gnealson wrote:
it's naive to think that large holders will dump their holdings onto the market at any time. Large enough holders generally wait for strength to sell into. So in my opinion, the true test of the top 20 is in play now, not a month ago. We're seeing the price tip over again. Is it technical action only, or is it because of the actions of larger holders like Pewal?
So my question is: Why would the large holders not get out when the price did return to 12c. Seeing as that would have been selling into strength.
[A] study was conducted by a team of experts from Kyoto University and Hiroshima University ... found cesium-137 at levels between about 590,000 and 2.19 million becquerels per cubic meter [outside the 30 kilometer evacuation zone].
After the Chernobyl nuclear accident in the former Soviet Union in 1986, residents who lived in areas where cesium-137 levels exceeded 555,000 becquerels were forced to move elsewhere.
***
The amounts of cesium-137 found in Iitate were at most four times the figure from Chernobyl.
If more radioactive materials are emitted from the crippled Fukushima plant, the level of cesium-137 could rise even further.
Worth a read for all Uranium buffs.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4240
These events are going to have governments very keen to develop safe and stable nuclear power.
The technologies is already available---watch the Vid.
For those who don't know, the facts have changed again today. Fukushima declared as bad or worse than Chernobyl by authorites:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/strong-earthquake-hits-japan-rocks-tokyo/story-e6frg6so-1226037789064
Anyone wondering about what a 'terabecquerel' is, whether it can be converted to a sievert, and on what basis the authorities are now being forced to upgrade the severity of the Fukushima incident to the maximum, you may find this blog page interesting:
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/04/japan-considers-raising-nuclear.html
Key extract:
I see this as pretty significant news. Chernobyl is the benchmark for Nuclear Disaster and it has now been equaled and probably exceeded with a plant that was supposedly leaps and bounds ahead of Chernobyl in terms of safety. I think this will weigh heavily on public perception of the incident as well as political actions for a long time to come.
Grant
"This is a preliminary assessment and is subject to finalisation by the International Atomic Energy Agency," Japan's nuclear safety watchdog said on Tuesday.
"In terms of volume of radioactive materials released, our estimate shows it is about 10 per cent of what was released by Chernobyl."
The meltdown at Chernobyl, the world's worst peacetime nuclear event, in the then-Soviet Union spewed forth a large volume of toxic radiation, poisoning large areas of land and affecting thousands of lives.
Nuclear industry specialist Murray Jennex, an associate professor at San Diego State University in California, dismissed the comparison with Fukushima.
"It's nowhere near that level. Chernobyl was terrible - it blew and they had no containment, and they were stuck," he said."[Japan's] containment has been holding. The only thing that hasn't is the fuel pool that caught fire."
Grant
Have you looked into this?
They have the technology and you may find yellow cake becomes as valuable as a Lamington---yeh I know an exaggeration.
... yellow cake becomes as valuable as a Lamington---yeh I know an exaggeration.
You are on your own with that highly subjective view Grant.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/12/3189175.htm?site=melbourne
Clearly Fukishima isn't anywhere near as bad as Chernobyl, that is sensationalistic journalism at best.
I also find it intriguing why you and so many others both here and afar select the PEN threads to post the sensationalist general information. I have 27 uranium stocks on my watchlist and yeas there are more. However you and so mnay others single out PEN to post this and similar general articles, I wonder why if I may ask?
You seemingly have very strong views on this, attempting to counter any positive that PEN has in favour (and PEN has many positives) for a vastly negative and subjective outlook.
Clearly Fukishima isn't anywhere near as bad as Chernobyl, that is sensationalistic journalism at best.
Bloomberg
(Updates with comment from Tepco in third paragraph.)
By Yuji Okada and Aaron Sheldrick
April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Japan raised the severity rating of
its nuclear crisis to the highest, matching the 1986 Chernobyl
disaster, after increasing radiation prompted the government to
widen the evacuation zone and aftershocks rocked the country.
Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency today raised
the rating to 7. The accident at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi station
was previously rated 5 on the global scale, the same as the 1979
partial reactor meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania.
The stricken nuclear plant, located about 220 kilometers
(135 miles) north of Tokyo, is leaking radiation in Japan’s
worst civilian nuclear disaster after a magnitude-9 quake and
tsunami on March 11. Tokyo Electric Power Co. said its plant,
which has withstood hundreds of aftershocks, may spew more
radiation than Chernobyl before the crisis is contained.
“The radiation leaks haven’t stopped,” Junichi Matsumoto,
general manager of the utility’s nuclear power and plant fitting
division, said in Tokyo today. “If the leaks continue, the
total radiation from the reactors may exceed” that from
Chernobyl.
The radiation released so far from the Fukushima accident
is estimated to be around 10 percent of that from Chernobyl,
Japan’s nuclear safety agency said earlier.
Today’s rating change won’t lead to a further widening of
the evacuation zone beyond the increase announced yesterday,
Kenkichi Hirose, an adviser to Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s
cabinet, said at the nuclear agency’s news conference.
Evacuation Zone
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said yesterday that
residents of some towns beyond the 20-kilometer evacuation zone
around the plant will have a month to move to safer areas.
“In contrast with Chernobyl, we have been able to avoid
direct health risks,” Edano said at a public event in Tokyo
today. “The assessment level of 7 may be the same, but in terms
of its shape and contents, the process has been different."
The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale
rates nuclear accidents in terms of their effects on health and
the environment, according to the International Atomic Energy
Agency, which helped set up the system. Each of its seven steps
represents a ten times increase in the severity of the incident
or accident, according to the INES factsheet.
Levels 1 through 3 are classified as incidents and those
from 4 to 7 are defined as accidents. Level 7 means there has
been a ‘‘major release of radioactive material with widespread
health and environmental effects requiring implementation of
planned and extended countermeasures,’’ the factsheet says.
‘Beginning to Wake Up’
The government ‘‘is at last beginning to wake up to the
reality of the scale of the disaster,’’ said Philip White,
International Liaison Officer at the Citizens’ Nuclear
Information Center, a Tokyo-based group opposed to atomic
energy. ‘‘Its belated move to evacuate people from a larger area
around the nuclear plant, likewise, is a recognition that the
impact on public health is potentially much greater than it
first acknowledged.’’
The level 7 assessment is based on the combined severity of
the situation at reactor Nos. 1, 2 and 3.,Hidehiko Nishiyama,
deputy director-general of the nuclear safety agency, said
today.
‘‘Most radioactive substances detected around the plants
were probably released from explosions that happened at the
early stages of the crisis,’’ Kazuhiko Kudo, research professor
of nuclear engineering at Kyushu University, said before the
announcement.
Quote "TOKYO (MarketWatch) ”” Japanese nuclear-safety authorities Tuesday raised their
assessment of the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant to the same level
as the 1986 Chernobyl disaster."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/japan-upgrades-nuclear-crisis-to-chernobyl-rank-2011-04-11
Clearly Fukishima isn't anywhere near as bad as Chernobyl, that is sensationalistic journalism at best.
I also find it intriguing why you and so many others both here and afar select the PEN threads to post the sensationalist general information. I have 27 uranium stocks on my watchlist and yeas there are more. However you and so mnay others single out PEN to post this and similar general articles, I wonder why if I may ask?
You seemingly have very strong views on this, attempting to counter any positive that PEN has in favour (and PEN has many positives) for a vastly negative and subjective outlook.
But why only PEN?
Fact 1: Fukishima is not the only Nuclear Power Station in the world;
Fact 2: There are hundreds more Nuclear Power stations in the planning stages for China, India and the rest of the world;
Fact 3: The demand for Yellow Cake is not going to evaporate any time soon.
If PEN can produce yellowcake, they will have a market. If they can sell it for a profit then PEN will be arround for a long time to come regardless of where they started out and what they did in the past. If they found uranium on their leases instead of gold and had the kudos' to mine it in the face of a lot of political opposition in the past, good on them.
Get over it, move on, cut the bulldust. If you like uranium stocks buy PEN, trade PEN and post your comments on the PEN thread. If you don't like uranium stocks, don't waste your time posting on the PEN thread.
Personally If there is a trade opportunity with PEN and I see it, I will take it. It owes me nothing, I owe it nothing and all the other crap is just background noise. Also all the crap about protecting newbies is just that...crap. There is a well worn expression on the ASF site, it is DYOR. Do Your Own Research.
Thumbs up from me Nulla Nulla .... succinctly put ..... nothing more to add ... well done
... Parking money in uranium now may not be best use at this point in time.
Lots of platitudes tonight. Still no debate on the current value of PEN.
I take it we all agree that the 5.5 - 10.7 cent range is fair value then, and that we should only expect the upper end of that range if both the AUD/USD rate falls to 0.80 and the spot/term price rises to $70 USD/lb.
Grant
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?