Weirdo…
Glad you’re back.
[quote=Outcast 19]In response to anyone who thinks paying $30 a month to have total access to Dr. Martenson’s knowledge and insights, please first take a look at your cable TV bill or Droid bill, then ask yourself where your money might be better invested.
In response to those who think information related to life or death issues ought to be published free of charge, the logical extension of your view is that everything in life related to life or death issues ought to be available free of charge. How many free hospitals are there in your area? How about grocery stores? Yes, there are charities for those who have no resources. But those are not free…somebody, somewhere is paying for them. Besides, this website is not a charity.
I am disappointed by the number of people who questioned Dr. Martenson’s motives in trying to build membership so that his work can continue. Nobody walks on water, but from what I can tell, he has demonstrated a high degree of integrity in that his thoughts, words and actions are in alignment. The world would be a far better place if many more of us, myself included, aspired to his level contribution.
[/quote]
It bothers me when one (or many) think they have the right to tell another that he should (or should not) give away the fruits of his efforts. If someone feels inclined to give away the fruits of his own efforts, then I say “Go for it.” Just let others make their choice without denigrating them for not making the choice you think is best. There is no “right” choice. When you deal with the topics covered on this site, an important life changing decision could theoretically be made from almost any article. Therefore, it should all be free. ROFL
SS
I don’t think discussion of subscriptions is allowed but maybe individual comment is.
From my perspective, $30 per month is a lot of money to pay for this stuff. I note that commentary on events, some quite detailed, are not always free and not always paid for. Some examples of free stuff are The Oil Drum, The Automatic Earth, Culture Change, Post Carbon Institute, Sharon Astyk’s blog, Dave Cohen’s blog. Some examples of sites where some content requires a subscription are this site and CollapseNet (which costs a third of this site). I also note that books get published on a fairly frequent basis, about the problems we face - usually, they cost about a month or so of access to this site.
Everyone’s situation is different. For some people here, $30 is small change. For others (arguably those who perhaps need the information more), $30 is a big deal, especially when it may be needed to implement some of the suggestions about preparation (I could buy a lot of tools and seeds for $30 per month).
One last observation is that the cost of subscription here has remained constant since the start. Has the number of subscribers remained constant? If not, presumably, there is much more money coming in than there was a few years ago. How is that extra revenue being used?
I’m going to preface my suggestion by saying it is only a suggestion and that I’m perfectly content to continue paying my $30 every few months when a particularly relevant report is released - and catching up on all of Chris’ old reports then too. But perhaps this could work.
Why not suggest a variable monthly fee based on just how much wealth we are trying to protect with Chris’ advice. Those with lots of assets may be willing to pay considerably more than $30 per month since they stand to gain the most from the information. Those of us with few assets would either be willing to pay their membership fee every month or even join for the first time if it was considerably less than $30. The system of determining how much to pay would have to be fairly simple and honor-system based, but I have faith that the majority of those who gather here would be honest about their ability to pay.
Perhaps the net effect would be revenue neutral or even positive, although it could be negative. In any case, it would most likely increase good will among those who get access to Chris’ advice for a smaller fee. I would be among that group. I can’t say for sure about those who would be asked to pay more, but I bet many of them would be happy to pay a little extra knowing that they are helping the message to reach a wider audience.
Once again, this is just an idea I’m putting out there. I’m curious what others think of it.
Steve
Discussion of the value of membership dues recently came up in the canoe racing association I belong to. The general concensus was it’s really about what you share and put into the group, not what you get, and I think the same applies here. I look at dues as a contribution towards promoting awareness, understanding, and action regarding the 3 E’s.
[quote=Woodman]Discussion of the value of membership dues recently came up in the canoe racing association I belong to. The general concensus was it’s really about what you share and put into the group, not what you get, and I think the same applies here. I look at dues as a contribution towards promoting awareness, understanding, and action regarding the 3 E’s.
[/quote]
Like the WHAT SHOULD I DO? series? So people that write an article for that series would get one year free subcription kind of thing? Sounds like a sweet idea
Samuel
Why are WE discussing the way WE think Chris should be handling membership dues on HIS site?In a thread on the reactor accident stabilization and recovery challenges at Fukushima no less.
Indeed, Dogs!
Meanwhile the news flow out of Fukushima Daiichi (and Daini!!??) for the past few days has been pretty sobering. As we head deeper and deeper into uncharted territory new terminology becomes necessary: melt-through, now. In three reactors, no less. http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110607005367.htm
And, we learn this:
The survey by the Tokyo Metropolitan government revealed that the 2.7 microsieverts/hour radiation was detected in the air inside the sewage treatment facility in Ota-ku, Tokyo.http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/06/now-they-tell-us-series-radiation-in.html Other things being reported/revealed as well. All in all, not necessarily positive developments.
Let’s slow things down just a touch.
“Melt through” is a fabrication of the media in another example of trying to come up with a sensationalized headline grabber. It is NOT a term used in the industry.
Meltdown vs. melt through? A few degrees of separation. A more complicated, but not unmanageable dynamic added to the clean-up effort. The reactor pressure vessel doesn’t provide that much more shielding for a puddle of fuel at the bottom of the reactor vessel or the floor of the containment building. Given the time that has passed, I doubt that the damaged fuel is even molten anymore. It has in all likelihood cooled to solid form. It is an exposure concern - with most of the impact localized to the accident site. It is a very bad situation - at the accident site.
Whatever state the fuel matrix is in and wherever it is laying right now please understand this. It is not going to all of a sudden heat up, melt and start tunneling its way through concrete. It will not eat through the Earth’s crust. There won’t be an Armageddon-like steam explosion when it hits ground water. It is a solid chunk of highly radioactive junk - probably warm to the touch. It has lost the necessary geometry to sustain criticality. Even more important - there is no surrounding moderator to capture and attenuate neutrons to the appropriate energies to sustain criticality.
A much greater concern is the hundreds of thousands of gallons of contaminated water that has pooled in the debris and spread into the environment.
Melt through??? Not so much.
Dogs,
If a steam explosion and “China Syndrome” threats are now apparently minimal to null that is reassuring.
From my lurking on this Physics Forum thread http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=7bf38dcdaaf16082f0ac6c6f35a54f26&t=480200&highlight=fukushima&page=582 and reading elsewhere my understanding is that wherever the corium in reactors 1-3 may be, it will be necessary for Tepco to continue the cooling by dousing it with water by one means or another for at least a year. Is this a likely scenario? If so, there will be an enormous amount of radioactive water to deal with and unless Areva’s vaunted treatment facility (with its smallish daily capacity) works, I fear no small portion of it is going to end up in the sea.
In saying
...most of the impact [will be] localized to the accident site.do you mean further airborne emissions will negligible and therefore cumulative land surface contamination levels will not rise much more?
It seems that much of the radiation-contaminated earthquake/tsunami debris is going to be incinerated which I worry will be an ongoing source of emissions into the atomsphere, some of which will inevitably find their way into the food chain.
The food chain: the concept seems to have acquired an ominous undertone lately.
debu -
Whatever is left of the fuel matrix will need some form of cooling for some time to come. I can’t forsee a scenario unfolding where Tepco will continue to spray or pump water into the core(s) and/or containment vessels for a year. If anything, I expect that there are already plans underway for robotic recovery of the slag and damaged fuel that may have breached the reactor pressure vessel(s). Additionally, if the core(s) are intact, but contain a severely damaged/melted/deformed fuel matrix, my guess is they will remove the entire pressure vessel and put it in some kind of holding tank where they can more closely monitor temperatures and keep the pile covered. Even without knowing the operating history of the plants before the accident, I’d venture the guess that they are pretty close to the point where keeping the material covered in water and letting natural circulation dissipate heat will be sufficient. The challenge is the debris that is in the way and formulating a plan for recovery and clean-up.
You are 100% correct in being concerned with the amount of radiactive water - actually, water mixed with radioactive particulates. I read one estimate that said ther was 400,000 gallons of “highly” contaminated water in various pools, basements and sub-basements. You’d certainly expect that the structural integrity of some number of these buildings is such that pathways to the environment exist and water is leaking on some scale. Eventually it all ends up in the sea or in the groundwater. That in my opinion is the biggest threat going forward.
As far as airborne emissions - the mechanism of fission product gas release is pretty much gone at this point. At least ona scale to be concerned about. The big threat now is stirring up radioactive contamination - dust - as the control, stabilization, recovery and clean up process unfolds. Some of that could be spread by the wind and widen the problem area. So from that standpoint you can never say that “further airborne emissions” will be negligible since any release outside normal boundaries is undesirable. What I am saying is that the vast majority of anything that is spread further has already been released.
There will be significant challenges for years to come as the material that was released early on works its way into the groundwater and soil where it can be picked up by ruminants and/or plants. I think it best to cast the net too wide and to ‘quarantine’ a large area and simply not allow animals to graze or farmers to plant food that will be used for human or livestock consumption. I think the Japanese are still working to determine how widespread the dispersal was/is. Once they can identify and quantitatively define the boundaries of the released material they can better develop a long term management plan. This will be no small task. People are going to develop cancers and other health issues downstream and some of them will unfortunately die.
I hadn’t read anything that stated the Japanese were going to incinerate contaminated debris. That strikes me as a pretty bad plan. Uncontaminated debris burning maybe, but not debris containing radioactive contaminants. At least not open burning with release directly in to the atmosphere.
The looming specter is the material that has been distributed over land and is working its way into the groundwater, animals and plants. Same for the material that has leaked into the sea. I suspect that more water will leak as the Japanese continue to work their way into the debris and unfortunately spread contamination further as a result of their recovery efforts. People in Japan have every reason to be concerned over the impact on the food chain. The left coast of the US does not. I’m not saying the risk is zero for the west coast, but I am saying that if I lived in California, Oregon or Washington I wouldn’t be concerned. Unfortunately, I think the Japanese will be in a reaction mode for some time. They no doubt will implement programs for increased monitoring of food, water and milk to determine the levels of radioactive contamination, but unless they are going to hold all material from the markets until sampling results are known, some is going to get out. The food chain will be impacted - the scope has yet to be determined.
My attention is a bit divided right now - I unfortunately have to put my 12 1/2 yr old Golden retriever down tomorrow and that is sorta on my mind.
I hope I’ve answered your questions - if not, post away or PM and I promise I’ll do my best to get you an answer.
Many thanks for the helpful reply to my queries. It is not easy for the layman to navigate the incomplete and unreliable information to be found about the whole mess that is the remains of the Fukushima reactors.Regarding burning of radioactive debris my source was this: http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/05/fukushima-radioactive-debris-to-be.html EX-SKF seems to have been a reliable interpreter of events so far but, of course, is not infallible.
Re Jpz govt. monitoring of food safety, the record to date does inspire confidence. This, again from EX-SKF, provides a bit of context: http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/06/fukushima-i-nuke-accident-japans.html
Very sad about your Golden retriever. Apologies for pestering you with questions at such a trying time.
Degrees what?
[quote=Jackthesmilingblack]Degrees what?
[/quote]
Use more words.
Yikes. Mr Gunderson is back in the media (not mainstream of course) warning of an imminent serious problem with Fukushima level dangers in NEBRASKA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mSvvmrB7qEg
There is a bit of takedown of Arnie Gundersen by Will Davis at The Atomic Power review blog in his post of June 17.
There has been so much MISinformation printed and televised and radio-waved about Fukushima Daiichi that many of us don't even know where to begin to tackle it all.Implying AG, he goes on to specifically mention:
...disgruntled former nuclear industry execs, and perhaps some "Access Terminated After Failing Readiness For Duty Test" types too, also fill out the TV / radio / newspaper articles with such stupidity as the recent assertion that there was prompt criticality achieved in Fukushima Daiichi's spent fuel pools.http://atomicpowerreview.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-misinformation-superhighway-affects.html
Oh, dear. Who is a layman to believe?
Very recently I happened to read an article that in essence stated that there WAS radioactivity that leaked (somehow) outside of the containment and into the environment… contradicting all assurances from the past 30-odd years you’ve been fed. Time to see if there is indeed a statistical anomaly and if it involves the kind(s) of cancers that are more likely to be induced by radioactivity, not just talk and wonder?!Caveat: I’m very anti-nuclear, biassed, and don’t trust ANY government to give us accurate info… they simply have too big a stake in it! :-(
The Dangers of Fukushima Are Worse and Longer-lived Than We Think
I realise this article is now 2 months old, but if anything it’s still the big story that is almost completely ignored. The dangers are worse and longer-lived than WE ARE LED TO BELIEVE is probably a more accurate description. We’ve read the stories about NISA manipulating public hearings in the past, we’ve read the stories about simulations of meltdowns that - taken together with eye-witness stories point to radioactivity alarms going off BEFORE the tsunami struck - make it plausible there was major, possibly catastrophic, damage to reactor and/or cooling systems done by the earthquake. Frankly, I believe the reactors were too old to survive the quake and the Tsunami washing away the diesel engines for the cooling systems was a convenient cover-up… because there are implications for other plants around Japan if the quake itself was ever proven to have caused one or more meltdown(s) or, as is the case, melt-throughs!
TEPCO and government keep telling us things are under control (started doing that on day one…) and that the cold shutdown will be completed by next January, redefining "Cold Shutdown" along the way as a temperature below 100° C. at the bottom of the Pressure Vessel… but they admit that they do not really KNOW where the molten core(s) are; so in my opinion Cold Shutdown, TEPCO style is utterly meaningless. Except of course to manipulate the public perception: the implication has been all along that Cold Shutdown should equal the "all safe" for evacuees.
Chernobyl is now 25 years back in history. But even today a very large area (some 4 thousand square Kilometer I think) is closed and people have not returned there. When are the Japanese people going to realise that a sizable part of their land is now "gone" for at least a few of generations?
Just today, August 2nd., in the news a very telling tidbit: http://t.co/ksVW0Rk Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Tuesday radiation exceeded 10 sieverts - a LETHAL DOSE - at two locations near a duct connected to a ventilation stack between two reactor units at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant. […] TEPCO said melted fuel in the No. 1 reactor might have collected inside the duct after leaking from the containment vessel during venting early in the crisis. […] (Note: NOT the Pressure Vessel!)
One might wonder how Molten Nuclear Fuel could get into a venting duct (outside each & every containment) during venting but this being TEPCO I’m inclined to fear they already know that the molten core is outside the Pressure Vessel (a melt-through) eating it’s merry way through the concrete floor and into the environment.
Caveat: I’m a layman, really anti-nuclear and Chernobyl and now Fukushima show, according to me, why we ought to steer away from nuclear power asap!
[quote=Fastbreak]Caveat: I’m a layman, really anti-nuclear and Chernobyl and now Fukushima show, according to me, why we ought to steer away from nuclear power asap!
[/quote]
And just how do you propose we stuff the genie back into the bottle?