Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 54

Thread: New Study prove Fukushima caused byearthquake in the first minutes not the tsunami

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northwich, UK
    Posts
    65

    Default

    I was trying to dumb it down for you to understand. Obviously it was still too complicated for you.

    I'll put it as simply as possible:

    There

    was

    no

    nuclear

    explosion

    at

    Fukushima.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    I was trying to dumb it down for you to understand. Obviously it was still too complicated for you.
    I'll put it as simply as possible:
    There
    was
    no
    nuclear
    explosion
    at
    Fukushima.

    you are just not an expert! an real expert say it different!

    but yes you don't understand this this fact shows you are just stupid!

    Real experts like: "Arnold Gundersen, chief engineer" pointing out that there was a nuclear explosion!

    and i prefer to believe REAL experts more than you the JOKE expert with the name "Shielder"

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    I was trying to dumb it down for you to understand. Obviously it was still too complicated for you. I'll put it as simply as possible: There was no nuclear explosion at Fukushima.
    What the video says, starting at minute four, is, that the earthquake damaged the cooling system in block 1 to a point where cooling was no longer possible. The following tsunami apparently did the same for blocks 2 and 3.

    Here are some notes I took while watching the video:
    7:30; Mentions hydrogen explosions
    11:00; Some background information on block 4
    14:00; Mentions hydrogen explosion in block 4
    16:00; The official story is, that hydrogen from block 3 went into block 4 due to a shared ventilation system. However, scientists theorize, that the hydrogen did in fact originate in block 4 itself. The reason is: Block 4 was switched off. Due to this the cores were not inside the shield, but in a cooling pond which was rapidly running out of water.

    In between some infomation on how radioactive material can be found at lot further from the reactors than should be possible, following a chemical explosion.

    28:50; The video starts talking about a possible nuclear explosion in block 3
    29:30; Christopher Busby "If this had been a simple hydrogen explosion, we would not find radioactive particles as far from the plant as we do."
    30:30; Adrian P. Heymer: "We are very convinced it was not a spontaneous nuclear explosion. It was in fact, a hydrogen explosion"
    31:00; Yukio Yamguchi: "It cannot, with certainty, be ruled out that it might have been a nuclear explosion."
    31:40; Detailed analysis of explosion by Arnold Gundersen
    32:45; Arnold Gundersen: "a so called Prompt Criticality, a fast nuclear reaction, stronger than a chemical bomb, less strong than a nuclear bomb, somewhere in between" (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_critical)

    So yes, the video does say that is was a sort of nuclear explosion. Not a nuclear explosion like that of a nuclear bomb, but still stronger than a mere chemical explosion.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wildfire View Post
    What the video says, starting at minute four, is, that the earthquake damaged the cooling system in block 1 to a point where cooling was no longer possible. The following tsunami apparently did the same for blocks 2 and 3.

    Here are some notes I took while watching the video:
    7:30; Mentions hydrogen explosions
    11:00; Some background information on block 4
    14:00; Mentions hydrogen explosion in block 4
    16:00; The official story is, that hydrogen from block 3 went into block 4 due to a shared ventilation system. However, scientists theorize, that the hydrogen did in fact originate in block 4 itself. The reason is: Block 4 was switched off. Due to this the cores were not inside the shield, but in a cooling pond which was rapidly running out of water.

    In between some infomation on how radioactive material can be found at lot further from the reactors than should be possible, following a chemical explosion.

    28:50; The video starts talking about a possible nuclear explosion in block 3
    29:30; Christopher Busby "If this had been a simple hydrogen explosion, we would not find radioactive particles as far from the plant as we do."
    30:30; Adrian P. Heymer: "We are very convinced it was not a spontaneous nuclear explosion. It was in fact, a hydrogen explosion"
    31:00; Yukio Yamguchi: "It cannot, with certainty, be ruled out that it might have been a nuclear explosion."
    31:40; Detailed analysis of explosion by Arnold Gundersen
    32:45; Arnold Gundersen: "a so called Prompt Criticality, a fast nuclear reaction, stronger than a chemical bomb, less strong than a nuclear bomb, somewhere in between" (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_critical)

    So yes, the video does say that is was a sort of nuclear explosion. Not a nuclear explosion like that of a nuclear bomb, but still stronger than a mere chemical explosion.
    thank you very much for your help for you translation and pointing out the most important facts.

    its pointless if i do this because they just call me a liar if i translate it.

    so yes you are very helpful

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northwich, UK
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    you are just not an expert! an real expert say it different!

    but yes you don't understand this this fact shows you are just stupid!
    Hmmm, my employer would say different.

    But, when the facts aren't on your side, you, Q, resort to insults. So I'm bowing out of this now.

    It's hard to have a rational discussion with someone who doesn't know their arse from their elbow and insists that they are always right.

    By the way, I do, as you may have guessed, work in the nuclear industry. I'm a radiation and criticality safety expert, so I believe that I do know what I'm talking about, but I don't 'follow the money' and say whatever my paymaster says. I report the truth. It doesn't bother me if they don't like it, I say it how it is. Unlike some of these so called 'experts' who will say whatever they are paid to say by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. But that is for another thread.

    Goodbye.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    By the way, I do, as you may have guessed, work in the nuclear industry. I'm a radiation and criticality safety expert, so I believe that I do know what I'm talking about, but I don't 'follow the money' and say whatever my paymaster says. I report the truth. It doesn't bother me if they don't like it, I say it how it is. Unlike some of these so called 'experts' who will say whatever they are paid to say by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. But that is for another thread.
    I'm not trying to take sides here, but here's how I see it: On the one hand, you're telling us that you're an expert working in the industry. Nonetheless, you claim to be completely impartial while accusing scientist working "for the other side" to be doing this because they're being paid for it. Do you see the irony?

    Maybe you are impartial, maybe you do know what you're talking about. But let's add some conspiracy to it: Maybe you're being paid to say just that, to help protect the industry. Maybe you simply want to believe that something like this is impossible, because it would turn the world as you know it upside down.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    By the way, I do, as you may have guessed, work in the nuclear industry. I'm a radiation and criticality safety expert, so I believe that I do know what I'm talking about, but I don't 'follow the money' and say whatever my paymaster says. I report the truth. It doesn't bother me if they don't like it, I say it how it is. Unlike some of these so called 'experts' who will say whatever they are paid to say by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. But that is for another thread.

    Shielder=biased

    if you work in the nuclear industry then you are biased if you trolling pro nuclear FUD!

    You only do not bit the hand that feeds you!

    "but I don't 'follow the money' and say whatever my paymaster says."

    LOL only complete naive stupid people believe you! if you chance your mind then your paymaster stop sending money to you!

    " I report the truth. "

    LOL!!!!!! LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!!! in fukushima it was proven that the Truth don't care and even if someone report it it just dosn't matter! and if someone report "Truth" ge just is fired
    in the video there are workers Report the "REAL truth" and they are out-of-work instantly!

    "Unlike some of these so called 'experts' who will say whatever they are paid to say by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth."

    LOL!!!!!! you are really a joke! no they are not payed! but YOU ARE PAYED!

    and no greenpeace do not pay for lies.

    LOL really lol-.- but yes I've already guessed it that you are biased !

    and yes I'm not Biased!

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wildfire View Post
    I'm not trying to take sides here, but here's how I see it: On the one hand, you're telling us that you're an expert working in the industry. Nonetheless, you claim to be completely impartial while accusing scientist working "for the other side" to be doing this because they're being paid for it. Do you see the irony?

    Maybe you are impartial, maybe you do know what you're talking about. But let's add some conspiracy to it: Maybe you're being paid to say just that, to help protect the industry. Maybe you simply want to believe that something like this is impossible, because it would turn the world as you know it upside down.
    in the past i write against some payed people.-.-. i remember some microsoft payed people on kwick.de microsoft don't care about linux sides like phoronix because microsoft only care about jon doe people on facebook and in germany kwick...

    the nuclear industries payed million of people to write in forums and this is a FACT!

    its a high risk that he is one of them. he show many strategies he ignore my sources he blaming my sources to be nonsense but my sources come from high skilled people and he can not be higher skilled but he claimed he is also skilled and he is right and the other experts only do have mental cancer. only PR Lobby experts write like this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wildfire View Post
    Nonetheless, you claim to be completely impartial while accusing scientist working "for the other side" to be doing this because they're being paid for it. Do you see the irony?
    its not irony ALL PR Lobby experts work in this way its a way to work in the puplic because without tricks he can not manipulate the people.

    and this "irony" is only a "Kunstgriff" in german a "rhetorical trick" to get a point with NO arguments.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wildfire View Post
    Maybe you're being paid to say just that, to help protect the industry. Maybe you simply want to believe that something like this is impossible, because it would turn the world as you know it upside down.
    one is for sure if I'm right then his job is gone and he lifes unter the bridge as a street bums

    this means he will always protect his "Life" no civilian accept nuclear power plants if the power plant is a "nuclear-bomb"

    this means also if he write here in privat then he is also biased because he lost his job if a nuclear power plant is a nuclear bomb weapon against the civilians.

    and one is for sure if "Neckarwestheim" blows up i'm doomed because i'm less than 15km away!

    this means he KILLS my homeland only to get his monthly payment in his job!

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    nuclear
    http://www.fr-online.de/japans-katas...56,item,0.html

    this German news make sure you are out of work !

    because GREEN energy is proved CHEAPER than nuclear energy!

    "Ähnlich ist die Lage auf der französischen EPR-Baustelle in Flamanville: Die Fertigstellung dürfte sich um vier Jahre auf 2016 verschieben, Kostenpunkt ebenfalls sechs Milliarden. Der französische Rechnungshof ermittelte, dass die Kilowattstunde Strom bei dem neuen Reaktor voraussichtlich sieben bis neun Cent kosten wird."

    this means the EPR in Flamaville wille make energy for 0.09€ per kwh

    and a nuclear power plant can not handle "peak load" this means the overall costs are higher than 0.09€!

    in germany wind millers get 0.05€ per kwh ! and my own heat and power natural gas power plant get 0.08€ per kwh

    and coal is 0.04€ in germany!

    and they cut down the solar power down to 0.13€ for big solar power plants and in germany the solar power handle the peak load!

    this all means: nuclear power is expensive and dangerous!

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    you are just not an expert! an real expert say it different!

    but yes you don't understand this this fact shows you are just stupid!

    Real experts like: "Arnold Gundersen, chief engineer" pointing out that there was a nuclear explosion!

    and i prefer to believe REAL experts more than you the JOKE expert with the name "Shielder"
    Seriously, you suck. Go learn all your facts again.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •