Major Earthquake & Tsunami in Japan

[DQuaN]

Indeed. Also note all the big objects on shelves in that video. Definitely not a safe place to be during an earthquake!!

 

[hambone8611]

If you are going to buy something for $20 that is only worth $15 just to help charity go buy the normal version for $15 and give the whole $5 to the charity.

If you don't need the item just give the $20 to charity.

The only person that has a maximized efficiency win from this is the company selling the product. You spent $3 more on a product than it is worth, the charity only got $2 of the $5 extra you put up for them, and you may have bought something you don't need for $20 for charity but only really donated $2.

Ah, fiction based contempt.

 

[Danoff]

I'd like to say something about the nuclear situation.

A lot of fuss is being made about nuclear power and how safe it is and whether this indicates that nuclear power is dangerous and shouldn't be used. I think the nuclear story is a gigantic success. I think Fukushima should from here forward be the poster child for nuclear power. The take away lesson here is that nuclear power is absurdly safe. Here's your headline:


"Outdated Nuke Plant Gets Hit by Biggest Goddamned Earthquake Possible AND Gigantic Tsunami and Doesn't Kill Anyone!"

This is an astounding success. If you'd told me that an old, outdated nuke plant was going to get hit by a magnitude 9 quake and ensuing tsunami and asked me to predict the outcome - I would not have been guessing zero casualties. Fukushima is a feather in the cap for nuclear advocates and basically a nail in the coffin for nay sayers.

Discuss.

 

[drivehard]

I'd like to say something about the nuclear situation.

A lot of fuss is being made about nuclear power and how safe it is and whether this indicates that nuclear power is dangerous and shouldn't be used. I think the nuclear story is a gigantic success. I think Fukushima should from here forward be the poster child for nuclear power. The take away lesson here is that nuclear power is absurdly safe. Here's your headline:


"Outdated Nuke Plant Gets Hit by Biggest Goddamned Earthquake Possible AND Gigantic Tsunami and Doesn't Kill Anyone!"

This is an astounding success. If you'd told me that an old, outdated nuke plant was going to get hit by a magnitude 9 quake and ensuing tsunami and asked me to predict the outcome - I would not have been guessing zero casualties. Fukushima is a feather in the cap for nuclear advocates and basically a nail in the coffin for nay sayers.

Discuss.

That's a good way to see it. Though almost any way that differs from how it's being portrayed is better.

Nuclear still leaves people extremely vulnerable. For that matter so does oil and coal. Nuclear plants could always be seen as targets and you could make the case that if half of this quake happened further inland the results would have been more tragic.

We should be looking at the saftey concerns that arise from all forms of energy. It is so stupid that the fuss of this has more power than the reality of what's going on in todays world.

 

[Bram Turismo]

I wouldn't call it exactly safe. Sure, it's safe when it works, but we've all seen the chaos when it all went wrong.

The problem I have with all these nuclear discussions is how they're now treating their nuclear plants in Belgium. Suddenly, because a magnitude 9 earthquake hit Japan, they've decided all powerplants in Belgium are suddenly a threat to all civilians and they must be closed at once.

I never knew there was a hazard of getting magnitude 9 earthquakes with tsunamis down in Belgium

 

[hambone8611]

Agreed 100% With MR Danoff's statement.

 

[icelt]

I'd like to say something about the nuclear situation.

A lot of fuss is being made about nuclear power and how safe it is and whether this indicates that nuclear power is dangerous and shouldn't be used. I think the nuclear story is a gigantic success. I think Fukushima should from here forward be the poster child for nuclear power. The take away lesson here is that nuclear power is absurdly safe. Here's your headline:


"Outdated Nuke Plant Gets Hit by Biggest Goddamned Earthquake Possible AND Gigantic Tsunami and Doesn't Kill Anyone!"

This is an astounding success. If you'd told me that an old, outdated nuke plant was going to get hit by a magnitude 9 quake and ensuing tsunami and asked me to predict the outcome - I would not have been guessing zero casualties. Fukushima is a feather in the cap for nuclear advocates and basically a nail in the coffin for nay sayers.

Discuss.

Sorry I just can't agree with this. The nuclear fuel rods, that make nuclear energy what it is, are inherently not safe. They are so unsafe that the vast majority of the capital cost, which is billions and billions of dollars, to build a nuke plant is sunk into systems and structure specifically designed to keep the unsafe material relatively cool and contained... and for any foreseeable mishap. That is not safety, that is trying your best to keep a very wild animal caged.

Now I will grant you, and people that support the use of nukes, that thus far for the most part the inherent dangers of using/consuming nuclear fuel have been successfully mitigated. This is mostly thanks to the extensive design and construction efforts that have gone into building these plants.

That being said, for example the Emergency Preparedness Plans of the NRC requires that every plant built in the USA have a minimum evacuation circumference of like 50 miles. Now that should say it all right there about how "safe" these things are, IF something goes really wrong the government requires that some 7,800 square miles of space to be evacuated.

Now granted, as yet, nothing has gone that bad here, but obviously it sure as heck could.

The other consideration, probably the most concerning consideration, is the waste. This is the only energy source whose waste requires tens of thousands of years to become "safe" to the environment. I realize that my knowledge in the specifics of this area is nowhere near that of many on this board, but suffice to say the "safe" permanent storage (meaning for the duration that it remains biologically threatening) of spent nuclear fuel is a problem that humanity has yet to solve. And the waste pile just keeps getting ever larger.

To be honest a reasonable life cycle argument against nukes is the potential, and maybe even guarantee given a long enough time line, that the spent rods from xyz plant in ABC country fall into the wrong hands. Recognizing the timeline that this waste is viable for nefarious purposes is once again on the order of thousands of years. In my mind this is not scare mongering from a GP air head, this is just a simple reality of management concerns associated with the waste of nuclear fuel consumption.

Maybe in several dozens years science and technology will develop the means to remediate nuclear waste much more rapidly. Granted that is a possibility, but a possibility doesn't make it certain.

I suppose it is really is this overall life cycle perspective that gives me the most pause. Like many here I feel comfortable that a major nuclear power catastrophe will not happen in my lifetime, however I do think it is much more likely to happen within a couple of hundred years. Maybe Chernobyl was the worst this industry will ever see. However it is still such a young, young technology and one thing that history teaches us is that the hubris of man always catches up to him at some point, if not multiple points. That is the reality of this technology's future cost that I'd would rather not gift to our children. In my humble opinion.

 

[a6m5]

Best Anti-Nuclear argument I have ever read. Well stated, ice. 👍

I am actually "for" nuclear energy, but I wouldn't say that I am 100% confident in it. I kind of see it as a necessary evil that we need in today's world to sustain the level of demand for energy.

 

[BWX]

Sorry I just can't agree with this. The nuclear fuel rods, that make nuclear energy what it is, are inherently not safe. They are so unsafe that the vast majority of the capital cost, which is billions and billions of dollars, to build a nuke plant is sunk into systems and structure specifically designed to keep the unsafe material relatively cool and contained... and for any foreseeable mishap. That is not safety, that is trying your best to keep a very wild animal caged.

Now I will grant you, and people that support the use of nukes, that thus far for the most part the inherent dangers of using/consuming nuclear fuel have been successfully mitigated. This is mostly thanks to the extensive design and construction efforts that have gone into building these plants.

That being said, for example the Emergency Preparedness Plans of the NRC requires that every plant built in the USA have a minimum evacuation circumference of like 50 miles. Now that should say it all right there about how "safe" these things are, IF something goes really wrong the government requires that some 7,800 square miles of space to be evacuated.

Now granted, as yet, nothing has gone that bad here, but obviously it sure as heck could.

The other consideration, probably the most concerning consideration, is the waste. This is the only energy source whose waste requires tens of thousands of years to become "safe" to the environment. I realize that my knowledge in the specifics of this area is nowhere near that of many on this board, but suffice to say the "safe" permanent storage (meaning for the duration that it remains biologically threatening) of spent nuclear fuel is a problem that humanity has yet to solve. And the waste pile just keeps getting ever larger.

To be honest a reasonable life cycle argument against nukes is the potential, and maybe even guarantee given a long enough time line, that the spent rods from xyz plant in ABC country fall into the wrong hands. Recognizing the timeline that this waste is viable for nefarious purposes is once again on the order of thousands of years. In my mind this is not scare mongering from a GP air head, this is just a simple reality of management concerns associated with the waste of nuclear fuel consumption.

Maybe in several dozens years science and technology will develop the means to remediate nuclear waste much more rapidly. Granted that is a possibility, but a possibility doesn't make it certain.

I suppose it is really is this overall life cycle perspective that gives me the most pause. Like many here I feel comfortable that a major nuclear power catastrophe will not happen in my lifetime, however I do think it is much more likely to happen within a couple of hundred years. Maybe Chernobyl was the worst this industry will ever see. However it is still such a young, young technology and one thing that history teaches us is that the hubris of man always catches up to him at some point, if not multiple points. That is the reality of this technology's future cost that I'd would rather not gift to our children. In my humble opinion.

Wind energy has killed a lot more people than nuclear energy in the US in the last 30 years.. maybe even longer. Nuclear is statistically safer than almost any type of energy that I can think of. Let's stick with facts here, not fears about what might happen or what could happen.

 

[Danoff]

Sorry I just can't agree with this.

You mean you can't agree with the last sentence. The rest of it you simply didn't address. There is no if, and, or but about it, the Fukushima nuclear facility is an astounding success in the face of the very worst kind of attack from mother nature. Aside from building a nuclear plant next to an active volcano, I can't think of a more thorough test of the ability of a plant to withstand natural disasters - and given the severity of the test, even you must admit that it came through with a more than passing grade. This should put many fears to bed.

 

[hellnback]

I also agree with Danoff, much of this 'danger' has been widely overblown (and I'm probably understating that).

My view:

After the 5th(?) biggest recorded Earthquake in modern human times, coupled with a huge Tsunami (probably again top 5 in modern human times, as I can think of Krakatoa, Alaska & Indian Ocean immediately) a nuclear power station has had minor distress... and generally because the primary power source was eliminated, and secondary back-up. Was it only two power systems?

The result? A little bit of over heating and news reports of another Chernobel, although due to design of reactor this is IMPOSSIBLE, but never let facts get in the way of selling news or agenda's. Japan reports that the milk and spinach (who eats spinach anyhow?) were at levels that if you ate or drank a normal amount DAILY for a year you would have the exposure of a CAT scan... really??? wow, do I have to even start getting sarcastic with that? Yeah I do, please don't anyone get an ailment, or a broken bone... we'll have to put you down... unless you want to wait a year to have a second test...


Anyhow, so lets take the greenies meanie Nuclear out of the equation... and look at more mainstream 'bulk' power delivery systems.

Solar Plant: is now taken out... no danger agreed, but the amount of power you took out of the grid is laughable... lets use substancially more land to replace the equiv...

Wind Farm: see Solar Plant, granted these can be sea based, land not used...

Geothermal: Using volcanic energy to harness power, still very low output. Yeah I know it's safe but 'what if'. Is that 'what if' any more/less prevalent than bad bad nuclear, could argue more as it took a 8.9/9.0 EQ followed by 10m wall of water to present ANY nuclear threat. What if thermal in the normal course of generation flips a critical balance? Pffft miniscule chances... (tell me the the same/better or worse as a 8.9EQ coupled with huge tsunami to a nuclear power station say?) But what if, ooops... damn.

Coal Generation: Power stops (significant), pollution stops. Yeah, greenies happy. But what about all the damage it's done over the years to peoples health, oh right still better than bad bad nuclear...

Hydro Electricity: Left it last for a reason... despite the greenies saying it kills the river and habitats... it's widely accepted as safe... 'What if' time again, the EQ now hits a significant damn (can you see it yet?) with equally impressive reservior (how about now?) above a flood plain (surely now?) and this becomes 'compromised', heck if the compromise is big enough, it's only a matter of time. Bad bad Hydro now...

There you go, all fanciful yes, but plausible maybe, but that doesn't sell agenda's or news.

I will give it to you, that the waste is a problem... sorry have no solution for that... space is a big place... though expensive to get it there...

 

[Drevenger]

The culprit ... Mark I from GE

Its not how wrong we use nuclear energy.
Its how wrong we use money.


I have a good ammount of info regarding Tokyo. right now, and its mainly very bad news.
I'm thinking of making a new thread since theres none to inform the ppl about Japan's crisis.

 

[Solid Lifters]

You mean you can't agree with the last sentence. The rest of it you simply didn't address. There is no if, and, or but about it, the Fukushima nuclear facility is an astounding success in the face of the very worst kind of attack from mother nature. Aside from building a nuclear plant next to an active volcano, I can't think of a more thorough test of the ability of a plant to withstand natural disasters - and given the severity of the test, even you must admit that it came through with a more than passing grade. This should put many fears to bed.

But you're acting like Fukushima is completely out of the woods. It's not. What about the contaminated food supplies and agriculture? What about the contaminated water supply? They haven't been given enough time to add into the mix.

I agree, the plant held up very well. It did its best with what it was hit with, an earthquake over a point and a half larger than built to withstand and then a tsunami that was almost twice larger than the sea wall they built to protect it.

I don't know why it's taking so long for the air force to start burying at least some of the reactors. It's like they're trying to salvage the entire facility, which doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

 

[jeep2008]

Kamui Kobayashi, Sauber
2010 Qualifying - 16th, 2010 Race - DNF
“Of course I was very worried about my country and so went to Japan after the Barcelona test. I must say the situation is really, really bad. So many have lost their lives, become homeless, are without food and water in the cold winter, and have lost their loved ones. It is difficult to believe that a scenario worse than in any movie has become reality. We need to stay together and we need help from all over the world. I am worried the whole country could disappear - it is just too awful. Since the earthquake and the tsunami news is getting worse every day, there is nothing positive to look forward to at the moment. I feel I have to do something, I want to help - but in fact there is nothing I can do by myself. I think at least for the time being what I can do is to be focused and fully concentrate on the season’s opening race in Melbourne. Originally I was looking forward to this with great joy. Now what I really want to do is my very best to achieve a good result, which perhaps can at least give the people in Japan a little bit of hope and positive news.”

 

[Touring Mars]

given the severity of the test, even you must admit that it came through with a more than passing grade

You've marked the paper before the test is over.

I largely agree that the aged plant has coped well enough in the circumstances, and that this disaster will, in the end, only make nuclear power plants safer still, by forcing a rethink on how backup power and cooling systems are designed and located, and how spent fuel rods are stored etc. But, as Solid is suggesting, the situation is far from finished here, and it will be some time until the full range of impacts can be quantified. It may take thousands of people many months, if not years, to clean up the mess left behind from this incident, and it will probably be many years until the full extent of the health/environmental impact can be rightly assessed. Being optimistic, there may be little impact on human health, both for the general public and for those involved in the clean up operation. But, even so, there will still be immense costs to pay, both economically and environmentally - the impact of this incident won't be measured simply in terms of casualty figures. It may be easy for an external observer to make a cheerful assessment of the situation, but while entire towns remain empty and tens of thousands of people remain displaced for weeks, maybe months (or even years) to come, I reckon it is a tad premature for nuclear advocates to be sporting feathers in their caps, or to champion Fukushima Daiichi as a poster child for the nuclear industry.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm thinking of making a new thread since theres none to inform the ppl about Japan's crisis.

That should be this thread. I would like to see separate threads for discussing nuclear power and this current situation just be part of that discussion, and then one for discussing the crisis as a whole, but inevitably they will veer into discussing the same thing, people won't pay attention to where they are discussing and it will create a larger hassle for mods who have enough issues in the GT5 section.

 

[Danoff]

But you're acting like Fukushima is completely out of the woods. It's not. What about the contaminated food supplies and agriculture? What about the contaminated water supply? They haven't been given enough time to add into the mix.

I agree, the plant held up very well. It did its best with what it was hit with, an earthquake over a point and a half larger than built to withstand and then a tsunami that was almost twice larger than the sea wall they built to protect it.

I don't know why it's taking so long for the air force to start burying at least some of the reactors. It's like they're trying to salvage the entire facility, which doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

You've marked the paper before the test is over.

I largely agree that the aged plant has coped well enough in the circumstances, and that this disaster will, in the end, only make nuclear power plants safer still, by forcing a rethink on how backup power and cooling systems are designed and located, and how spent fuel rods are stored etc. But, as Solid is suggesting, the situation is far from finished here, and it will be some time until the full range of impacts can be quantified. It may take thousands of people many months, if not years, to clean up the mess left behind from this incident, and it will probably be many years until the full extent of the health/environmental impact can be rightly assessed. Being optimistic, there may be little impact on human health, both for the general public and for those involved in the clean up operation. But, even so, there will still be immense costs to pay, both economically and environmentally - the impact of this incident won't be measured simply in terms of casualty figures. It may be easy for an external observer to make a cheerful assessment of the situation, but while entire towns remain empty and tens of thousands of people remain displaced for weeks, maybe months (or even years) to come, I reckon it is a tad premature for nuclear advocates to be sporting feathers in their caps, or to champion Fukushima Daiichi as a poster child for the nuclear industry.

As far as I'm concerned, we are completely out of the woods. Worst case scenarios are fairly benign at this point (correct me if I'm wrong). Again, I must stress that this plant was hit with a friggin magnitude 9 quake immediately followed by a tsunami. All of the worst case scenarios currently sit well below what my expectations would have been for this scenario, let alone my fears.

In short, the worst that can happen from here out is still an awesome outcome considering this severity of the event.

Edit: I should add that this is only in regards to the nuclear situation. Obviously there is still a major humanitarian concern for the region.

 

[daan]

I'd like to say something about the nuclear situation.

A lot of fuss is being made about nuclear power and how safe it is and whether this indicates that nuclear power is dangerous and shouldn't be used. I think the nuclear story is a gigantic success. I think Fukushima should from here forward be the poster child for nuclear power. The take away lesson here is that nuclear power is absurdly safe. Here's your headline:


"Outdated Nuke Plant Gets Hit by Biggest Goddamned Earthquake Possible AND Gigantic Tsunami and Doesn't Kill Anyone!"

This is an astounding success. If you'd told me that an old, outdated nuke plant was going to get hit by a magnitude 9 quake and ensuing tsunami and asked me to predict the outcome - I would not have been guessing zero casualties. Fukushima is a feather in the cap for nuclear advocates and basically a nail in the coffin for nay sayers.

Discuss.

I read this article the other day and it does make sense.

 

[icelt]

That should be this thread. I would like to see separate threads for discussing nuclear power and this current situation just be part of that discussion, and then one for discussing the crisis as a whole, but inevitably they will veer into discussing the same thing, people won't pay attention to where they are discussing and it will create a larger hassle for mods who have enough issues in the GT5 section.

I recall you effectively recommending this before and I do very much agree. For my part I intended no disrespect to the very real victims of this natural tragedy by my admittedly mostly off topic post. The recovery and care for the people affected is most assuredly the most important immediate concern.

 

[Duke]

I'll just leave this here:

 

[niky]

I was about to post that one, myself... but forgot about it.

-

We're not completely out of the woods, yet... but at this point, an attack by a pack of killer wolves or a pair of Kodiak bears is not going to happen... we might get bitten by rabid foxes, but that's it.*

Fukushima was probably the worst that could happen to one of the worst reactor designs still in operation. Hell.. it's an even older design than the abandoned nuclear plant in the Philippines, which was never opened due to concerns with its proximity to a fault line!

Of course... this matters little in any public debate on nuclear power. All people will see is the failure... not the lack of massive failure... on the part of a plant that's outdated, run by a company that doesn't have a very good record, and that's been hit by the biggest natural disaster possible excluding a massive meteor strike.

*Unfortunately... they're very rabid, and Japan is currently low on anti-rabies shots.

 

[Drevenger]

The main concern is not the validity of nuclear energy, the history of nuclear energy is quite recent.
Recent enough to assume ourselves as guinea pig. The documentary about ABCC camp post lil boy and fat boy are quite sumthing.

I know the outcome is not the same for everyone.
but right now this situation is most dire for all of us.

The main problem is the spent MOX fuel pool of reactor 3.
Apparently theres is no pool anymore.
If the rods are all messed up, then, we are facing a situation.

Dr. Chris Busby verified today in an email that three spent fuel pools are totally blasted away and burned up.Remember, this is JUST from the spent fuel pools. Radiation escaping from the reactors is another story altogether.

Christopher Busby (born 1945) is a British scientist and activist known for his work on the health effects of ionising radiation. In addition to his academic appointments he is the director of Green Audit, an environmental consultancy agency,[1] and scientific advisor to the Low Level Radiation Campaign which he set up in 1995.[2] Busby was also the National Speaker on Science and Technology for the Green Party of England and Wales,[3][4] and the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risks, based in Brussels.en.wikipedia.org...

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano says computer forecasts show that radiation leaking from a nuclear plant could pose a hazard to people outside its 30-kilometer zone. Edano said at a news conference on Wednesday thata computer forecast system has shown that radiation levels in some areas outside the 30-kilometer zone would exceed 100 millisieverts, which is the level.

btw its now at 6

 

[Drevenger]

Theres this too

Kyodo news

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/80539.html

Honestly i dont know yet what to think of that.

 

[drivehard]

Simply recognizing that the media is hyping this up and exploiting fears has made up peoples minds. As if not to be swindled we must support the opposite. And as if not to die something needs to be done about energy. Any potentially harmful form of energy needs to be dealt with sooner or later. Otherwise man will just be another animal after all!

 

[nk4e]

More Truthful information = could lead less panic?

 

[Touring Mars]

I've deleted the last two posts because they are too far away from the topic. Political rants and conspiracy theories are not appropriate for this thread.

 

[Pfei]

I've deleted the last two posts because they are too far away from the topic. Political rants and conspiracy theories are not appropriate for this thread.

Conspiracy theories? Wow, thanks for deleting my thread! Do you know who Mitsuhiko Tanaka is? Are you up to date with the situation at the plant? Have you not realized that official press releases by TEPCO and japan.gov don't add up?

When there is a nuclear catastrophe in process due to an earthquake & tsunami (the title of the thread) at a site that has SIX poorly designed and constructed reactors , NOTHING is off-topic!

 

[Speedy Samurai]

As far as I'm concerned, we are completely out of the woods.

No one in Japan shares this sentiment.

 

[DK]

While they were poorly-designed, Pfei, the fact that they survived a 9.0-magnitude quake and a tsunami is nothing short of amazing, and just goes to show the relative safety of nuclear power compared to its rivals. There have been reports of oil refineries on Japan's east coast exploding, AFAIK.

 

[Pfei]

While they were poorly-designed, Pfei, the fact that they survived a 9.0-magnitude quake and a tsunami is nothing short of amazing, and just goes to show the relative safety of nuclear power compared to its rivals. There have been reports of oil refineries on Japan's east coast exploding, AFAIK.

You're right, the buildings didn't collapse during the quake (or get washed away by the tsunami). But unfortunately, they haven't withstood or contained much of anything. All buildings suffered serious damage from the quake. There are spent fuel rods exposed and partial meltdowns in multiple cores. This facility should not have been built on the Ring of Fire.