include the same assumption for any of the other sources of electricity. They seem to nuclear power plants have no equipment shipped during construction, no deaths during construction and none of the builders or operators of nuclear ever step foot in a car.

In no way are those statistics biased against renewables.


What statistics are biased? I didn't include any statistics about the other sources of electricity. I just speculated (and I thought I'd made that clear by saying "I suspect") that they might show that nuclear power worked out pretty well in terms of deaths/kilowatt-hour. Nuclear power involves much less mined material (very hazardous) than either coal, natural gas, or oil, and it produces much more power than wind or solar. Hydroelectric might work out pretty well also.

Do you happen to know of a source of unbiased statistics on deaths/kilowatt-hour?
 
2013-04-05 10:59:36 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: draypresct: Philip Francis Queeg: I have repeatedly been told by the most eminent nuclear experts on Fark that it is entirely impossible for anything bad to happen at Fukishima.

I don't really remember that being said. I do remember a lot of hyperbole about worst-case scenarios, though.

Can you link to a news story about a single death caused by Fukushima?

Clearly Fukushima is the greatest disaster in history.


There were no casualties caused by radiation exposure, approximately 25,000 died due to the earthquake and tsunami. Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima are predicted to be extremely low to none.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Cas ual ties

Just to keep things in perspective, every method we've ever come up with to generate power is associated with a death rate. In terms of deaths/kilowatt-hour, I strongly suspect nuclear power looks pretty good.

With the installation of industrial sized wind turbines numbering in the thousands, there have been at least 40 fatalities of workers due to the construction, operation, and maintenance of wind turbines, and other injuries and deaths attributed to the wind power life cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Saf ety

How about I just link to your post?

See folks, nothing bad happened, or will happen.


I suggest you read my post (and the linked Wikipedia article) again.

You could also read up on "strawman" while you're at it.
 
2013-04-05 11:04:37 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-05 11:08:40 AM  
i284.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-05 11:12:22 AM  
Rodents obtaining uranium snacks? I don't think they exist.
 
2013-04-05 11:13:59 AM  
Come on people, we're talking about nuclear power here, what's the worst that could happen?
 
2013-04-05 11:17:15 AM  
I've seen A LOT of Godzilla movies, enough to know that rats eating spend fuel rods is a bad, bad thing.
 
2013-04-05 11:18:53 AM  

spumco: [i284.photobucket.com image 600x330]


OMG it's a chimney!  Shoot it!
 
2013-04-05 11:29:15 AM  

bulldg4life: [upload.wikimedia.org image 222x214]Were there four turtles seen in the vicinity?


Of course not, Master Splinter.  They practice Ninja-the art of invisibility!
 
2013-04-05 11:30:16 AM  

ColTomParker: I've seen A LOT of Godzilla movies, enough to know that rats eating spend fuel rods is a bad, bad thing.


I know the last Godzilla movie was a bad, bad thing.
 
2013-04-05 11:48:19 AM  
Rodents of Uranium Spill.
 
2013-04-05 12:20:11 PM  

draypresct: Do you happen to know of a source of unbiased statistics on deaths/kilowatt-hour?


While of course this article is biased (media maters), they pull and link their data from the World Health Organization, which is about as close to the definition of unbiased allows.

mediamatters.org
 
2013-04-05 12:21:23 PM  
 
2013-04-05 12:21:35 PM  
Doah, it removed my link: Lets try this instead.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/27/forbes-reaches-to-find-wind-p o wer-fatalities/193299
 
2013-04-05 12:31:29 PM  

MrSteve007: draypresct: Do you happen to know of a source of unbiased statistics on deaths/kilowatt-hour?

While of course this article is biased (media maters), they pull and link their data from the World Health Organization, which is about as close to the definition of unbiased allows.

[mediamatters.org image 643x397]


Thanks! I'm a little surprised wind is so low, but okay.
 
2013-04-05 12:40:11 PM  

MrSteve007: While of course this article is biased (media maters), they pull and link their data from the World Health Organization, which is about as close to the definition of unbiased allows.


Wonder why they parse out coal but not oil. I'd guess if there were a column for Oil-US it would be as low at Natural Gas.
 
2013-04-05 12:44:07 PM  

MrSteve007: Doah, it removed my link: Lets try this instead.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/27/forbes-reaches-to-find-wind-p o wer-fatalities/193299


From your article:
That figure comes from an... and a man electrocuted inside of a windmill.

Glad to see that I am not the only one to call a wind turbine a windmill.  Or maybe they really are grinding grain in there.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


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