It's very easy to be smug if you choose to say nothing other than pick apart the content of those who choose to say something.
It is also very easy to be smug if you choose to ignore comments from other contributors and thereby just preserve your original line of argument. I thought you took pride in your ability to debate?
Nobody here predicted -
1. the disaster would last as long as it has
If you check, you will notice that several people commented that it would not be over quickly.
2. would affect multiple reactors
That was discussed as soon as it was realised that the generators were not tsunami proof.
3. include some quantity of plutonium and uranium
Including you - none of us were aware of that, at the time of the earthquake.
4. would significantly contaminate a 30 mile radius with, according to the IAEA and a Nuclear Engineer, radiation hotspots equivalent to those found at Chernobyl
You are being somewhat disingenuous here. The 30 mile radius refers to marine sampling. It does not relate to land sampling. The finding is that the main contaminant is Iodine-131, as I predicted, and that the Caesium-137 released has quickly dispersed in sea water, as I also predicted. The IAEA also says that it will be possible to follow Caesium-137 over long distances for several years, but will take months or years to reach other shores of the Pacific. The IAEA has made no comparison with Chernobyl, to my knowledge.
And, did you not see my responses to you on the previous thread? Since you are still placing reliance in your "Nuclear Engineer" perhaps I aught to cross-post it here for your comment:
Chief Nuclear Engineer Arnie Gundersen "News on Fukushima Daiichi" dated 23 March.
Now in comparison, and it's not an exact comparison, but it's pretty good, at Chernobyl the IAEA considered a hotspot if the beta contamination exceeded 500,000 disintegrations every second, or 0.5 mega-becequerels per square meter. So this is on the same realm as what a radioactive hotspot was considered at by the IAEA after Chernobyl
Have you checked this source? Have you looked at Mr Gundersen's web site? Have you independently verified that the information he quotes regarding the IAEA for Chernobyl (which was an explosion at a military nuclear enrichment plant involving a mixture of Uranium isotopes being ejected into the higher atmosphere in a core explosion) is a valid comparison to what has happened (and is happening) at Fukushima (which is a civilian power generation plant that has generally ejected Caesium and Iodine)?
The Becequerel is a measure of radioactivity - that is the rate of nucleus decays per second - so a given mass of a short-lived isotope, like Iodine-131, will have a much higher Becequerel value than the same mass of a long-lived isotope, like Uranium-235, but of course, with Iodine the radioactivity will only last weeks, for Uranium it will last much longer than that. We might not be comparing like with like.
It would appear that Mr Gundersen is the Chief (and only) Nuclear Engineer for Fairewinds Associates Inc. The other associate in the "corporation" is Mrs Gundersen, who happens to be a lawyer specialising in litigation on matters nuclear - class action, anybody?
I think you should heed RAENORTH's advice: "it helps if all parties avoid appeal to authority, and concentrate on the facts, rather than rely on what are very often partisan agencies intent on pursuing their own agendas."