But this one didn’t. It’s great that one of them was situated and constructed correctly with respect to this particular shaking and flooding. But earthquakes of 9.5 are possible, which are much stronger and waves are possible which are a lot bigger. Such earthquakes and waves have been seen in living memory.
I’m sure it is a great comfort to the residents near the surviving reactors that they are fine. But that really doesn’t help the people who have lost their homes. As long as human beings concentrate that much potential energy in one place, there are going to be unpredictable events that release all of that energy. As clever as the engineers and lawyer are, on this planet we obey the laws of thermodynamics.
[QUOTE=The Second Stone]
I’m sure it is a great comfort to the residents near the surviving reactors that they are fine. But that really doesn’t help the people who have lost their homes
[/QUOTE]
Does it matter to you that a large number of those peoples houses were destroyed in the earthquake and subsequent tsunami and that this is the primary cause of them losing their homes?? I know it’s a much more earnest appeal to emotion to leave that out, was just wondering what your thoughts were.
And as long as PEOPLE concentrate in such places they will always be at greater risk to these kinds of disasters than they will be at risk from things like a nuclear power plant.
If your claim is that the chances of getting cancer from Japan reactors is slim, simply say so. But if you use numbers to qualify them, you have to defend them.
That is really not that hard to understand, is it?
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
The evacuated area had very little damage from tsunami. The loss of the food production and cattle in that area is devastating.
[/QUOTE]
They don’t look like there was little damage to me. Did you not think they got hit by the same 9.0 earthquake and that the coastal villages didn’t get hit by the same tsunami or something??
Do you not think that having a big earthquake followed by a huge tsunami wouldn’t have contaminated food production and cattle in the region without the nuclear issues? What happens when a store full of paint, cars full of fuel, sewers full of shit, and dead bodies gets all mixed together with the gods know what else, as well as a heavy dollop of sea water? You figure that’s a mixture for a healthy environment? Know how long it was before folks were able to go back after Katrina? Or how much it took to detox the environment after that? Even long after the waters had receded and the area had dried out?
So it’s okay for nuclear disasters made by incompetence to be as destructive as earthquakes and tsunamis which the Japanese have been prepared for for centuries? The fact of the matter is that casualties from the quake and tsunami were exceptionally low compared to the quake in Haiti which was one hundredth the power. That was because the Japanese knew, accepted and prepared for the danger. The nuclear industry and their propagandists have forced the unknown extent danger of the meltdown on them and their property. And they still don’t know what the full danger is and what is happening. But that’s okay with you guys, as they have already lost their homes (very few actually had) and you don’t care that they can’t go back because it is metaphorically glowing.
Do you have a cite for stores full of paint and sewers full of shit and dead bodies in the tsunami-affected area immediately around the Fukushima nuclear power plant?
You do realize an earthquake early warning was sounded, and also a tsunami warning, so people could begin evacuating right? You do know this is credited with saving many lives, right?
If you look at the forth image down on this page, you can see tsunami-affected areas around the Fukushima plant, and they are not as large as the evacuation area caused by the nuclear emergency.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Do you have a cite for stores full of paint and sewers full of shit and dead bodies in the tsunami-affected area immediately around the Fukushima nuclear power plant?
[/QUOTE]
I wasn’t just talking about the area in and around Fukushima there. You do realize that there is more to Japan than just the area aroudn Fukushima, right?
As for a cite, I can show you pictures of the destruction…would that suffice? I can show you pictures of stores and even industrial plants that were flooded and reduced to rubble or on fire and burning out of control immediately after the disaster. I can show you pictures of what happened at…well, Fukushima’s nuclear power plant. You’d have to use your own imagination as to what, besides nuclear material might have been at a large industrial power station, or in those stores or industrial complexes. I don’t have any specific cites showing that they had this chemical or that in them. I can show you cars, boats, trucks and other vehicles tumbled in the flood waters and buried in debris, but you’d have to use your own imagination and envision that the vehicles actually had oil and gas in them.
You do realize that the dead count is over 10,000 at this point with something like 20,000 still missing…right??
It looks to me as if the red square thingies pretty much cover much of the little radiation symbol thingy, whatever that means. I notice some big fucking red square areas which are presumably the destruction zone from the tsunami, and don’t really get into the earthquake zones afaict. And that’s along one smallish section of the western Japanese coast. If you are saying that the evacuations due to the problems at Fukushima are greater than the evacuations due to the rest of the event (i.e. tsunami and earthquakes and their aftermath) then you are going to need to do better than that picture, because last I heard there were hundreds of thousands evacuated and living in temporary shelters due to this thing…while IIRC, only 30k were evacuated due to possible radiation contamination at the nuclear plant.
Of course, what you are REALLY wanting to do is to look at Fukushima separately, instead of as part of a complete picture and as merely one more piece of the disaster. To take it in isolation and only focus on that one thing.
The earthquake is over, the tidal wave is gone. The radiation problem may just be beginning. There is nothing bogus or deceptive in looking at Fukishima “seperately”.
[QUOTE=The Second Stone]
So it’s okay for nuclear disasters made by incompetence to be as destructive as earthquakes and tsunamis which the Japanese have been prepared for for centuries?
[/QUOTE]
The trouble is, the ‘nuclear disaster’ isn’t even in the ball park for being as destructive as the earthquakes and tsunamis of the past, let alone this one. Even if your assertion that it was incompetence that caused what’s going on here, the two things aren’t on the same scale using any measurement you care to name. Cost? The tsunami and earthquake are going to cost hundreds of billions to recover from. The nuclear plant? Maybe a billion or two. People driven from their homes? 30k vs 100’s of thousands. Killed? Zero vs 10’s of thousands. Injured? 10’s of thousands vs a few hundred, maybe a couple of thousand depending on how you define ‘injured’ and how long a time span we take this.
Again, it was a 40 year old plant. And older design. It wasn’t the best, safest design out there. Yet there still hasn’t been a ‘nuclear disaster’, and people were given a hell of a long time to evacuate if the worst happens (it still could). MUCH longer than the earthquake or tsunami gave people to evacuate.
The thing is, people CHOOSE to live in places that are potentially catastrophic. Think of all those folks who live in California right on the fault line. Or those folks who live in the shadow of Mt Vesuvius (millions). If there was a nuclear power plant right there at Mt Vesuvius and it cut loose, the nuke plant would be the least of the folks worries…because hundreds of thousands or even millions would die FROM THE VOLCANO. The few hundred or even thousand that might be effected by the nuke plant would be spit in the wind when compared to the disaster happening there.
Better building codes. Still, over 10,000 known dead…20,000 still missing. No idea how many injured but I’m guessing 10x the known dead would be conservative.
And yet, having know and prepared for the disaster…10,000 dead. 20,000 missing. Possibly hundreds of thousands injured. Certainly 100’s of thousands homeless and living in temporary shelters. Vs no known dead, no known missing, maybe a few hundred or thousand injured, and 30k evacuated.
The entire disaster is not ok with me you idiot. :mad: But shit happens and if it happens near you then you have to deal with it. What makes me mad is the willful ignorance displayed by folks like you, who close their ears to the wider events and focus merely on one aspect as some sort of vindication of your world view on nuclear energy.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
The earthquake is over, the tidal wave is gone. The radiation problem may just be beginning. There is nothing bogus or deceptive in looking at Fukishima “seperately”.
[/QUOTE]
Really? So, there aren’t 100’s of thousands of people who have no homes to go back too, who aren’t living in temporary or refugee shelters?? Not still 20,000 people missing and presumed dead? Not 100’s of thousands injured and still being treated? Damn…I didn’t know. They sure rebuilt fast! The problems (other than nuclear) aren’t just beginning, and the clean up just getting started…a cleanup that will take years?? Well…glad you let me know that 'luci.
Sorry, but horseshit. It IS bogus AND deceptive to try and look at Fukishima ‘separately’, and not as part of the overall disaster.
This is so. By the same token, a guy who jumps off the Empire State Building may have as much as fifteen, twenty seconds to say “Well, so far, no problem”.
Yes you were talking about the area around Fukushima, damage by tsunami vs. evacuation area around FNPP. FX said:
You then linked to some random google image search of Japan earthquake damage that didn’t really even show that many houses, much less houses around the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Then you said:
You are clearly claiming the tsunami contaminated more food production and cattle in the region than the food and produce bans in the nuclear evacuation area. I can easily find photos of Fukushima area fresh grown and harvested produce that looks perfectly clean and wonderful to eat except it’s from the Fukushima region and can’t be sold. The produce from that region is not soaked in saltwater, sewer shit or dead bodies. You think this is Haiti or something?
Pictures of destruction anywhere but agricultural and livestock areas within the FNPP area will not suffice, no.
The number of dead and missing right now is about 27K for the entire area affected by the earthquake and tsunami. The total population of the affected areas is approximately 10,000,000 (small pdf). The dead and missing in Japan is 0.27 percent of the earthquake and tsunami-affected population.
Haiti in contrast, is up to around 300,000 dead, out of an affected population of 3,000,000. Fully 10% of the affected Haitian population was killed by a 7.0 earthquake without an accompanying tsunami (well, a little one killed three people) and OMG don’t even think about what would have happened if Haiti had nuke plants, which is what you want.
I want to compare the damage the earthquake and tsunami did to the Fukushima area now within the nuclear evacuation zone, and the damage to Fukushima agriculture and livestock and displaced people in the Fukushima nuclear evacuation zone because of that nuclear evacuation.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
You then linked to some random google image search of Japan earthquake damage that didn’t really even show that many houses, much less houses around the Fukushima nuclear power plant.
[/QUOTE]
Ok…here is a map of the evacuation zone. Note how far out the semi-circle of evacuation goes (barely beyond the coastal areas). Here is a map showing the zones of destruction from earthquake and tsunami on the east coast of Japan. Here is a more detailed map of the evacuation zone, including the US’s advisory 50 mile limit. Notice the town of Shirakawa is actually outside of the US 50 mile advisory zone, but that on the map showing earthquake damage it’s inside the zone? Here is another map showing the distances from the plant and possible radiation exposures…compare and contrast that, once again, to the map showing the damage zones from earthquake and tsunami.
Here is a picture from the ‘google image search’ (which was from Fukushima, not just Japan as a whole), which I’m guessing you didn’t even look through since it has images of towns destroyed, as well as houses wrecked. An image from Iwaki (outside of the 20 km evacuation zone). Another image from Iwaki. Another.
If you say so. I MEANT my post to be about more than simply Fukushima province, but ok…given the amount of damage I’m seeing, especially in the various ports in the province, I think that it’s going to be a toss up still as to what contaminated more food production…the ‘nuclear disaster’ or the tsunami. No way to measure the other contamination at this point, since no one is reporting on it…everything seems focused on the nuclear aspect to the exclusion of everything else. I’m content to wait and see what data comes out in the following weeks.
I don’t know where you are getting that the coastal areas weren’t as I described…have you looked at any of the images from the region? Inland, look at the zone of destruction from the earthquake and consider that it wasn’t just buildings falling over. There would have been water mains broken, fires raging, sewer systems disrupted and lots of dead. According to the map I linked to earlier over 10,000 buildings were destroyed in the province (and I think that’s a low estimate based on what I’m seeing).
Then there is no way to respond to your request for a cite. So sorry.
Yes? And? What do you suppose this means or proves? What’s the total percentage of the population of Japan killed or missing due to the nuclear accident alone? Zero.
Again, so what? Japan has higher levels of building standards, better emergency response, and greater capacity to deal with disaster than Haiti. What does this prove or mean to you?
Feel free. You might want to start by looking over the maps I linked too showing the zones of destruction/damage from the earthquake and tsunami vs the evacuation zone. Might be a good place to start. Then you might want to consider the ramifications of seeing all those buildings destroyed, of what it meant in the coastal areas to have all of that stuff submerged rapidly in water, what it would leave behind once the water receded, what it would mean to water mains and sewer systems given the level of destruction we are talking about, what toxic chemicals those fires might have had in them, what the missing dead bodies are presumably going to add to the mix, etc etc.
The bottom line is that if you look at the dead and missing in Fukushima alone (it was on one of the maps earlier), any ONE of those small villages has more dead than has happened thus far due to the ‘nuclear disaster’…and in every one of those cases the number of missing (STILL) is much higher than the death toll. Any one of those little villages is going to have more injured than has thus far happened at the nuke plant as well.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
That any nuclear nutjobs are still trying to convince the world of how safe nuclear energy is, and how well the plant did, they are ratshit insane.
[/QUOTE]
Hm…wonder what that shiny object in the water is?? swims closer Looks yummy…bright and SHINY! IT’S SO SHINY! swims closer Wait…what’s that shadow overhead? Looks like some guy with frizzy holding a pole (what pole, who’s pole? His OWN pole???) and looking down into the water.
