2011-03-18, 08:52 PM
Anonymous Moose Wrote:I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. The only problem I see is that their "over 600,000" estimate is much lower than your 1.7million estimate.
And for the other statement, even with 30% not being a problem, you still have a large 70% to be concerned aobut.
I'm saying exactly that. How do you say over 600,000 is 1.7 million? Surely you can say that "over 600,000" accounts for all figures at or above 600,000, but HOW do you get 1.7million from 600,000? In what way are the two numbers correlated? Unless there is a link here, I feel inclined to believe that they don't know what they pineapple they were writing about, even basic Maths.
Quote:And for the other statement, even with 30% not being a problem, you still have a large 70% to be concerned aobut.And that's exactly why I had to be hopeful about it right here:
Kalovale Wrote:And yes, there is no mentioning about the absolute levels of water inside the reactors, but I'm making a few assumptions here:
- Officials claimed that the ponds still have at least some water left from visual inspections from those lolhelicopters.
- The spraying missions included waiting for the steam to dissipate before resuming spraying water. It suggests that there is a correlation between spraying water and having that water boiled to steam, in other words: effectively delivering the water to the ponds.