Quake3World

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:01 pm**

lol wtf japan!...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21Razi8rNV4

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:05 pm**

with their suicide rate I'm not surprised.

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:01 am**

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:41 pm**

^ comedic, on so many levels

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:21 am**

Memphis wrote:Foo is correctamundo. Ironically the experiment itself was a safety test.

Ironically, and just the other night here on the box ( TV

) there was a special on the Chernobyl incident/accident (?) and it was great to understand the pressure placed on the Plant Shift Control Room Operators by the Political players at the time and how (seemingly) powerless they (read all here) were to stop the inevitable.

Eraser wrote:It's not an opinion. It's a fact. The situation is completely different from Chernobyl.

Don't really know about that

link

Searching for that image I was on the box.... ....... grrr

Radiation plume from tsunami-stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant will go through the Pacific on Thursday and affect the Aleutians. After that, on Friday evening the radiation plume will cover the Southern California and USA south-west, including states of Nevada, Utah and Arizona.

article

I live in the southern hemisphere of this small planet and I am concerned

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:48 am**

Horrible new video is out... you have been warned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2LRROpph0

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:09 am**

scared? wrote:
dumbass...thats cod4...not chernobyl...

Pripyat actually.

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:30 am**

scared? wrote:lol wtf japan!...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21Razi8rNV4

So basically Japan media isn't covering the disaster?

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:07 pm**

suffice to say.

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:07 pm**

... according to Goof's tinfoil cap wearing French cousin who lives in Japan.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:52 am**

xer0s wrote:
scared? wrote:lol wtf japan!...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21Razi8rNV4
So basically Japan media isn't covering the disaster?

well, apart from the 50% of each newspaper devoted to it, the almost 24/7 TV coverage, all the news websites and the constant reports that get sent to mobile phones, there is no coverage at all

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:01 am**

Whiskey 7 wrote:
Psyche911 wrote:There's still a group of workers at the plant trying to keep shit from getting even worse.
Poor bastards, as it sounds like a death sentence much like Chernobyl

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:This nuke stuff is going to be really really bad.

This above is a perfect example of the paranoid hysteria, that is not occurring within Japan.
A few foreigners shat themselves and left Tokyo because they were too stupid to understand the minimal risk to their health.
The foreign tabloid media scared people with headlines like "Japan death NUKE anal holocaust" and scared a few people who were retarded.
Some idiots in foreign countries bought lots of anti-radiation pills, despite being 1000s of miles away. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

while the majority of people kept themselves informed with what is really a risk and what is just people crying about minimal levels of radiation, while the real story is 10000 people dying in a tsunami.

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:12 am**

horton wrote:
xer0s wrote:
So basically Japan media isn't covering the disaster?
well, apart from the 50% of each newspaper devoted to it, the almost 24/7 TV coverage, all the news websites and the constant reports that get sent to mobile phones, there is no coverage at all

So that video is simply a dumb Frenchman you happened to describe in hour post above...

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:35 am**

I've been reading about the Chernobyl disaster on wikipedia. I had a vague idea it was bad but did not know just how bad and dangerous nuclear power could be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning

The workers in the immediate vicinity got a lethal dose of radiation within minutes. The high radiation detector broke, and the normal radiation detectors had a maximum that was orders of magnitudes less than what was present, giving the workers the false impression that the detectors were broken.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:54 am**

mjrpes wrote:did not know just how bad and dangerous nuclear power could be.

That's a really broad and erroneous statement. Nuclear power still has a really good track record, much better than many other forms of mass energy power generation. The amount of radiation that a typical nuclear plant affects a surrounding population is actually about 1/3 less than a coal plant, not to mention the dangers of coal to the surrounding population and greenhouse gases. Certainly, when things go terribly wrong in a nuclear power plant, it's always a serious concern, but these events have been very unlikely. Chernobyl is something that is not likely to be repeated with the design of modern plants and the damage done by modern plant failures like Three Mile Island and Fukushima is generally highly overrated. I wrote quite a bit above about why Chernobyl caused the scale of damage that it did, and why it's not likely to happen at the Fukushima reactors.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:37 am**

Let me highlight a key word in what I said.

did not know just how bad and dangerous nuclear power ---> could --- be.

The word could is a modal auxiliary, meaning that the statement does not apply to all situations. In fact, it could apply to a very small subset of all possible situations.

You say that Chernobyl is unlikely to happen in well run modern plants, and I would agree.

My point was: in bad plants, run by bad people, at a bad moment, things could get very, very bad.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:05 pm**

obsidian wrote:
mjrpes wrote:did not know just how bad and dangerous nuclear power could be.
That's a really broad and erroneous statement. Nuclear power still has a really good track record, much better than many other forms of mass energy power generation. The amount of radiation that a typical nuclear plant affects a surrounding population is actually about 1/3 less than a coal plant, not to mention the dangers of coal to the surrounding population and greenhouse gases. Certainly, when things go terribly wrong in a nuclear power plant, it's always a serious concern, but these events have been very unlikely. Chernobyl is something that is not likely to be repeated with the design of modern plants and the damage done by modern plant failures like Three Mile Island and Fukushima is generally highly overrated. I wrote quite a bit above about why Chernobyl caused the scale of damage that it did, and why it's not likely to happen at the Fukushima reactors.

I take exception to a bunch of what you've said here but what I want to ask is why compare nuclear to coal, two sources of energy that are far less than ideal? Why not compare nuclear to wind? People need to realize that clean energy like wind and solar are viable. People who don't realize this really aren't paying attention.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/ ... urce-maps/

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:21 pm**

The amount of energy you're getting out of windmills compared to the amount of energy you're getting out of a coal/nuclear power plant is really, really low. Set that off against the costs and you've got yourself a terribly inefficient source of energy.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:47 pm**

Oh I agree entirely, wind is a great alternative and a viable solution as shown in many parts of Europe and it's terrible that it's such a small piece of the power generating pie here in North America.

Of interest is also traveling wave reactors which uses depleted uranium, which can significantly increase efficiency while lowering cost and being safer. We currently have huge stores of depleted uranium as a waste product that we have to store in protected environments, turning that back into fuel has great potential.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:59 pm**

fuck u...

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:14 pm**

mjrpes wrote:did not know just how bad and dangerous nuclear power could be.

thankfully, chernobyl isn't a useful benchmark

george moonbat makes a good point on fukushima:

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I'm not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.

...

Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power.

this is why we *can* have nice things

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:01 pm**

Eraser wrote:The amount of energy you're getting out of windmills compared to the amount of energy you're getting out of a coal/nuclear power plant is really, really low. Set that off against the costs and you've got yourself a terribly inefficient source of energy.

Sources to back up your claims please? Large wind turbines cost about $1200 per kilowatt now, nuclear costs more than that (2000ish).

Considering the potential dangers and persistent toxic waste on top of this, there is certainly no reason to build new nuclear plants anywhere imo.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:08 pm**

seremtan wrote:
mjrpes wrote:did not know just how bad and dangerous nuclear power could be.
thankfully, chernobyl isn't a useful benchmark

george moonbat makes a good point on fukushima:

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I'm not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.

...

Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power.
this is why we *can* have nice things

Yes he can come to this conclusion because pardon the pun, all the dust has settled in regards to Fukushima.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:50 pm**

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote: Sources to back up your claims please? Large wind turbines cost about $1200 per kilowatt now, nuclear costs more than that (2000ish).

I don't believe your statement and ask you for a source, the reason is this statement that i will provide without a source.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:55 pm**

Ssssssssskit em!

Quake3World

5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century

Re: 5th largest e-quake of century