The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > What is worse than an earthquake followed by a tsunami ?.

What is worse than an earthquake followed by a tsunami ?.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
It is the intention to dream..and receive bigger visionings
that has led to the possibility..of a way beyond Dream..

at this time
In order to sustain a Dream
one must envision larger..than one thought possible.

[when we lived..the greed of me me
not thee thee..

[meet need
not greed
nor creed]

Envisioning larger than you thought possible
requires a visionary center in the field of spirit..
and upon earth..to sustain larger visions.

Vision is an act of creation; first the creator perceives what they desire to make manifest and then gathers all the parts to accomplish the task;

and then launches the intentions to cause the dreams into existence ..from which the creation is made manifest.

Without the act of vision
there can be no creation;

and so vision is a much forgotten attribute of dream weaving
possability [even probability]..into reality

sudden change may be one's hearts desire
as internal dreaming occurs from within the heart region;
and if dreams are projected..from this part of self,..then they are filled with love [grace mercy good etc]

and the most loving experience
shall unfold for self and others.

Love is required to sustain one's health.

Those giving too much are simply moving towards a dream of disease
as a result of the lack of love fostered in such an envisioned dance.

Learning to balance giving
as well as receiving it is necessary
to a more fuller ascension into health.

anyhow it seems we need to break an egg
to make an omlet..

[for the new to come..
first the old must be disovled]

and greed so loves being greedy
without the greedy..there could be no needy

for want of a nail
the battle was lost

[what shall be lost
just to save the greedy..a small cost]
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 11:27:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Poirot. From my understanding, the "reactor" has not "exploded" (a reasonable but poor choice of words, imo). Also, I think you will find the "radiation" that the MSM are reporting is not of the type which is released during a nuclear chain reaction (which is much more dire), but more of the type explained at Barry Brook's website (see previous link).

Don't get me wrong, this is a most tragic event and will put nuclear power on the back-burner (pun intended) for years to come. However, new generation reactors really are required, to replace the old ones still in place (there are still 100's arround the world). Unfortunately, profligate growth and consumerism is placing enormous strains on our energy resources, placing huge stresses on international/national security, food, water and agricultural resources, transportation, and of course the environment. This is not sustainable in a future world ... despite the shill to the contrary.

If I had my way (I obviously don't) - an international moratorium should be put in place on building 'old style' nuclear reactors, pump research and development into new Gen IV - as well as imposing a moratorium on building 'old style' coal fired power stations, with similar concomitant restrictions.

Will it happen? I hope so, if events of late are to give honour to those that have lost their lives and more importantly, to those that have been left behind to endure and start all over again.

My guess? Nope, there are too many "voters" with their thumbs in their ears and their fingers in their eyes chanting a mantra of misinformation and sometimes, deliberate disinformation ... whipped up by frenzied MSM shock-jocks relying on a 24/7 soundbites to stay ahead of the pack. Sorry, that's how I feel.
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 11:34:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Puzzling, isn't it suzeonline.

>>Having taken care of aged soldiers that were involved in the clean-up of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the Atomic bombs were dropped in the 2nd world war, believe me, you don't want to be anywhere near too much radiation! I can't believe that the Japanese, of all people, would agree to build large nuclear power stations in such an earthquake prone country.<<

When you consider the difference between building nuclear power stations in an earthquake zone, and building them in the vast, earthquake-and-tsunami-free spaces of Australia, the Japanese must have had some compelling reasons to take the risk.

Especially given their first-hand experience of nuclear fallout.

My own assessment is that they are indeed fully, even painfully, aware of the issues, but it is the only sane energy direction for them to take right now.

It also helps that overall, their record hasn't been too bad with nuclear power, even with the perennially shaky ground, and particularly given the apparent blind incompetence of the contractors actually running the facilities.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 12:43:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What surprises me is that they did not build the power stations on the
west coast where no tsunami would appear.
The junction between plates is east of Japan.
It seems from reports that they survived the earthquake OK but the
tsunami destroyed the auxiliary plant equipment.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 1:47:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bonmot,

Apologies for the poor choice of words - there was an explosion at the site of the No 2 reactor (described as huge by a plant spokesman) - and a fire (explosion?) also at the site of the No 4 reactor.

I suppose I'm curious at what would happen if the containment materials were breached - not that there is any concrete evidence that this has occurred.

The Japanese government seems to be doing two things at once - assuming the worst and yet playing things down for the media. The power plant spokes-people seem a tad more up front.

Nuclear powered energy was always going to be a calculated risk for a country like Japan. Needing to be sited near water and yet in a country that can expect tsunamis - perhaps not at the magnitude of those recently experienced. I think this puts the Japanese situation in a unique light.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 2:26:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This discussion has now deteriorated to a being about whether there has been a meltdown or not ?. Hate to be persistent but
what is worse a natural catastrophe, or a man made catastrophe ?.

I'm proposing that playing with fireworks, results in injuries,
my question being, " is the nuclear power industry capable of supplying the security it should be, given the magnitude
of a discretionary mistake, or judgement error ".

I don't think they can provide such guarantee's.

The magnitude of an unpreventable natural event, clearly pales into insignificance when considering the magnitude of a nuclear failure, be it meltdown or other form of radiation contamination event.
Posted by thinker 2, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 8:16:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy