Is this the second first time or the third?

I mean *second second time.

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

I for one, bow to our soon to be radioactive giant mutant rat overlords.

They really need to stop making everything out of rice paper.

On the bright side, more glow-in-the-dark souvenirs washing ashore near Seatle half a decade after the next tsunami.

Were there four turtles seen in the vicinity?

D'oh!

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.

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.

RIP Fukudome

'"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....

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

/hot

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

// Have the snake-eating gorillas ready.

One summer, we came for a visit and discovered the whole place had been infested with rats...

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.

One summer, we came for a visit and discovered the whole place had been infested with rats...
(a second time...)

Well...that's...something that happened

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.

That headline needs more consecutive words.

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.

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....

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

Perfectly logical response...

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?

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.

Rodents obtaining uranium snacks? I don't think they exist.

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

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

OMG it's a chimney!  Shoot it!

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!

Rodents of Uranium Spill.

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.

Another source.
http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/used-fuel-cooling-s ys tem-stops-at-fukushima-no-3-reactor

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

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.

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.