|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Japan | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Humans are still relatively plentiful, available and very rapidly reprogrammed and tasked.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4173 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
jar writes: Humans are still relatively plentiful, available and very rapidly reprogrammed and tasked. Humans are also great at running remote operated vehicles. These ROV's could possibly work in high radiation/ heat environments that their human operators could not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And likely that will go on the list for next time.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4173 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
We can only hope. I am sure somebody out there is working the ROV angle now as I write. Sad it takes a bad thing to sometimes push us along with implementing something I am sure has been thought of by many, but they couldn't afford to test and build a prototype or more likely didnt see a market for one. Money is always a factor. There would be problem of only being able to use ROV's once if they get irradiated also....cost probably wouldn't concern people of japan right now though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You need to remember that the problems at the Nuclear Stations are pretty far down the National Priority list. Transportation space for food, clothing, shelter, medicines, general power sources, water, sanitary products all rank far higher than ROVs for the power stations.
The news over here keeps plugging away at the "nuclear crisis" because it is popular, easy to cover and requires limited resources, but that has little to do with the actual nature of the problems facing Japan. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4173 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
Well I guess the Japaneese govt asking I-ROBOT for assistance speaks volumes, read percy's link in the msg 149. ROV's could be used for many things non-nuclear, search and rescue, other industrial accidents, well fires....
I agree the nuclear issue is being used because people fear it, irrationally usualy, keeps people watching and there are many sides to put their 2 cents in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And that's a very important point. It's very possible that many ROV's are being used, for example in search and rescue, even in infrastructure inspection and assessment, and those would have a far higher immediate priority than the nuclear power sites.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4173 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
jar writes: And that's a very important point. It's very possible that many ROV's are being used, for example in search and rescue, even in infrastructure inspection and assessment, and those would have a far higher immediate priority than the nuclear power sites. I agree. Looking at the role ROV's and other unmanned vehicle are playing in the military, off-shore drilling....it will only be a matter of time before we see their use more wide spread and affordable for many things including nuclear response. I am no engineer, but working in a high radiation environment will present its own uniqe problems, shielding the electronics/ sensor package for one. Handling it after exposure for maintenance or to replace tool package....many things to be considered. Disposal of it after job is done, maybe? I feel as you do though that they will play larger roles in inspection, Search and rescue, explosive ordnance/bomb removal.. as they should.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4173 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
There is new imagery available on google earth of Japan after the quake/tsunami, the first ones I found are near Fukushima Nuke stations. I am sure there is more, but these of coastal area show the scope of what they face in rebuilding. The image dates I've been looking at are the 11th & 12th of this month, by turning on time line you can compare to older images.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Rahvin writes: Those who are still expecting a Chernobyl or worse are being unreasonably pessimistic. quote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_japan_earthquake Edited by dronester, : clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
Yes, dronester, I saw that too.
And yet, despite the classification change, the nature of this disaster as opposed to Chernobyl means that we can expect a lower cost in lives at Fukushima. The problem with the "top level classification" is that, once you've gotten that high, there's no further way to distinguish the severity of events. One Level 7 incident could literally be twice as bad as another Level 7. Come back to me when we have a final death toll (or at least a preliminary one). That's the best, most meaningful metric to judge real severity. If Fukushima kills more people than Chernobyl, I'll concede. If not, well... ABE -
Here's what Im talking about: quote: Still not nearly comparable to Chernobyl. Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Rahvin writes: Come back to me when we have a final death toll I think a final CANCER toll would be AS revealing. Unfortunately, as I written previously, like Chernobyl and other radiation born catastrophes, good luck in finding SOLID numbers. I submit these dubious examples:
quote: In addition, it seems the Japan site is increasing the contaminated zone (+12 miles) for evacuation. A similar 19 mi exclusion zone is around the site of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster. Chernobyl Exclusion Zone - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
You used greenpeace for your numbers, dronester. I wouldn;t trust greenpeace to tell me what time it is. They're possibly worse than quoting Glenn Beck.
So instead I'll just repeat myself, or rather my previously quoted article:
quote: I added bolding this time to help you absorb the relevant information, which you seemed to completely ignore.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Drone writes: I submit these dubious examples: I added bolding this time to help you absorb the relevant information, which you seemed to completely ignore. Let me know when you come up with SOLID cancer numbers. In addition to ignored information: In addition, it seems the Japan site is increasing the contaminated zone (+12 miles) for evacuation. A similar 19 mi exclusion zone is around the site of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster. Not Found
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024