Major Earthquake & Tsunami in Japan

[a6m5]

Is this the Jack Johnson you are talking about?:

Yep, that's him. He's hardcore "save the planet" guy, too. It is luck, but I'm not gonna lie, this incident, combined with my personal experience does make me wonder.

 

[Starfirebird]

Man this was a pretty tragic event.

I didn't even know there was an earthquake until i came on here and seen it on the news page(i don't have cable,dish or antenna)So i was pretty shocked when i seen the news and how big of a quake had hit.

 

[Sir Tuddle]

Yeah, Lots of people are running around trying to get potassium iodide pills imcase the radiation spreads to the west coast. Went into wallgreens the other day and the shelves with the pills were completely empty...

 

[blindboarder_02]

Man this was a pretty tragic event.

I didn't even know there was an earthquake until i came on here and seen it on the news page(i don't have cable,dish or antenna)So i was pretty shocked when i seen the news and how big of a quake had hit.

Same here. I've been watching YouTube videos, CNN and BBC online. It's just simply horrible. Prayers go out for all affected by these tragic turn of events. Lets all hope it doesn't go "worst case scenario"

 

[sanmusa]

Or the big daddy of all firefighting aircraft, the Evergreen Supertanker, based on the 747:

http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/index.html

 

[CodeRedR51]

Yeah, Lots of people are running around trying to get potassium iodide pills imcase the radiation spreads to the west coast. Went into wallgreens the other day and the shelves with the pills were completely empty...

*shakes head*

People these days...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Yeah, Lots of people are running around trying to get potassium iodide pills imcase the radiation spreads to the west coast. Went into wallgreens the other day and the shelves with the pills were completely empty...

Could be worse. They could have cleared the whole palce out of everything already.

 

[nk4e]

*shakes head*

People these days...

Remember the H1N1 scare? I had so many people ask if my store had hand sanitizers in stocked.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Those helicopters are quite accurate launching the water to surface, although I consider that they should bring the Tanker 910 used to pull out fires in the States,the water load is really huge but maybe is not as accurate as an helicopter,in any case I think that it will help more than the current 4 Chinook helicopters.

Picture of the Tanker 910:

It probably won't help too much. A plane has to keep moving, so Tanker 910 will dump its load over a wide area. Only a fraction of it would actually end up dousing the reactor. They might as well try firing a bullet through a keyhole at one hundred paces. No, what you want is Elvis:

Kit it out with some anti-radiological gear, give the crew some CBRN suits, and have it hold position over the exposed reactor. It might not hold as much water as Tanker 910, but it can dump its payload with much more accuracy. And it fills up faster, too.

 

[Neal]

Hi everyone,

Geez, it seems like forever since I posted something here. For those who were wondering, I'm okay (for now, that is.) I won't retype what I went through but will just link to my site where I already gave my account.

http://www.gaijin-gunpla.com/tohoku-kanto-major-earthquake/

Since I wrote that things haven't gotten better. Still no gas at gas stations, no bottled water at stores, no flashlights or batteries anywhere and the rolling blackouts are supposed to continue until the end of April. I managed to convince my wife to take my daughter (and cat) and get the f%*& out of here, i mean, go stay with her relatives who live far away.

Myself, I had just enough gas to get back into work so I am staying in this area (Tochigi prefecture) until the highways open up and the gasoline supply returns. Or until I die from nuclear radiation. Whichever comes first.

Apologies for the late response but just wanted to pipe up and say glad you and yours are (mostly) ok. I see you've been online about 5 hours ago so assume that is still the case but also assume you are still stranded near work waiting for the situation to change. Reading your blog was quite upsetting to say the least...I hope you're back with your family soon and the situation begins to improve.

That sentiment goes to all our members in Japan, good luck 👍

 

[HKS racer]

What about installing remote controls to the airplanes and elicopters which are supposed to drop water over the reactor? Something like Predator technology. I heard they will use one of them to fly over Fukushima.

And I've found this article about an antioxidant in wine, that could help, no miracles of course but I hope the research against nuclear radiations continue.

Wine ingredient protects against radiation: report

WASHINGTON | Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:19pm EDT
(Reuters) - A natural antioxidant commonly found in red wine and fruit may protect against radiation exposure, U.S. researchers reported on Tuesday.

Tests in mice showed that resveratrol, when altered using a compound called acetyl, could prevent some of the damage caused by radiation, the researchers told the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology meeting in Boston.

Drugs made that way might be used in a large-scale radiological or nuclear emergency, said Dr. Joel Greenberger, a radiation oncologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

"Currently there are no drugs on the market that protect against or counteract radiation exposure," he added. "Our goal is to develop treatments for the general population that are effective and non-toxic," Greenberger said in a statement.

"Small molecules which can be easily stored, transported and administered are optimal for this, and so far acetylated resveratrol fits these requirements well."

(Reporting by Maggie Fox; Editing by Peter Cooney)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/23/us-radiation-wine-science-idUSTRE48MBB320080923

And I want to say NO Nuclear it's our future!

 

[Prince.M5]

A little bit off-topic, Indonesia which is a country similar to Japan around the lines of frequent earthquake still insist to continue with their Nuclear Power Plant project and they claimed they will make it more advanced and safer. I doubt that, but I think Nuclear is too dangerous especially to countries like these...

 

[Mark T]

Should the worst happen and this plant goes into a full meltdown, what is the likely radius for mass evacuation?

Also with regard to the temperature control, why haven't they got generators pumping sea water in 24/7? It would only need to be re-fuelled every so often.

 

[HKS racer]

Should the worst happen and this plant goes into a full meltdown, what is the likely radius for mass evacuation?

Also with regard to the temperature control, why haven't they got generators pumping sea water in 24/7? It would only need to be re-fuelled every so often.

Because sea water cause a chemical reaction with the high temperature and radiations into the reactor, they tried some days ago but sea water was transformed in Hydrogen which caused an explosion. They need a good plan now. Maybe scientist know a chemical reaction that can eventually reduce temperatures in these extreme situations. Let's hope so.

 

[DQuaN]

Not only that but I think it also acts as a catalyst in the production of Netrons, increasing the chain reaction. It's kind of a double edged sword.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And I want to say NO Nuclear it's our future!

Nuclear power is actually very safe. This episode was little more than a convergence of everything going wrong at once. The Sendai earthquake was the kind of quake that happens once in a generation. And with alternate fuel sources like solar and wind power being limited in their scope - or else needing massive tracts of land set aside for them - nuclear power is the most cost-effective system.

 

[Dotini]

Should the worst happen and this plant goes into a full meltdown, what is the likely radius for mass evacuation?

A mass evacuation would be precipitous. Given a level 6 situation and the dinky size of Japan, I think it would be prudent to think about evacuating all pregnant women and children from the home islands, starting in the immediate vicinity of the plant. Korea, not far away, might be wise to think about this, too.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That's not the way a meltdown works. It's called a "meltdown" because the core melts and travels downwards. It's the ground that becomes contaminated, not the air (though there is airborne radiation - just not as much as there is in the ground). There has never been a nuclear meltdown before, so don't make the mistake of comparing Fukushima to Chernobyl. They are radically different. The concern with a meltdown is that the molten core would find a way to the ocean, since Fukushima is right on the Pacific coast. Most of Japan would be relatively safe from the worst of it, but Fukushima and the surrounds would have to become a no-man's land like Pripyat in the Ukraine.

 

[HKS racer]

Nuclear power is actually very safe. This episode was little more than a convergence of everything going wrong at once.

These are the human limits, thinking a powerful earthquake is just a "convergence of everything going wrong". We all need to understand everytime you create a Nuclear power plant there will be always a percentage of risks. Humans can't control earthquakes they can just hope those phenomenons aren't strong enough to cause massive damages. Planet Earth don't give a damn if we created Nuclear powerplants everywhere. If Planet Earth need to move, it will do it, no matter how many Nuclear Stations we've installed all around the world. Stating "Nuclear power is actually very safe" doesn't make too much sense. Even a car is safe is you don't crash, a motorbike is safe, until you don't fall dawn.. but a car and a motorbike cannot create massive radiations when they crash. Nuclear is too dangerous if something goes wrong.

That's why I'm saying NO Nuclear

 

[Famine]

These are the human limits, thinking a powerful earthquake is just a "convergence of everything going wrong". We all need to understand everytime you create a Nuclear power plant there will be always a percentage of risks. Humans can't control earthquakes they can just hope those phenomenons aren't strong enough to cause massive damages. Planet Earth don't give a damn if we created Nuclear powerplants everywhere. If Planet Earth need to move, it will do it, no matter how many Nuclear Stations we've installed all around the world. Stating "Nuclear power is actually very safe" doesn't make too much sense. Even a car is safe is you don't crash, a motorbike is safe, until you don't fall dawn.. but a car and a motorbike cannot create massive radiations when they crash. Nuclear is too dangerous if something goes wrong.

That's why I'm saying NO Nuclear

And yet the biggest threat to the Japanese people currently sitting in the atmosphere is as a result of a four-day long fire at an oil refinery in Ichihara.

Makes you think, eh?

 

[Matty]

Apologies for the late response but just wanted to pipe up and say glad you and yours are (mostly) ok. I see you've been online about 5 hours ago so assume that is still the case but also assume you are still stranded near work waiting for the situation to change. Reading your blog was quite upsetting to say the least...I hope you're back with your family soon and the situation begins to improve.

That sentiment goes to all our members in Japan, good luck 👍

+1
Goo luck to all affected.

 

[lbsf1]

And yet the biggest threat to the Japanese people currently sitting in the atmosphere is as a result of a four-day long fire at an oil refinery in Ichihara.

Makes you think, eh?

Famine, the bottomless bucket of knowledge.

 

[Matty]

These are the human limits, thinking a powerful earthquake is just a "convergence of everything going wrong". We all need to understand everytime you create a Nuclear power plant there will be always a percentage of risks. Humans can't control earthquakes they can just hope those phenomenons aren't strong enough to cause massive damages. Planet Earth don't give a damn if we created Nuclear powerplants everywhere. If Planet Earth need to move, it will do it, no matter how many Nuclear Stations we've installed all around the world. Stating "Nuclear power is actually very safe" doesn't make too much sense. Even a car is safe is you don't crash, a motorbike is safe, until you don't fall dawn.. but a car and a motorbike cannot create massive radiations when they crash. Nuclear is too dangerous if something goes wrong.

That's why I'm saying NO Nuclear

Sorry if I double posted.

But it wasn't the earthquake that damaged the power plant. It was the tsunami that caused the problem that we now have. Apparently from what we are told, the earthquake knocked out the electricity, then the diesel generator kicked in for the next hour until the tsunami hit.

So actually it was the tsunami that caused the problem at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant.

And yes, I know that earthquakes start tsunamis. But with some strategic building there wouldn't be a problem.

 

[HKS racer]

Famine I don't think you are trying to say Nuclear is safe because an oil refinery burned. Booth are dangerous things bur with different aftermaths.

Sorry if I double posted.

But it wasn't the earthquake that damaged the power plant. It was the tsunami that caused the problem that we now have. Apparently from what we are told, the earthquake knocked out the electricity, then the diesel generator kicked in for the next hour until the tsunami hit.

So actually it was the tsunami that caused the problem at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant.

And yes, I know that earthquakes start tsunamis. But with some strategic building there wouldn't be a problem.

If you want you can change "earthquake" with "tsunami" in my post above, the sense is still the same. Japan is also famous for anti-seismic measures. I think they've already tried their best, when they built up those powerplant. The problem is seismic phenomena and tsunamis are often out of control. If the phenomenon is too strong nobody exactly know what could happen.

 

[Touring Mars]

These are the human limits, thinking a powerful earthquake is just a "convergence of everything going wrong". We all need to understand everytime you create a Nuclear power plant there will be always a percentage of risks. Humans can't control earthquakes they can just hope those phenomenons aren't strong enough to cause massive damages. Planet Earth don't give a damn if we created Nuclear powerplants everywhere. If Planet Earth need to move, it will do it, no matter how many Nuclear Stations we've installed all around the world. Stating "Nuclear power is actually very safe" doesn't make too much sense. Even a car is safe is you don't crash, a motorbike is safe, until you don't fall dawn.. but a car and a motorbike cannot create massive radiations when they crash. Nuclear is too dangerous if something goes wrong.

That's why I'm saying NO Nuclear

No form of energy production is risk-free or cost-free, and nuclear power is relatively safer than other forms of energy production. If safety were the only consideration (which it isn't), then I'd get rid of coal mining long before nuclear power. Coal mining costs thousands of lives every year, and has cost hundreds of thousands of lives over the last century - and that is just the direct cost (the number of people killed in the activity of mining coal). The resulting health and environmental costs of coal mining and usage can only be imagined, but you can be assured that these costs are significant. Oil and gas taken together would also have to go too. Even solar power is not environmentally neutral - while the energy is free, clean and abundant, the technology required to harvest it is expensive, and has numerous environmental impacts (such as those incurred harvesting the required materials to make solar panels etc.).

The fact is that we need energy to survive and there will always be some risks and costs that can only be minimised, and not eradicated altogether. Nuclear power, in that regard, is no different to any other energy source. The hazards may be different, and the costs of (rare) accidents might be (but also may not be) very high - but taken on balance, nuclear hasn't (and most likely never will) be as risky or as costly as our reliance on fossil fuels.

 

[ironcobra]

That's not the way a meltdown works. It's called a "meltdown" because the core melts and travels downwards. It's the ground that becomes contaminated, not the air (though there is airborne radiation - just not as much as there is in the ground). There has never been a nuclear meltdown before, so don't make the mistake of comparing Fukushima to Chernobyl. They are radically different. The concern with a meltdown is that the molten core would find a way to the ocean, since Fukushima is right on the Pacific coast. Most of Japan would be relatively safe from the worst of it, but Fukushima and the surrounds would have to become a no-man's land like Pripyat in the Ukraine.

Never been a nuclear meltdown what!!!!!!?????? Do u work for the power company?
Quoted from wiki:
Meltdowns that have occurred

A number of Soviet Navy nuclear submarines experienced nuclear meltdowns, including K-27, K-140, and K-431.
There was also a fatal core meltdown at SL-1, an experimental U.S. military reactor in Idaho.

The only large-scale nuclear meltdowns at civilian nuclear power plants

the Lucens reactor, Switzerland, in 1969.
the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania, U.S.A., in 1979.
the Chernobyl disaster at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Ukraine, USSR, in 1986.
the Fukushima I nuclear accidents at Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, Japan, in 2011 (Extent of damage uncertain as of March 16, 2011.)

Other core meltdowns have occurred at:

NRX (military), Ontario, Canada, in 1952
BORAX-I (experimental), Idaho, U.S.A., in 1954
EBR-I (military), Idaho, U.S.A., in 1955
Windscale (military), Sellafield, England, in 1957 (see Windscale fire)
Sodium Reactor Experiment, Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Simi Valley, California, U.S.A., in 1959
Fermi 1 (civil), Michigan, U.S.A., in 1966
A1 plant at Jaslovské Bohunice, Czechoslovakia, in 1977

How are they different from Chernobyl's reactor, each used same fuel and how long will that bs containment hold its already blowing which means the rods are fusing, Chernobyl's reactor had 30 tons of uranium fuel, each one of the Fukushima’s reactors have 90 tons, one of them has plutonium mox(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel) it also has 3000tons of spent fuel sitting on top of the reactors you are right its definitely 1000x worse then Chernobyl's. So how big is the contamination zone around Chernobyl? Multiply that by how much?

If there is a meltdown at one who will be there to ensure the others dont? Once the outer rods heat they form a casing around the inner resulting in an explosion(hence what we been seeing). All im saying is that the Japanese govt or any government they didnt do it with Chernobyl is going to tell them its to dangerous to be there, just like they did in Chernobyl they evacuated the immediate population but said there was no threat to the rest of Europe even tho the radiation cloud made it all the way to France. There was a huge jump in thyroid cancer since then. Japan is a very small island that is much more densely populated where shall they go??

Maybe a lil crazy but here is some perspective from the ground there...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGY5TlekcZs&feature=player_embedded


They also have begun dumping water from helicopters which pretty much tells me they cant even get close anymore. I mean dumping water from a helicopter!!!! Pissing in the wind

 

[G.T.Ace]

And yet the biggest threat to the Japanese people currently sitting in the atmosphere is as a result of a four-day long fire at an oil refinery in Ichihara.

Makes you think, eh?

You might want to talk with a so called "liquidator" from the Ukraine/USSR.
Around 600-700.000, most of them are ill or died from the aftermath of the radiation there (average age below 50). If we will get a similar scenario in Japan, we could talk about millions who will get sick from the radiation, not to mention that a lot of landscapes cannot be "used" anymore and the economical damage.

Sorry, but the biggest threat at this moment for everyone in Japan and even people outside of Japan, are 5 potential meltdowns (3 are already likely) plus the old rods in #4.

EDIT:

That's not the way a meltdown works. It's called a "meltdown" because the core melts and travels downwards.

A meltdown could lead to an explosion, just like in Chernobyl, although unlikely.
Both options are anything but good.

 

[Famine]

Famine I don't think you are trying to say Nuclear is safe because an oil refinery burned.

I don't recall reading that either. But then again, I'm not arguing against any form of power generation - merely pointing out to you that, at present, more people in Japan are threatened by an invisible foe in the form of airborne chemicals from an oil refinery fire than in the form of radiation from a damaged nuclear power station.

Makes me wonder why you don't have a "no oil" avatar.

You might want to talk with a so called "liquidator" from the Ukraine/USSR.
Around 600-700.000, most of them are ill or died from the aftermath of the radiation there (average age below 50). If we will get a similar scenario in Japan, we could talk about millions who will get sick from the radiation, not to mention that a lot of landscapes cannot be "used" anymore and the economical damage.

Sorry, but the biggest threat at this moment for everyone in Japan and even people outside of Japan, are 5 potential meltdowns (3 are already likely) plus the old rods in #4.

That's not an extent threat, merely a putative one. And since "another Chernobyl" is fundamentally impossible in a non RBMK reactor, quite an imaginative, putative one at that.

The chemicals from the Ichihara fire are already up there, already causing damage. The radiation levels detected in inhabited areas as a result of Fukushima I are not medically significant.

 

[ironcobra]

You might want to talk with a so called "liquidator" from the Ukraine/USSR.
Around 600-700.000, most of them are ill or died from the aftermath of the radiation there (average age below 50). If we will get a similar scenario in Japan, we could talk about millions who will get sick from the radiation, not to mention that a lot of landscapes cannot be "used" anymore and the economical damage.

Sorry, but the biggest threat at this moment for everyone in Japan and even people outside of Japan, are 5 potential meltdowns (3 are already likely) plus the old rods in #4.

EDIT:


A meltdown could lead to an explosion, just like in Chernobyl, although unlikely.
Both options are anything but good.

+1 we breath burning oil everyday ill deal with that, i thought there have already been explosions at the plant in japan???? The fallout from those reactors will definitely affect much more then japan that is a highly populated area of the world

 

[land sea air]

Never been a nuclear meltdown what!!!!!!?????? Do u work for the power company?
How are they different Chernobyl's reactor, each used same fuel and how long will that bs containment hold its already blowing which means the rods are fusing, Chernobyl's reactor had 30 tons of uranium fuel, each one of the Fukushima’s reactors have 90 tons, one of them has plutonium mox(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel) it also has 3000tons of spent fuel sitting on top of the reactors you are right its definitely 1000x worse then Chernobyl's. So how big is the contamination zone around Chernobyl? Multiply that by how much?

If there is a meltdown at one who will be there to ensure the others dont? Once the outer rods heat they form a casing around the inner resulting in an explosion(hence what we been seeing). All im saying is that the Japanese govt or any government they didnt do it with Chernobyl is going to tell them its to dangerous to be there, just like they did in Chernobyl they evacuated the immediate population but said there was no threat to the rest of Europe even tho the radiation cloud made it all the way to France. There was a huge jump in thyroid cancer since then. Japan is a very small island that is much more densely populated where shall they go??

Maybe a lil crazy but here is some perspective from the ground there...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGY5TlekcZs&feature=player_embedded


They also have begun dumping water from helicopters which pretty much tells me they cant even get close anymore. I mean dumping water from a helicopter!!!! Pissing in the wind

The chernobyl disaster was caused when an explosion tore open the reactor vessel and exposed the fuel and it's GRAPHITE (huge difference between this and the japanese reactors here) moderator were exposed to air allowing them to burn openly and disperse huge amounts of material into the air. Even IF the reactor vessel of reactor 2 is damaged enough to expose the fuel the lack of catastrophic damage and burning graphite means that there is NO comparison to chernobyl. What is possible right now is a full meltdown which could contaminate the surrounding ground and possibly even oceans for a long time to come.

I still believe Nuclear is a safe efficient method for energy production and I wish those that are blindly saying no nuclear would get their facts straight before blindly following the rest of the crowd.