mazel. when would you be comin out here?

This is very good to know.

This COULD be a misleading stat because it is a sample size thing. I.e. if nuclear accidents are rare and catastrophic, than one happening could tip the scales.

In other words, one chernobyl-like incident is probably responsible for many years' worth of coal-related deaths, and since such incidents are rare....

Also, it's kind of hard to believe that the stat you are referencing accounts for things like early deaths in future generations of the victims exposed in the initial incident, etc. Aren't they STILL collecting data on how exactly chernobyl has affected cancer rates, and how far from the center the effect goes?

Also, sort of related

Just read an article that wikipedia searches for 'Godzilla' have skyrocketed since the earthquake. We are not the only ones thinking about this...

I think it's actually the other way round, although I'm absolutely no expert and most sources easily googled are likely very biased.

Wiki says the UNSCEAR (probably not too biased) reports 20 years on Chernobyl accident was responsible for ~4000 deaths from increased radiation exposure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...n_human_health

A GreenPeace report cited on the same wiki page claims just under a million deaths due to Chernobyl between 1986 - 2004. go with this probably extremely biased high number, so ~50K/year

A different wiki page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_po...nts_and_deaths suggests a 2007 Chinese government report found 3/4 Million deaths per year due to air pollution (although coal-fired plants are not solely responsible for this obv there's plenty other fossil-fuel burning machines, I guess from being quoted on this page they are a large contributor - so let's say they account for a bit less than half the deaths. say 300K)

Using these likely terribly shoddy numbers, and poor math - if China were to replace all their coal-fired facilities with Chernobyls, and this eradcated half the air pollution and subsequent deaths, they could have one blow up / meltdown every two months and they'd come out even!

Which sounds absolutely crazy, so I assume there's massive errors in my "calculations", lol.

I mean, I'm inclined to believe that nuclear is much safer than coal too, so don't get me wrong, but there is no denying that Nuclear accidents have a degree of *finality* that changes the picture. If it is really going to take 200k years for the land around Chernobyl to recover, this is a "big deal" and has to be weighted against the effects of coal, oil, etc.

edit:

to put it another way, clearly, if China had "one blow up / meltdown every two months" then pretty much all of Asia would be uninhabitable essentially permanently within a decade (assuming that obviously the meltdowns can't take place in the same location). That's not "breaking even".

Again, I realize I am painting an extreme, but my point is just that a nuclear meltdown is a catastrophe with a degree of permanence that the human race has never really dealt with before and it isn't quite as simple as comparing death + accident tolls.

Meh, imo if the biggest earthquake in recent history wasnt enough to cause a meltdown, we are fine.

Perhaps im misremembering this, but isnt it EXTREMELY difficult for that kind of worst case scenario to happen? I remember reading that if you blow up a nuclear bomb but without arming it or whatever needs to be done, it wont have that same cataclysmic reaction. Could be just misinformation from Bond movies, but AFAI the safety precautions are ridiculous, ie its not just fire/explosion = meltdown, even when **** blows up the chances of such a result are very slim

Plus for all we (or I at least) know, the long term effects from coal due to global warming/climate change could be much worse then even a few reactors melting down.

keep in mind the nuclear reactors in Japan are specifically made to maintain against earthquakes

there was an earthquake about 7 years ago, not sure where, that caused a pretty serious meltdown in Japan, but was maintained. Since then all the nuclear reactors were required to protect against ****ing huge earthquakes.

just saying that I doubt other nuclear reactors in other countries are as earthquake resistant as the ones in japan

Pretty sure it didn't cause an actual meltdown.

I wouldn't be so confident that the reactors were built as strong as the authorities say they were.

Fukushima Engineer Says He Covered Up Flaw at Shut Reactor

There has been a lot of major stuff going on, and I think this song applies to a lot of you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wkxA...eature=related

No, it's right. Fission bombs have conventional explosives as their primer, and it has to explode in a very carefully controlled way. Essentially it has to implode in on one very small spot. If the timing's even a bit wrong, there won't be a chain reaction. So if you set off a grenade next to a nuclear bomb, you won't have get a fission explosion. I'm not sure how big the primer is, but it's going to be a pretty huge explosion nonetheless, which'll spew radioactive material all over the shop. So it's not ideal.

Fusion bombs are similar except they're triggered by a fission explosion.

I agree but there aren't many places on earth that might have a 7+ earthquake. There's no point making a reactor 9.0-proof in the UK because we're nowhere near any fault lines.

another job interview tomorrow

40$ an hour, 5 hours a day, a couple days a week

would go awesome with the job I have now.

If I get it I can finally quit SEVEN ELEVEN. WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

glgl kil

Would be sometime in May if I get picked. You're in med school over there if I recall? Be around by any chance?

lol I got another phone call just now for a different job

I kinda drunk spammed my resume to a bunch of places last night, so i dont even remember what it is

they dont even list the pay on the site

hmmm

so I guess Ill show up to the interview and find out

My last hangover lasted 3 days wtf

Heh never had one that bad

worst hang-over I had last maybe 2 full days

that sucked

Yeah I've definitely had one that has lasted 2 days, but not 3.

Meh I'm getting old

I wouldn't worry about it. It probably just means that your liver is slowly ceasing to function.

Wouldn't surprise me, last summer I went a bit overboard n was prob drunk about 40 times in 3 months many of which were 12hr+ sessions.

Stopped that this year and only been drunk 5 times in 2011, two of which I spewed (maybe happened once last summer) n now a 3 day hangover.

I thought my body would be happy that I've calmed down

earthquake in burma, friends in bangkok said they felt there building sway but i was in a movie theater

Thankfully they (two 7.0 earthquakes seconds apart) happened in a remote area