Massive Earthquake Hits North East Tokyo

Slartibartfast wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15nuclear.html?_r=1&emc=na "Fortunately, the prevailing winds were sweeping most of the plume of radioactivity out into the Pacific Ocean, rather than over populated areas."  Fortunately??? It's contaminating seafood.

You don't know if it will contaminate significantly if at all.


Edited by stonebeard - March 15 2011 at 02:35

Last news report I heard was that the wind had turned and was blowing in the direction of Tokyo now.
The radiation outside the plant is now at 400 millisievert, normal level is 1 millisievert / year. The normal dosage can go up to 2.6 or 2.7 per year and is harmless at that intensity.
I do admit that this is not my field and I might have misunderstood something. Also the source of this information is highly unreliable and may be way off.
To imagine that there are still people working there, trying to avoid the disaster is unbelievable. Those people are true heroes.


Edited by npjnpj - March 15 2011 at 03:04

Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Well, even if there is no meltdown, this will certainly cause a lot more sentiment against nuclear plants around the world. Which is too bad.  People want us to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, and yet irrationally fear a much cleaner, more sustainable alternative that carries far fewer risks than critics are willing to admit.

Sure looks risky about now

People in white suits, masks and special gear lining locals up for radiation scans on TV now.

Wikileaks has juts published a document in which members of the IAEA had warned the Japanese authorities of grave security issues on 03.12.2008 and the 04.12. 2008.

Apparently it was pointed out at the time, that a number of Japanese nuclear plants (including Fukushima) were only safe from earthquakes up to a strength of 7 on the Richter Scale (paragraph 6).

As only consequence of that security report an emergency protection center (whatever that is) was founded.

(Reported by Spiegel.de, Germany just a few minutes ago. The Spiegel is generally regarded as the most reliable news source in Germany)


Edited by npjnpj - March 16 2011 at 06:18

timothy leary wrote: Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Well, even if there is no meltdown, this will certainly cause a lot more sentiment against nuclear plants around the world. Which is too bad.  People want us to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, and yet irrationally fear a much cleaner, more sustainable alternative that carries far fewer risks than critics are willing to admit. Sure looks risky about now

Equality 7-2521 wrote: timothy leary wrote: Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Well, even if there is no meltdown, this will certainly cause a lot more sentiment against nuclear plants around the world. Which is too bad.  People want us to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, and yet irrationally fear a much cleaner, more sustainable alternative that carries far fewer risks than critics are willing to admit. Sure looks risky about now We had an anomaly of an even occur. Two huge natural disasters and plants which were slated to be closed this month before given what seems to be an inexplicable extension of operation. If this event has shown something, it is actually the great design of these plants. Engineers painstakingly build in these safety features and margins for error. And this is an old, relatively unsafe plant. Compare this to Chernobyl, there is no comparison.

If you two experts say so, okay then, I don't remember comparing or mentioning the word Chernobyl, you did, which goes to show we are free to compare anything we want, and just for a little newsflash there is commonalities in that they were supposed safe processes that became uncontrollable.

timothy leary wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: timothy leary wrote: Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Well, even if there is no meltdown, this will certainly cause a lot more sentiment against nuclear plants around the world. Which is too bad.  People want us to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, and yet irrationally fear a much cleaner, more sustainable alternative that carries far fewer risks than critics are willing to admit. Sure looks risky about now We had an anomaly of an even occur. Two huge natural disasters and plants which were slated to be closed this month before given what seems to be an inexplicable extension of operation. If this event has shown something, it is actually the great design of these plants. Engineers painstakingly build in these safety features and margins for error. And this is an old, relatively unsafe plant. Compare this to Chernobyl, there is no comparison.  If you two experts say so, okay then, I don't remember comparing or mentioning the word Chernobyl, you did, which goes to show we are free to compare anything we want, and just for a little newsflash there is commonalities in that they were supposed safe processes that became uncontrollable.

What did I say that was opinion? If something I said is wrong, please correct me. I do not like to be in error.