Japans earth quake 20110311

[bumfire]

Japan news is reporting that the last 2 reactors at the site, which has 6 in total, and which 3 were shutdown for maintenance when the quake/tsunami struck, the temps in them are rising, reactors 5 and 6.

 

a pic below of now and during WW2, scarily similar...

 

Edited March 15, 2011 by bumfire

[hassata]

Better reactors:

 

K-Rs6YEZAt8

 

 

Here's the problem right here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366017/Japan-earthquake-tsunami-CNBCs-Larry-Kudlow-grateful-human-death-toll-worse-economic-toll.html

[mvsgas]

Why wouldn't they have evacuated those fighters immed. after the quake?

 

Not that simple, Where to go? Where where the crews? What was the status of the aircraft? To many factor.

[Thunderbird]

a 2nd quake might happen?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366093/Japan-faces-2nd-earthquake-tsunami-2-000-bodies-wash-ashore.html?ITO=socialnet-twitter-dmailnews

[bumfire]

I wouldnt put too much faith in what the Daily Fail says thunderbird, its a known "CrapTabloid" in the UK.

 

But hey, I guess anything can happen at this stage.

[Rusty_M]

I wouldnt put too much faith in what the Daily Fail says thunderbird, its a known "CrapTabloid" in the UK.

 

But hey, I guess anything can happen at this stage.

 

There used to be a list floating around of all the things the Daily Mail says cause cancer. It was pretty long, and included both pregnancy and childlessness!

 

Surely there's always a risk of an earthquake near a major faultline, whether there's been one recently or not (discounting aftershocks, which are practically a certainty when there's recently been a major earthquake)

[bumfire]

LOL

 

Typical Daily Fail :)

[topol-m]

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

[RIPTIDE]

The plant was built to withstand quakes of the magnitude of 8.1 or 8.2(IIRC). The problem is that at 8.9, the friday earthquake was a lot more powerful than the worst case that engineers projected.

And of course been a Logarithmic scale that is about 5 times more powerful than what they were designed for. (I don't have my ancient 'log tables' with me but its a guess) :)

[Gupyzer0]

Video of an Air force base in Japan. Muddy F-16's

 

 

Those are F-2 and they are too expensive :S oh god ...

 

I can only think 1 reason to built them in that area. Uranium fuel needs recycling, and those factories (or just one factory) that produce recycled fuel are in proximity off all stations. 95% of nuclear waste can be recycled, 5% can be dumped in sea.

 

I could be talking nonsense. But only the Japanese government really knows whats happening. The press are making their own theories and stories.

 

P.S. Also the sea water is a good reason for cooling, but Japan is made of thousands of islands... so that's not a valid reason. Being "near" Tokyo is another cost efficient reason to be built there?

 

thats a good reason too, probably thats why.

[jpm1]

nuclear incident has reached level 6 , just to remind level 7 it's Chernobyl . rain expected over Fukushima tonight

[mig29]

nuclear incident has reached level 6 , just to remind level 7 it's Chernobyl . rain expected over Fukushima tonight

 

Can rain suppress the radiation ?

[jpm1]

Can rain suppress the radiation ?

 

the opposite rain will fix the radioactivity on the ground

[sobek]

Can rain suppress the radiation ?

 

Rain will collect all the particles in the air and 'wash' them to the ground. Although at this state, i still find it hard to find any hard information on what has actually been released and in what quantities. But radiation levels sure don't sound too good.

[jpm1]

news on french TV are extremely , extremely serious . seems japanese authorities have loss total control over the situation , term of apocalyptical would have been used by atomic ebergy high responsibles , i'm taking the infos as they arrive

Edited March 15, 2011 by jpm1

[Storm]

Rain will collect all the particles in the air and 'wash' them to the ground...

...or in to the ocean.:ermm:

Authorities have spent days desperately trying to prevent the water which is designed to cool the radioactive cores of the reactors from running dry, overheating and emitting dangerous radioactive materials.

They said they may use helicopters to pour water on the most critical reactor, No. 4, within two or three days, but did not say why they would have to wait to do this.

Link

[LordWolf]

Yeah, japan is protected by winds, all of the radiation will more or less go to the USA

[jpm1]

Yeah, japan is protected by winds, all of the radiation will more or less go to the USA

 

USA ? clouds haven't frontiers it will go God only knows where . and until the thing isn't under control the cloud will grow up . i think nuclear lobbies will understand they're wrong when there'll be no human on earth anymore

[jpm1]

France is 1000x800 km size , what will it be if such disaster happens , where will we go . i know french plants are sure , Fukushima was sure too , and the weather being more and more unstable and extreme i don't have much confidence you see .

[winz]

oh c'mon, quit with those apocalyptic scenarios. Europe (even Ukraine and Belarus) survived 10days of unchecked graphite fire in Chernobyl.

We have no available alternative to our power demands. Wind toys and solars cells that cost more eletrical energy then the put out during their lifetime are not the answer.

You do know that you can measure bigger radioactivity levels near a coal power plant that you can near a nuclear one.

Edited March 15, 2011 by winz

[EtherealN]

i think nuclear lobbies will understand they're wrong when there'll be no human on earth anymore

 

Ahem: lol?

Lets recall all the releases made by all atmospheric nuclear tests, Chernobyl etcetera, and count the impact of them. And then note that the radioactive release from our coal fired plants kill 5-10 times as many people each year than the total verified deaths from Chernobyl.

 

But lets assume that all the world's ~450 reactors blow up in the Chernobyl way (that is, we are assuming that none of them have containment, which is not the case, but nevermind) and with Chernobyl style results. The consequences would then be:

 

Direct deaths: 25 650

Cancers: 1 800 000

Total "Zones of Alienation": 2 826km2 (For perspective: marginally larger than the country of Luxembourgh).

 

As for the total fallout distributed, that is of course hard to say. The type of fallout matters there as well (from what I gather it's the Plutonium reactors that have the worst products). But do remember that there has already been over 600 atmospheric nuclear tests of yields ranging from a couple kilotons to 50 megatons. And while there was good reason to cease the atmospheric tests, it's not like we are all dead right now. :P Also, even with those tests, actual nuclear activity is still a relatively minor player when it comes to human contributions to background radiation.

 

My point is: this fearmongering doesn't help anyone, least of all does it help the Japanese who have to deal with what's going on right now. Doesn't help them to deal with the aftermath of the quakes and tsunami if people are blinded by irrational fear.

[jpm1]

Ahem: lol?

 

But lets assume that all the world's ~450 reactors blow up in the Chernobyl way (that is, we are assuming that none of them have containment, which is not the case, but nevermind) and with Chernobyl style results. The consequences would then be:

...

Total "Zones of Alienation": 2 826km2 (For perspective: marginally larger than the country of Luxembourgh)..

 

yes , in the case you take back the control over the situation . but right now the industry you seems to like has a factory of toxic radioactivity running at Fukushima and for now none has found the shut down button . that's all the problem with radioactivity you can have the control over the elements then you're absolutly right , but you can also loose the control of the situation , then none statistic is viable anymore . personnally i prefer to make some restrictions over my electricity consumption for some time than putting my life in danger

[jpm1]

I wanted to say that if there are some japanese out here that have no choices than to flee away , i can host a person . i live in south-ouest of France in a peaceful rural zone . you won't have the rent to pay but you'll have to participate a bit for electricity and water

[hassata]

Top gesture :thumbup:. I will try to sabotage my country's reactor when they eventually build the thing so I can move to France :D.

[EtherealN]

yes , in the case you take back the control over the situation .

 

Huh? The baseline figure I used was Chernobyl. That "situation" was NOT under control...

 

but right now the industry you seems to like has a factory of toxic radioactivity running at Fukushima

 

The industry I dislike (coal/oil/gas) is worse than 450 Fukushimas. The only economically viable alternative right now is nuclear.

 

that's all the problem with radioactivity you can have the control over the elements then you're absolutly right , but you can also loose the control of the situation , then none statistic is viable anymore

 

You should carefully read the post you replied to again. Seriously.

The baseline I used was:

• A complete lack of containment
  
• A complete meltdown
  
• An exposed core actively jetting material into the atmosphere for days
  
• Limited action from the local government in the first days due to central authorities not being informed properly
  
• I included estimates (the cancer morbidity) that are widely considered as exhaggerated
  

 

Now, there are some reactors of the Chernobyl design still in operation (and relatively close to me, physically, as well!), and I'd love to have them either shut down or modified. Remember the kind of beating that Fukushima has taken and still NOT given a Chernobyl type situation (ie, the situation I used in my scenario above and multiplied for every single operational reactor on the planet). The numbers in my theoretical scenario are rediculously unlikely - you need to be more worried that Planet Niburu is going to pop in around december next year than the scenario I painted - and that's saying something.

 

personnally i prefer to make some restrictions over my electricity consumption for some time than putting my life in danger

 

You are at greater risk of dying in an accident while traveling to a picketing of a nuclear plant than the risk of dying or being hurt by a nuclear plant. Irony.

 

You are quite simply just fearmongering. Your statements don't jive with reality. I also suspect that your understanding of how radiation works has little connection with reality as well - based on your statements about humanity dying.

Edited March 15, 2011 by EtherealN