CNN An 8.8-magnitude earthquake has struck Japan

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Though there's always a tendency for clusters (from our point of view) of really nasty seismic activity to happen along the same plate boundary.

[J. J.]

160 possibly contaminated:  http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Japanese-Struggling-to-Find-Food-and-Water-in-Disaster-Area-117867099.html

[Sbane]

Beet, they are already saying no risk in the US:  http://www.komonews.com/news/local/117860469.html

Yeah, but we should panic anyways, just in case.

[J. J.]

Japan thinks a partial meltdown at the second reactor is now under way:  http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/03/12/general-as-japan-earthquake_8353496.html

[Mechaman]

Remember "what if the terrorists crashed a passenger jet onto a nuclear power station"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25vlt7swhCM
Granted a passenger jet is a bit bigger but considering how bulletproof it is against a jet going at 500mph+ I doubt it would have an "OH HOLY JAYSUS WERE ALL GOINA DIE" effect either.

[J. J.]

There is also a cruise ship with 100 people that is missing (just to add to the 70's disaster movie part of the story).

[Ban my account ffs!]

Though there's always a tendency for clusters (from our point of view) of really nasty seismic activity to happen along the same plate boundary.

I refuse to believe that these quakes are unrelated.  It's like that ubiquitous desk toy with the hanging metal balls.. when you knock one into the next.. the force is carried through to the ball on the other end.

Such a dramatic shift in the earth's crust which can be measured in meters (including the 8 foot shift of the island of Honshu will have equal consequences somewhere else.  All we can hope for is that the new stress point is more spread out and thus results in a series of smaller quakes rather than one huge one.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Beet, they are already saying no risk in the US:  http://www.komonews.com/news/local/117860469.html

but that's no risk based on what has happened so far, not what could happen.  I wouldn't discount the map beet posted

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Also, if I were the Japanese I'd just start dumping seawater and boron into all of the cores now, there's no point in risking more failures.

sea water is the last resort because any reactor having sea water dumped into it will never be started up again.

A small price to pay for the reactors that are in emergency mode right now, wouldn't you think?

you're assuming sea water is the most effective way, it may actually not be as efficient but simply the last resort if the other more efficient ways become inoperable

[minionofmidas]

Beet, they are already saying no risk in the US:  http://www.komonews.com/news/local/117860469.html

but that's no risk based on what has happened so far, not what could happen.  I wouldn't discount the map beet posted

You should.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Beet, they are already saying no risk in the US:  http://www.komonews.com/news/local/117860469.html

but that's no risk based on what has happened so far, not what could happen.  I wouldn't discount the map beet posted

You should.

Yep. It doesn't even make cartographic sense anyways as the radiation levels and time frame measurements are conflated into a single discrete series.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Beet, they are already saying no risk in the US:  http://www.komonews.com/news/local/117860469.html

but that's no risk based on what has happened so far, not what could happen.  I wouldn't discount the map beet posted

You should.

discount it based on what, exactly, shua's blog link?  I used to write software for nuclear plants back in 94-95, and it was my understanding that a meltdown through the containment floor would send lethal doses of radiation 1000's of miles away.  I'm not sure the radiation levels of the map are correct, but the west coast would have to be evacuated

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I have nothing to say on this topic except of course to add the obvious that any chance of a nuclear revival will be killed stone dead if this thing does blow. Which is probably for the best, there are simply too many variables for nuclear energy to considered 100% safe (though of course nothing can be).

But what is "safe"?  Nuclear plants are viewed as unsafe, because when the worst happens, it involves **GASP** radiation.  And that word strikes fear into the hearts of people.

Is gas safe?  Nope (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8I7CcBiVlE or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Connecticut_power_plant_explosion)

Coal?  Nope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill).  That's just the power plant... not even talking about coal mines.

Wind?  Nope (http://www.wind-works.org/articles/ASummaryofFatalAccidentsinWindEnergy.html)

I wasn't able to verify the sources on this one, but even if his facts aren't correct, it illustrates the point that no power source is 100% safe, and people overreact because "nuclear" has dangerous conotations: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

[Beet]

From the WSJ:

"Separately, company documents show that Tokyo Electric tested the Fukushima plant to withstand a maximum seismic jolt lower than Friday's 8.9 earthquake. Tepco's last safety test of nuclear power plant Number 1—one that is currently in danger of meltdown—was done at a seismic magnitude the company considered the highest possible, but in fact turned out to be lower than Friday's quake.
...
Simultaneous seismic activity along the three tectonic plates in the sea east of the plants—the epicenter of Friday's quake—wouldn't surpass 7.9, according to the company's presentation.

The company based its models partly on previous seismic activity in the area, including a 7.0 earthquake in May 1938 and two simultaneous earthquakes of 7.3 and 7.5 on November 5 of the same year.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703555404576195700301455480.html

The quake has now been upgraded to 9.0.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110312p2a00m0na010000c.html

The massive earthquake that struck the Tohoku region on March 11 was caused by several quake focal areas moving simultaneously, producing an intensity that would occur only once in 1,000 years, say experts.

The seismic energy of the March 11 earthquake, which the Meteorological Agency said had a magnitude of 8.8, was 180 times that of the magnitude-7.3 Great Hanshin Earthquake in 1995 that devastated Kobe and surrounding areas and killed over 6,000 people.

"A fault section at least 500 kilometers long and 100 kilometers wide moved by up to eight meters. Some areas off Fukushima Prefecture are extremely strained, and it's presumed that multiple areas moved simultaneously," he said.

"Experts had predicted that there was a 99 percent chance that a magnitude 7.5 to 8 earthquake would occur in the area within 30 years. However, the latest quake had a magnitude of 8.8, and its seismic energy was 90 times the predicted volume."

[minionofmidas]

But what is "safe"?  Nuclear plants are viewed as unsafe, because when the worst happens, it involves **GASP** radiation.  And that word strikes fear into the hearts of people.

As anything that can make an area (though not an area on the other side of the planet) permanently uninhabitable bloody well ought to.
Not claiming that people have a particularly good understanding of radiation, of course.

[Beet]

Suspected leak at another plant - Onagawa plant. Not Fukushima.

Israeli experts said today the situation is more dangerous than Chernobyl:

Hebrew University Professor Menachem Luria, an expert on air quality and poisoning, told Channel 2 on Saturday: "This is very worrying. There is no doubt that we have not seen anything like this in years, perhaps ever since nuclear experiments were conducted in the atmosphere in the 1950s. From what we can gather, this disaster is even more dangerous than Chernobyl, both from the standpoint of the population's exposure to radioactive material and the spread of radioactive contamination in the area."

Luria continued: "Once there is an uncontrollable heating up, the nuclear fuel undergoes a metamorphosis into the gaseous phase. Since we are talking about metals and solid items, they turn into particles that are capable of traveling great distances. They can wander thousands of kilometers."

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/japan-nuclear-blast-could-be-more-deadly-than-chernobyl-experts-fear-1.348809

[Associate Justice PiT]

But what is "safe"?  Nuclear plants are viewed as unsafe, because when the worst happens, it involves **GASP** radiation.  And that word strikes fear into the hearts of people.

As anything that can make an area (though not an area on the other side of the planet) permanently uninhabitable bloody well ought to.
Not claiming that people have a particularly good understanding of radiation, of course.

     Indeed. I wonder how German Greens would react if they learned that without radiation life on this planet would be completely impossible.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, to be honest, there are probably locations in the world where nuclear power shouldn't be considered as much (earthquake-prone areas, coastal areas, etc.), but if you want to stick it in the middle of the U.S. or the middle of Europe, it's probably pretty safe there.

[Beet]

Well, to be honest, there are probably locations in the world where nuclear power shouldn't be considered as much (earthquake-prone areas, coastal areas, etc.), but if you want to stick it in the middle of the U.S. or the middle of Europe, it's probably pretty safe there.

Actually, the middle of the US is one of the most earthquake prone areas out there:



And as I pointed out in the other thread, earthquakes aren't the only potential danger. Asteroids, tornadoes, hurricanes, internal sabotage/terrorism, and missile strikes are all potential dangers.

[Sbane]

I highly doubt tornadoes and hurricanes are a threat....

[Beet]

A strong enough tornado or hurricane could easily take out power to the plant, they take out power to residential complexes as a matter of course. That would leave the backup generators. A strong enough tornado or hurricane could easily take out backup generators.

[Sbane]

How do you know they would take out the backup generators?

[Beet]

I don't.

[Sbane]

I don't.

Not to mention the backup generators were taken out by the flood, not the earthquake or epic winds. I highly doubt a tornado would cause damage (at least where it matters) to a Nuclear reactor. There is a slight chance a Hurricane could send in a surge that could affect a nuclear plant by the ocean, but even then the strongest hurricanes don't send a surge anything remotely close to the Tsunami that ripped through Japan. And remember this is a part of the world that gets some of the most intense storms out there. I am pretty sure the plants were built to withstand them. Hell, I am sure a few have blown over them, though I can't say with certainty.

[exopolitician]

According to The Japanese Times, the magnitude of the quake has been revised to 9.0.