Massive Earthquake Hits North East Tokyo

Japan is earthquake country, a condition that Europe is not effected by.

I agree that that particular risk is negligible in Europe. So what are the possible risks?

- Any other possible nature occurrences? I don't believe so.

- Any external accidents? Ah, that old airplane crashes into nuclear plant argument. Not really, I would think. As there are masses of other area where a plane could accidentally crash, the likelihood seems very remote indeed.

- What about technical and safety standards? Well, a bit shaky here, I would think, especially regarding older plants that are well over 30 years in existence now. Not a comforting thought, especially as the emergency cooling systems are well below par by now. Many of the old reactors have a technical level that would fail standards, if they were to be considered for initial approval.

- What about malevolent external influence? This is where I get VERY VERY worried. A lot. A nuclear power plant as target of a terrorism strike seems not unlikely (to say the least). Far fetched? A few years ago I would have agreed. At that time the thought of a few bozos collapsing a pair of skyscrapers in New York, killing several thousand people would have appeared unlikely too. But as a terrorism target in the West, would seem more appropriate? Especially as I see no particular security efforts made in this direction. In my view highest security measures in nuclear power plants would seem much less paranoid than they do in airports. If I were a terrorist, that's where I'd strike. And this is my concern number one. These people have shown on an almost daily basis that lives don't mean anything to them, in fact the higher the death toll the better. One of those attacks will get through and the ones of us who are left will have to deal with the consequences.

So yes, nuclear power plants in the West are a high risk factor, and I'm sure that sooner or later an attack will succeed and we will have a nuclear catastrophe here, if things don't change. With here I mean anywhere in the West. Any other view would, in my opinion, be sheer reckless optimism.

@ Henry: "Well yes, if you don't believe anything said then I can't really argue with you."

I can't believe you mean that. In consequence that would mean that you can only argue with people who also believe all they are told. That would be pointless, as you'd all be of the same opinion anyway. Apart from that it's your choice, of course, but I for one am very suspicious of things I am told, especially by official parties who's allegiance with parties of purely economic interests (often identical) can't be denied.

 Surely you can't deny that most political authorities have been caught with their trousers down countless times and more. So how can you still believe them, especially in times of a gargantuan crisis?

And that figure of a possible crisis perhaps once every 10000 years was part of the official political propaganda during the early '80s at the hight of nuclear protests, printed and broadcast in all the main media. I'm sure many here remember that. Come to think of it, it was issued by the people we should, according to you, trust.

Just out of interest; I had assumed that that figure appies to all nuclear power plants combined. If it applies to all roughly 500 individual ones in existance and under construction, that would make the likelyhood of a major nuclear incident rise to once every 20 years! Now that seems more realistic although possibly a trifle worrying.

According to the newest BBC report:

"But the US military, which has been helping the relief effort, said it had moved away from the area after one of its aircraft carriers detected low-level radiation about 100 miles (160km) offshore."

Ok, now let’s think this through. An aircraft carrier is turning back, away from the source because of low level radiation. The authorities tell us that the source of the radiation shows practically normal levels. Assuming that were true, it might be that the carrier is inside a low level radioactive cloud that is moving away from the source. If that were so, it would make more sense to move towards the source and not away from it, thereby travelling through the cloud to leave it behind. Moving away from the source would mean staying inside the cloud for an unnecessary amount of time.
As the carrier has chosen to turn about, it can only mean that the source is highly contaminated, contrary to what is said by those we are supposed to be trusting.

At the same time, there are higher levels of contamination reported from the Onagawa nuclear power plant about 120 miles away, that is also having cooling problems. This radiation though, according to the authorities, is probably due to the contamination that was transported by the wind from Fukushima. Is this a different contamination from the one the US carrier is effected by? In how many directions does the wind actually travel simultaneously in Japan?

So much for the believability of official sources then, Henry.