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 Raw Story)   Radioactive water from Fukushima about to TEPCO through the tulips   (rawstory.com) divider line 88
    More: Scary, TEPCO, Fukushima, Japanese Media, groundwater, Fukushima Daiichi, electrical power industry, separation barrier, Asahi  
•       •       •

9775 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Aug 2013 at 3:31 AM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-04 12:21:32 AM
Umm...why is this posting to the Geek tab?

It's not like only geeks can understand that this is kind of a bad thing. Wouldn't this be better suited for the Main tab?
 
2013-08-04 12:35:26 AM
This is bad, right?
 
2013-08-04 12:41:14 AM
I think I saw this movie

/had Raymond Burr in it
//sorta
 
2013-08-04 12:55:30 AM
It seems like if we really focused on it we could find a way to neutralize radioactive material through some kind of chemical process.  I mean, shouldn't there be some way to take a tanker full of radioactive waste, treat it with other chemicals/pressure/heat/whatever and have the end result be a stable substance that doesn't spontaneously decay while releasing radiation?
 
2013-08-04 03:26:14 AM
More hinting from today about dumping.
 
2013-08-04 03:38:27 AM
www.mantaraypictures.com

Approves.
 
2013-08-04 03:52:02 AM

TuteTibiImperes: It seems like if we really focused on it we could find a way to neutralize radioactive material through some kind of chemical process.  I mean, shouldn't there be some way to take a tanker full of radioactive waste, treat it with other chemicals/pressure/heat/whatever and have the end result be a stable substance that doesn't spontaneously decay while releasing radiation?


It's called fusion, and it takes a butt load of power.
 
2013-08-04 03:52:51 AM
I have something like this on my counter.

www.topnews.in

So I'm already exposed to radiation.

Therefore your fears are unfounded.
 
2013-08-04 03:53:09 AM
Call my cynical but I'll wait out until someone actually posts some spectrograph results. "Radioactive", "contaminated". Fine, okay, now show me what isotope.
 
2013-08-04 03:53:53 AM
Before long, it'll be three lips.

/thank you, thank you
//I'll be here all week
 
2013-08-04 03:59:52 AM

TuteTibiImperes: It seems like if we really focused on it we could find a way to neutralize radioactive material through some kind of chemical process.  I mean, shouldn't there be some way to take a tanker full of radioactive waste, treat it with other chemicals/pressure/heat/whatever and have the end result be a stable substance that doesn't spontaneously decay while releasing radiation?


The only way to isolate radiological materials, as far as anyone can tell so far is to turn it into glass. Kinda hard to do with water. The DOE built a glassification plant at Hanford, and I don't know it it is iin operation yet, but apparently thats the only thing they can think of to keep it from decaying into dust after only a few years. Chernobyl is now collapsing, the sarcophagus they built around it has large open holes in the roof and it lets the rain in. Birds have been nesting inside it and spreading more radioactivity around through their droppings.

Ug-ly
 
2013-08-04 04:01:24 AM

Ringshadow: Call my cynical but I'll wait out until someone actually posts some spectrograph results. "Radioactive", "contaminated". Fine, okay, now show me what isotope.


http://bww.jp/r/%E6%94%BE%E5%B0%84%E8%83%BD%E6%B8%AC%E5%AE%9A%E3%83% 87 %E3%83%BC%E3%82%BF/%E6%B5%B7%E6%B4%8B%E6%B1%9A%E6%9F%93/

Cs134:60Bq Cs137:90Bq T:6万Bq Sr:30Bq
 
2013-08-04 04:02:01 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Ringshadow: Call my cynical but I'll wait out until someone actually posts some spectrograph results. "Radioactive", "contaminated". Fine, okay, now show me what isotope.

http://bww.jp/r/%E6%94%BE%E5%B0%84%E8%83%BD%E6%B8%AC%E5%AE%9A%E3%83% 87 %E3%83%BC%E3%82%BF/%E6%B5%B7%E6%B4%8B%E6%B1%9A%E6%9F%93/

Cs134:60Bq Cs137:90Bq T:6万Bq Sr:30Bq


"万" = 10,000
 
2013-08-04 04:10:24 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: AverageAmericanGuy: Ringshadow: Call my cynical but I'll wait out until someone actually posts some spectrograph results. "Radioactive", "contaminated". Fine, okay, now show me what isotope.

http://bww.jp/r/%E6%94%BE%E5%B0%84%E8%83%BD%E6%B8%AC%E5%AE%9A%E3%83% 87 %E3%83%BC%E3%82%BF/%E6%B5%B7%E6%B4%8B%E6%B1%9A%E6%9F%93/

Cs134:60Bq Cs137:90Bq T:6万Bq Sr:30Bq

"万" = 10,000


お尻の穴= where you can put those bananas
 
2013-08-04 04:13:13 AM
So how bad is the worst case scenario here? Like, lets say that whole plant just falls into the ocean wholesale?

I cant imagine that's going to happen, but it puts an upper limit on how screwed we are.
 
2013-08-04 04:13:56 AM
I can't wait to hear how the pro-nuke side explains how great this is for the fish.

We kept going down the (disastrous) fossil fuel route, but I'm pretty convinced that if we'd chose nuclear instead the world would be just as screwed. We're literally too stupid to deal with stuff this messy and long-term. But I'm starting to think the same can be said of plastics and other junk we make - we're releasing a lot of chemicals into the environment with no regard to their ultimate effects, from fertilizer to pharmaceuticals. Right now fertilizers do more damage to the world than nuclear waste by far.

Maybe the best future we had a chance at, that we might still have a (slim, slim) chance at, is one where we treat the world as a place we live in rather than as source for raw materials that we then convert into nasty wastes as fast as possible. Might not be much money in that, though.

TuteTibiImperes: It seems like if we really focused on it we could find a way to neutralize radioactive material through some kind of chemical process.  I mean, shouldn't there be some way to take a tanker full of radioactive waste, treat it with other chemicals/pressure/heat/whatever and have the end result be a stable substance that doesn't spontaneously decay while releasing radiation?


No, radioactive materials can only transform into other materials by two processes: their own radioactive decay or nuclear transmutation. One requires time, the other capturing said materials and bringing them to a specialized plant and doing a lot of fancy work on them. Nuclear decay is a nuclear process, not like chemical processes which involve chemical bonds.

The biggest problem with Fukushima Daiichi is the "capturing said materials" - as you can see from this article, the radioactive shiat is all over the place, they have more contaminated water than they can deal with, and they don't have any way to deal with it right now. The place is leaky, jury-rigged, and TEPCO is pretty painfully incapable of dealing with it.
 
2013-08-04 04:17:44 AM
AverageAmericanGuy:

http://bww.jp/r/%E6%94%BE%E5%B0%84%E8%83%BD%E6%B8%AC%E5%AE%9A%E3%83% 87 %E3%83%BC%E3%82%BF/%E6%B5%B7%E6%B4%8B%E6%B1%9A%E6%9F%93/

That's a lot of Becquerels.
 
2013-08-04 04:17:47 AM

doglover: AverageAmericanGuy: AverageAmericanGuy: Ringshadow: Call my cynical but I'll wait out until someone actually posts some spectrograph results. "Radioactive", "contaminated". Fine, okay, now show me what isotope.

http://bww.jp/r/%E6%94%BE%E5%B0%84%E8%83%BD%E6%B8%AC%E5%AE%9A%E3%83% 87 %E3%83%BC%E3%82%BF/%E6%B5%B7%E6%B4%8B%E6%B1%9A%E6%9F%93/

Cs134:60Bq Cs137:90Bq T:6万Bq Sr:30Bq

"万" = 10,000

お尻の穴= where you can put those bananas


My bad! Those are the baseline comparison values.

Here's a link with current measurings:
http://www.jcp.or.jp/akahata/aik13/2013-07-28/2013072801_07_0.html

Cesium134: 750,000,000 Bq
Cesium137: 1,600,000,000 Bq
 
2013-08-04 04:24:03 AM

Bucky Katt: This is bad, right?


To the contrary, it's a darn good headline.

Oh, you mean the radioactivity.
 
2013-08-04 04:26:32 AM
newsimg.bbc.co.uk

Not to worry....triffids aren't your more threatening nuclear monsters...
 
2013-08-04 04:29:27 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: doglover: AverageAmericanGuy: AverageAmericanGuy: Ringshadow: Call my cynical but I'll wait out until someone actually posts some spectrograph results. "Radioactive", "contaminated". Fine, okay, now show me what isotope.

http://bww.jp/r/%E6%94%BE%E5%B0%84%E8%83%BD%E6%B8%AC%E5%AE%9A%E3%83% 87 %E3%83%BC%E3%82%BF/%E6%B5%B7%E6%B4%8B%E6%B1%9A%E6%9F%93/

Cs134:60Bq Cs137:90Bq T:6万Bq Sr:30Bq

"万" = 10,000

お尻の穴= where you can put those bananas

My bad! Those are the baseline comparison values.

Here's a link with current measurings:
http://www.jcp.or.jp/akahata/aik13/2013-07-28/2013072801_07_0.html

Cesium134: 750,000,000 Bq
Cesium137: 1,600,000,000 Bq


Oh fark me. Bequerels. God help us all. May as well be using cubits. I actually just went on wikipedia to confirm some shaky classroom knowledge.

And let me use the wiki example problem to draw a parallel here. 0.000117 grams of potassium becomes 31 Bq.

In other words yeah those are huge numbers but physically, we could boil it down and shove it in a single 55 gallon drum more likely than not. Bqs sound scary, but that's what happens when you are basically counting disintegrations.

/you could have thousands of Bqs in a goddamn spoon
/meanwhile if that spoonful was certain chemicals you just killed a neighborhood
 
2013-08-04 04:44:59 AM
Subby's headline would be AWESOME if this was a reactor leak in the Netherlands. But it's not -- it's Japan. Hardly the first place I would associate with tulips.

And hence, it just feels like subby is reaching.

Poor subby.
 
2013-08-04 04:47:15 AM

Ringshadow: AverageAmericanGuy: doglover: AverageAmericanGuy: AverageAmericanGuy: Ringshadow: Call my cynical but I'll wait out until someone actually posts some spectrograph results. "Radioactive", "contaminated". Fine, okay, now show me what isotope.

http://bww.jp/r/%E6%94%BE%E5%B0%84%E8%83%BD%E6%B8%AC%E5%AE%9A%E3%83% 87 %E3%83%BC%E3%82%BF/%E6%B5%B7%E6%B4%8B%E6%B1%9A%E6%9F%93/

Cs134:60Bq Cs137:90Bq T:6万Bq Sr:30Bq

"万" = 10,000

お尻の穴= where you can put those bananas

My bad! Those are the baseline comparison values.

Here's a link with current measurings:
http://www.jcp.or.jp/akahata/aik13/2013-07-28/2013072801_07_0.html

Cesium134: 750,000,000 Bq
Cesium137: 1,600,000,000 Bq

Oh fark me. Bequerels. God help us all. May as well be using cubits. I actually just went on wikipedia to confirm some shaky classroom knowledge.

And let me use the wiki example problem to draw a parallel here. 0.000117 grams of potassium becomes 31 Bq.

In other words yeah those are huge numbers but physically, we could boil it down and shove it in a single 55 gallon drum more likely than not. Bqs sound scary, but that's what happens when you are basically counting disintegrations.

/you could have thousands of Bqs in a goddamn spoon
/meanwhile if that spoonful was certain chemicals you just killed a neighborhood


So why don't they "boil it down and shove it in a single 55 gallon drum"?

Is your training so much more advanced that this is obvious to you but not at all obvious to the engineers working at Fukushima?
 
2013-08-04 04:51:59 AM

adamatari: No, radioactive materials can only transform into other materials by two processes: their own radioactive decay or nuclear transmutation. One requires time, the other capturing said materials and bringing them to a specialized plant and doing a lot of fancy work on them.


Does this involve the "neutron torch" I have heard about? Bombarding the waste with neutrons to induce spontaneous fission / decay? Or is that not possible, either?

It's strange to imagine a system where a simple compound (UO2) goes in, much more complex things (all sorts of lighter elements in various isotope forms) come out, and the process is impossible to reverse. It almost seems to fly in the face of entropy laws.

Then again, at the nuclear level, entropy laws probably cease to make sense.

I agree with some of the other comments in this thread - if it's so hard to return this crap to its natural state, maybe it isn't something we should be messing with on a grand scale.

Then again, if we want to keep using energy like we are, and plan to use even more in the future, nuclear fission in some form is the only universally available base load option that won't CO2 us to death.

That is, until fusion.

Or deep-well geothermal.
 
2013-08-04 04:53:30 AM

Beerguy: Umm...why is this posting to the Geek tab?

It's not like only geeks can understand that this is kind of a bad thing. Wouldn't this be better suited for the Main tab?


I don't see what the problem is. Why don't they just bottle the water and sell it to Iran or North Korea?
/Oh wait : /
 
2013-08-04 05:06:30 AM

destrip: It's strange to imagine a system where a simple compound (UO2) goes in, much more complex things (all sorts of lighter elements in various isotope forms) come out, and the process is impossible to reverse. It almost seems to fly in the face of entropy laws.


Radioactive decay/fission is quite in line with entropy laws.

As an analogy, look at fossil fuels: there's a bunch of energy stored in chemical bonds of molecules of gasoline, propane, etc. Breaking those bonds releases the energy and the atoms reform into lower-energy molecules like water, carbon dioxide, etc. Reversing the process and re-forming higher-energy molecules like gasoline from water and carbon dioxide is difficult and requires more energy than you'd get out.

Similarly, there's a lot of energy stored in nuclear bonds. Uranium is useful because it's relatively easy to break those bonds and release the energy. Fissioning the atom releases the energy and results in many lower-energy products. Reversing the process is difficult (but not impossible) and requires gobs of energy.
 
2013-08-04 05:38:41 AM
Dude I've seen Dreams by Tishiro whatever it's no big deal : ).
 
2013-08-04 05:55:18 AM
Between the holding ponds and the reactors they have 18 Chernobyls worth of radioactive material to deal with and they have no intention of ever doing anything with it other than dumping it in the ocean since it's been 2.5 years.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-04 06:36:02 AM

TuteTibiImperes: It seems like if we really focused on it we could find a way to neutralize radioactive material through some kind of chemical process.  I mean, shouldn't there be some way to take a tanker full of radioactive waste, treat it with other chemicals/pressure/heat/whatever and have the end result be a stable substance that doesn't spontaneously decay while releasing radiation?


Uh, no.
 
2013-08-04 07:08:06 AM

doglover: お尻の穴= where you can put those bananas

お尻の穴=

suby's mom's woo haw?

Yeah the whole banana nitwittery. Yeah potassium is radioactive and thus banana's are radioactive.  What that means is your exposure from radioactive potassium is unavoidable, not that it's harmless. Same with fly ash from coal plants, which is about as radioactive as dirt, and for the same reasons, uranium and thorium.

heypete: Similarly, there's a lot of energy stored in nuclear bonds. Uranium is useful because it's relatively easy to break those bonds and release the energy. Fissioning the atom releases the energy and results in many lower-energy products. Reversing the process is difficult (but not impossible) and requires gobs of energy.


Big deal with some isotopes of Uranium is fission is easily initiated by low energy neutron capture and the releases more neutrons, so the reactive is self sustaining.  You probably could 'burn' certain types of high level waste in a breeder reactor, or conventional reactor, but... no such designs exist, and likely will never exist.
 
2013-08-04 07:09:48 AM
I told them this shiat would happen.

Russia built a battleship, evacuated everybody, put in filter dams and let the scientists do everything they wanted AND the reactor was a fail-to-safe no-meltdown design.

Fukushima did none of these things.  They didn't even bother pumping out the ground water and evaporating it by power.
So Che was a 7.... Fuku is definitely an 8 now.

It is, again, uncontrolled.

Tute Tibilmperes:  You can make it a lead lined tanker and fill it with dehydrated nuclear waste spread apart with boron salts.  But that's about all you can do.   You cannot drop the ball on these things.  You have to slam EDUCATED manpower into them.  You have to have leadership that is put in charge with a black credit card and GOOD advisors.   You never let the company that caused it clean it up, you make them PAY to clean it up.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-04 07:14:15 AM

gibbon1: Big deal with some isotopes of Uranium is fission is easily initiated by low energy neutron capture and the releases more neutrons, so the reactive is self sustaining.  You probably could 'burn' certain types of high level waste in a breeder reactor, or conventional reactor, but... no such designs exist, and likely will never exist.


Sure they do.  That's what nuclear waste reprocessing does. separate the fissionable isotopes from the non-fissionable.  The problem is that some of those waste products are "neutron poisons" that absorb nutrons and prevent the chain reaction from occouring.  In fact most of the U-235 is still left in nuclear waste.  Some types of reactor, such as the Canadian Candu series can even burn used fuel from other reactors.  But all they are doing is burning the unused U-235 and adding to the waste products.

Still, a fast neutron reactor could burn most of it up, but we don't really have any of those available.
 
2013-08-04 07:23:42 AM
Fukushima hasn't been on the nightly news for 2 years, so that means everything is okay, right?
 
2013-08-04 07:27:28 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I think I saw this movie

/had Raymond Burr in it
//sorta


Raymond Burrockovich?
 
2013-08-04 08:00:32 AM
prjindigo:
So Che was a 7.... Fuku is definitely an 8 now.

I thought the scale only went up to 7?

www.chicagonow.com
 
2013-08-04 08:13:36 AM
Why can't they evaporate the water and capture the radioactive substances in the water? Wouldn't it be easier to deal with a small amount of water with a bunch radioactive substances in it than a large amount of water with the same amount?
 
2013-08-04 09:11:19 AM

Deathfrogg: Chernobyl is now collapsing, the sarcophagus they built around it has large open holes in the roof and it lets the rain in. Birds have been nesting inside it and spreading more radioactivity around through their droppings.


And you thought bird poop on your windshield was bad before.

Now it gives you cancer too!
 
2013-08-04 09:14:47 AM

TuteTibiImperes: It seems like if we really focused on it we could find a way to neutralize radioactive material through some kind of chemical process.  I mean, shouldn't there be some way to take a tanker full of radioactive waste, treat it with other chemicals/pressure/heat/whatever and have the end result be a stable substance that doesn't spontaneously decay while releasing radiation?


They've played that tune for the last forty years at Hanford. Billions of dollars have been spent to arrive at a simple answer:  No.
 
2013-08-04 09:32:12 AM

Mikeyworld: TuteTibiImperes: It seems like if we really focused on it we could find a way to neutralize radioactive material through some kind of chemical process.  I mean, shouldn't there be some way to take a tanker full of radioactive waste, treat it with other chemicals/pressure/heat/whatever and have the end result be a stable substance that doesn't spontaneously decay while releasing radiation?

They've played that tune for the last forty years at Hanford. Billions of dollars have been spent to arrive at a simple answer:  No.


Actually it looks like that's a proven end game for long term storage.

Link

They just haven't been able to stay on budget at that particular site.
 
2013-08-04 09:34:54 AM
I have a question for the smart people:

Does the ongoing Fukushima shiat parade present enough of a threat to avoid moving to the pacific northwest or the mile high city.

I hear people say things on the internet, but it's hard to separate the science from the baseless panic. I wonder because for various reasons I've been told I need to be very careful to limit my radiation exposure in my future years and as I've been shopping for jobs, Denver, Portland and Seattle all seem to keep popping up  on my radar.

(and apparently Denver's altitude alone really isn't an issue, however there is allegedly a jetstream through there that combined with the altitude can be an issue? I don't know, this is why I'm asking)
 
2013-08-04 09:37:52 AM

MarkEC: Why can't they evaporate the water and capture the radioactive substances in the water? Wouldn't it be easier to deal with a small amount of water with a bunch radioactive substances in it than a large amount of water with the same amount?


There's water rushing in all the time. You'd have to actively boil off the water at an incredible rate, and it would definitely release clouds of radioactive steam. Basically, not a hot idea either.
 
2013-08-04 09:41:45 AM

MurphyMurphy: Does the ongoing Fukushima shiat parade present enough of a threat to avoid moving to the pacific northwest or the mile high city.


Really?

You do know what radiation is, right? It's all around you at all times and we can detect it in theoretically amounts in units of time so small they can't properly be said to exist.

So while anyone with the proper equipment and a lab coat can detect radioactive isotopes from Fukushima here and there in the States, there's not enough of them to do anything as close as Tokyo, let alone in the states. That's just retarded people being retarded.

If you really want a wake up call, buy a Geiger counter. After one day playing with one of those you'll start looking for radium watches on ebay.
 
2013-08-04 09:51:28 AM

LasersHurt: MarkEC: Why can't they evaporate the water and capture the radioactive substances in the water? Wouldn't it be easier to deal with a small amount of water with a bunch radioactive substances in it than a large amount of water with the same amount?

There's water rushing in all the time. You'd have to actively boil off the water at an incredible rate, and it would definitely release clouds of radioactive steam. Basically, not a hot idea either.


From Doglover's link, processing  radioactive waste does include getting rid of the water and concentrating the waste. I don't think they'd have to build a complete reprocessing plant to reduce the volume down to a manageable volume. I don't think they can just keep building more storage for all that water.
 
2013-08-04 09:53:15 AM
s21.postimg.org
Soon to become an export from Japan.
 
2013-08-04 09:53:57 AM

MarkEC: LasersHurt: MarkEC: Why can't they evaporate the water and capture the radioactive substances in the water? Wouldn't it be easier to deal with a small amount of water with a bunch radioactive substances in it than a large amount of water with the same amount?

There's water rushing in all the time. You'd have to actively boil off the water at an incredible rate, and it would definitely release clouds of radioactive steam. Basically, not a hot idea either.

From Doglover's link, processing  radioactive waste does include getting rid of the water and concentrating the waste. I don't think they'd have to build a complete reprocessing plant to reduce the volume down to a manageable volume. I don't think they can just keep building more storage for all that water.


Forget it, Jake, it's Japan.

They make the Pentagon look well organized and efficient.
 
2013-08-04 10:08:15 AM

Beerguy: Umm...why is this posting to the Geek tab?

It's not like only geeks can understand that this is kind of a bad thing. Wouldn't this be better suited for the Main tab?


Because the geeks are the ones who will suggest that at this point we should just rename TEPCO to Shinra and be done with it.
 
2013-08-04 10:43:12 AM
Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too.
 
2013-08-04 10:56:19 AM

Useless Destruction of Exergy: Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too.


God I loved that movie!  Back in the spring of '85 I watched this about 10 weekends in a row at The World aka The Roxy on High Street just north of OSU.  Yeah, not much of a social life in college...
 
2013-08-04 11:01:00 AM

doglover: MurphyMurphy: Does the ongoing Fukushima shiat parade present enough of a threat to avoid moving to the pacific northwest or the mile high city.

Really?

You do know what radiation is, right? It's all around you at all times and we can detect it in theoretically amounts in units of time so small they can't properly be said to exist.

So while anyone with the proper equipment and a lab coat can detect radioactive isotopes from Fukushima here and there in the States, there's not enough of them to do anything as close as Tokyo, let alone in the states. That's just retarded people being retarded.

If you really want a wake up call, buy a Geiger counter. After one day playing with one of those you'll start looking for radium watches on ebay.


About 20 years ago I worked for electronics engineering company and one of our projects was to make a sensor for measuring glass thickness. We made a device that utilized a small (low steady rad) radioactive source and a "geiger" tube receiver to count the difference in absorption that occurred when the glass thickness changed. We had a standard geiger counter in our lab also. One of the girls that worked in our assembly shop was an avid smoker and always joked/complained about having to work around radioactivity. One day I took her pack of cigarettes and held it up to the counter and showed her that her pack of cigarettes was more "radioactive" than the source for the detection system.
 
2013-08-04 11:21:28 AM

StarlingFive: So how bad is the worst case scenario here? Like, lets say that whole plant just falls into the ocean wholesale?

I cant imagine that's going to happen, but it puts an upper limit on how screwed we are.


Worse than you can possibly imagine. The radioactivity is already reaching the north american coastline and unless it's stopped the entire west coast could be uninhabitable within this decade. You should thoroughly wash anything grown on the west coast before eating it, and don't even think of eating seafood that comes from the Pacific. I kid you not. It's bad.
 
Displayed 50 of 88 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report