Heda_Madness's past comments

  • 1

    Heda_Madness

    Before making statements like that you may want to Google it. Deaths per KW of power produced are substantially higher for solar, wind and Hydro than nuclear.

    Posted in: Sendai reactor power ramp-up halted due to pump problem

  • 0

    Heda_Madness

    I'd suggest you look into the difference between volcanic and tectonic earthquakes. I asked the other day if there was any evidence of volcanic earthquakes causing significant damage as they are typically localized. The larges under st Helens is a 5.5 because there is a difference in pressure release and magma moving.

    Pyroclastic flows will affect me in New Zealand far greater than they will affect the nuclear power plant.

    I'd your only concern is a tectonic earthquake like we saw in Tohoku then it isnt relevant to an article on a volcano and further evidence that Sakurajima is not of any concern to the nuclear plant.

    Posted in: Kyushu Electric says no special precautions needed over volcano

  • 0

    Heda_Madness

    Farmboy.. instead of sarcasm, why don't you answer the simple question.

    What is the risk from Sakurajima to the nuclear plant. Because it's not a tsunami, it's not pyroclastic flows, it's not earthquakes, and it's not an explosion firing rocks 50 km away.

    So what is it? No-one has produced a single piece of scientific evidence to suggest there is a risk. Because for the simple fact.

    There isn't one.

    Posted in: Kyushu Electric says no special precautions needed over volcano

  • -2

    Heda_Madness

    So come on guys... what IS the threat? You're convinced their is a risk. You're convinced that it's not safe. So, using science and facts. What is the risk to the nuclear reactor from Sakurajima. Because 'it's a volcano' is not remotely relevant.

    The fact that none of you have been able to produce a single risk from Sakurajima to the nuclear plant kind of speaks volumes and one can conclude that there is no threat to the nuclear plant from Sakurajima.

    Posted in: Kyushu Electric says no special precautions needed over volcano

  • -2

    Heda_Madness

    So come on guys... what IS the threat? You're convinced their is a risk. You're convinced that it's not safe.

    So, using science and facts. What is the risk to the nuclear reactor from Sakurajima.

    Because 'it's a volcano' is not remotely relevant.

    Posted in: Kyushu Electric says no special precautions needed over volcano

  • -1

    Heda_Madness

    Hi guy,

    It's like Kurisupuisu said. There is no risk to the nuclear power plant from the Sakurajima volcano. Just a lot of paranoia with no science base.

    Posted in: Japan raises eruption warning for volcano near nuclear plant

  • 0

    Heda_Madness

    Smith,

    Perhaps I'm not being clear. What is the risk to the nuclear power plant from the volcano that is situated 50 km away. The fact that an active volcano is located 50 km away, is not in itself a risk. There needs to be consequences of that volcano and so far nobody has been able to provide a single scientific fact as to why they think that

    The pyroclastic flow will go across a sea, up a mountain and down a mountain. Or that the subsequent tsunami will go back on itself and turn right. Or that the volcano will explode rocks 50 km away.

    It's called risk assessment. It's a simple science.

    You look at the risk and so far the only one that anyone has put forward so far is there is a volcano 50km away from a nuclear power plant. But nobody has presented a single risk associated with that.

    Posted in: Japan raises eruption warning for volcano near nuclear plant

  • -6

    Heda_Madness

    Smith,

    What is the risk? It's not the earthquakes, not the pyroclastic flow and it's not the tsunamis.

    So what precisely is the risk to the nuclear plant from Sakurajima volcano. I'm genuinely interested in a scientific possibility (based on previous events) to suggest that there is any risk.

    Because all there has been so far is nuclear is bad mkay.

    And as numerous posters have said above. There is a town of over 600,000 people that will be wiped off the map before anything could happen to the nuclear facility.

    Posted in: Japan raises eruption warning for volcano near nuclear plant

  • -4

    Heda_Madness

    Wondering the relevance of Krakatoa. There was a tsunami but it was caused by the pyroclastic flows and a similar tsunami in this case won't effect the nuclear plant. Unless the waves go back on themselves and turn right.

    but the real danger comes from severe earthquakes that coincide with explosive eruptions.

    Do you have any evidence of these? I mean the largest earthquake recorded under mount st helens for example is 5.5. I haven't been able to find any significant earthquakes caused by volcanoes hence my question before.

    Posted in: Japan raises eruption warning for volcano near nuclear plant

  • -3

    Heda_Madness

    For those of you worried abut a volcanic earthquake causing severe damage to a building 50km away. Could you perhaps give an example of when a volcanic earthquake has produced sufficient energy to cause the level of damage that you expect.

    I was going to ask when one could generate a tsunami but even you should now realise that this couldn't possibly happen in this case.

    So...volcanic earthquake. ..intensity of say 7.5 plus or Japanese scale upper 6. Are there any examples?

    Posted in: Japan raises eruption warning for volcano near nuclear plant

  • -3

    Heda_Madness

    What's the biggest risk? The volcano or the media.

    If the Volcano is capable and likely of sending rocks 50km away and or spewing pyroclastic flows that go up and down mountain s then it's the volcano.

    If not, it's the media.

    The 600000 or so people who live in the area are under far more threat from the volcano than thr nuclear plant and it's ridiculous to bring the two together. As has been punlisted elsewhere, the biggest health risk to the nuclear evacuees is mental...the media are a large reason for that.

    Posted in: Japan raises eruption warning for volcano near nuclear plant

  • -1

    Heda_Madness

    I don't think you've actually read anything I've said.

    I have said that mistakes were made. I've also said that the only person who saw the crash site said he saw no survivors. Those are facts. Yes, people survived the initial crash and died during the night and that's a crying shame. But based on the information they had available they deemed that when a plane flies into a mountain and when there is no evidence of survivors that there was no.point in risking further life by sending a rescue team up in difficult conditions.

    It was wrong to assume that no-one had survived. But had everyone died and the rescue team got into difficulty there would be some who would be quick to blame the rescue team for the inconceivable decision to go up the mountain at night in difficult conditions.

    And I don't know anyone can think that they wanted to hear their were no survivors.

    Posted in: 30th anniversary of JAL jumbo jet crash observed

  • -1

    Heda_Madness

    The SDF pilot who arrived on the scene and reported that there were no signs of life.

    Posted in: 30th anniversary of JAL jumbo jet crash observed

  • -1

    Heda_Madness

    2) Rescue teams made the inconceivable decision of interrupting the search for the debris when the night came. They resumed search in the next morning - and it was proven that a lot more people could be saved if help had arrived during the nigh

    Whilst it's clear that there were a lot of mistakes that night and it most certainly cost lives. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. It's very harsh to say it was an inconceivable decision.

    The plane crashed into a mountain at night. The SDF helicopter reported that there were no signs of life. They put 2 and 2 together and came up with a number different to 4 but that's certainly not inconceivable.

    Had they all died in the crash and some of the rescue team also died then we would have been discussing the inconvceivable decision to send rescuers up a mountain at night in bad conditions.

    As I said mistakes were made but it's certainly not inconceivable to assume that when a plane flies into a mountain everyone dies. Especially when the one person who viewed the site said he saw no evidence of survivors.

    Posted in: 30th anniversary of JAL jumbo jet crash observed

  • 0

    Heda_Madness

    I love how people maintain that democracy is broken.

    This government was reelected. Before the election they made no effort to hide the fact they were pro-nuclear and would turn the power plants back on.

    They won by a landslide.

    That some people don't support them being turned on does not change they fact that they were voted by the public and there are no surprises.

    Posted in: Nuclear reactor switched on in Kyushu despite protests

  • -1

    Heda_Madness

    Kurisupisu

    Why don't you read my post again and tell me where I was referring to yours? And then maybe you could comment intelligently. If you're able to...

    Posted in: Nuclear reactor switched on in Kyushu despite protests

  • 1

    Heda_Madness

    200 protesters.

    Yes democracy is very much broken isn't it?

    Wildwest... yes a reduction in CO2 thats guaranteed to cause death and destruction is regarded as a bad thing on this forum.

    Posted in: Nuclear reactor switched on in Kyushu despite protests

  • -1

    Heda_Madness

    Did the aphids go through the same food.quarantine restrictions that the humans went through. Did the aphids go through the same bongo zone that the humans went through? As a study it's interesting. At least compared to other studies on aphids.

    As a study relating to health effects on human beings it is not remotely relevant.

    Posted in: Health fallout from Fukushima mainly mental: studies

  • 2

    Heda_Madness

    Star viking it may well be, I was quoting something I read recently but it may well be lower than that. But either way it's substantially lower than the JT community seems to think.

    By the way. I don't live in the Pacific Ocean either just in case anyone wants to bring up my locale as a reason that my opinion is irrelevant.

    Posted in: Health fallout from Fukushima mainly mental: studies

  • -3

    Heda_Madness

    That's also been covered to death...of you test to the nth degree you will find every single discrepancy. Same in other parts of Japan. There will be increases in cancer. Thyroid cancer, if discovered early enough is almost 100 percent treatable. These are simplemented facts

    Just as there was substantially less radiation than chernobyl. That the food wasn't contaminated to the levels in chernobyl etc etc etc

    And if 99% of Japanese have a different opinion to the science community that explains why the biggest risk is fear of radiation not radiation itself.

    Ever wonder why the negative articles are all on enenews but never in lancet etc?

    And apart from the headline...where does the 6000% come from?

    Posted in: Health fallout from Fukushima mainly mental: studies

View all