Those maps don’t show land area inundated with seawater. The Fukushima prefecture has a land area of 13,782km².
That’s the total land area of all Japan inundated by seawater. Even if the entire tsunami were confined only to Fukushima, that’s only 470km² out of 13,782km². It would still only be a tiny fraction of the affected area. Instead,
The furthest it reached inland was 10 km, and that wasn’t in Fukushima. The evacuation area is firmly out to 20km, and now strongly suggested out to 30km. Even where the tsunami reached furthest inland (and that was not in Fukushima) you’re talking 10 km vs. the 30 km evac zone. The tsunami simply cannot have inundated anything but a tiny fraction of the FNPP area.
I think I’ve shown the evacuation and ban on produce has affected a much larger area than just the area that got swamped.
I have eyes and I can see the devastation the tsunami wrecked and I’m not contesting it did terrible damage. But, the total land area affected by a 30km circle is 2827 km2, and an area of a 50km circle is 7854 km2. Only 470km2 of land was inundated, and that was spread out across something like 600km of coast.
Faulty comparison. I could just as easily compare the millisieverts received standing in a Fukushima reactor vs. the millisieverts received swimming for your life in a 30-meter tsunami and it should be obvious that’s a silly comparison. You continue to directly compare lives lost due to tsunami, and lives lost due to FNPP. Do you really think it’s that simple, or is that how simple you need it to be, in order for your little nuke-lovin’ head not to explode?
Basically, screaming “10,000 dead!” without context is gloom-mongering. Screaming “0.1 percent dead!” just isn’t as sexy, I guess.
Yes, but I don’t know what you think that means. That more people have died doing x, than have died doing y, doesn’t mean anything unless x and y are very similar things.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Those maps don’t show land area inundated with seawater. The Fukushima prefecture has a land area of 13,782km².
[/QUOTE]
No it doesn’t…it shows the total area of devastation of the earthquake and tsunami combined. Which is what I said. I didn’t say that the tsunami caused all the damage.
So what? Again, the map I provided (well, one of them) shows the damage area of the disaster as a whole, not just the damage from the tsunami.
Only 10 km, ehe? Well, no worries I guess. Again, though, the map wasn’t supposed to indicate only the area affected by the tsunami, but the area affected by the entire disaster…most of which was from earthquake damage. That’s why I provided that map and and then showed you the extent of the evacuation zone due to the nuclear issues. The area included in the damage zone extended out as far as the US advisory zone (50 miles).
Yeah, but you are batting at a strawman. So what if the area affected by just the tsunami doesn’t encompass all the area of the nuclear evacuation zone??
Then why did you question the pictures I showed you earlier? And, again, why are you focused exclusively on the tsunami? I know you realize that the majority of the damage came from the earthquake…right? And as shown in the map I liked too, the destruction zone for that extends beyond the 50 mile US advisory zone. And that’s just in this one single province.
Sure I think it’s that simple. It’s one event. Which aspect of this one event has cost more lives? The tsunami? The earthquake? The nuclear ‘disaster’? Which has caused the most disruption? Which caused the most damage? Which caused the largest amount of people unable to go to their homes? Which will end up costing the most money? I don’t know…but I do know (and so do you) which of those three will be the lowest in all of those categories. It will be a toss up between the earthquake and tsunami, and the nuclear ‘disaster’ will be a far distant 3rd. You know it. I know it.
Again, it’s your attempt to deceive with numbers. Because people will think ‘well, .1 percent dead is not that bad’, whereas they will think ‘man, 10-30 thousand dead is a hell of a lot’…especially when you fess up that the percent dead from this nuclear ‘disaster’ is likely to be either 0.00000 or 0.00000000000001. I don’t know why you think this tactic will work for you, or what you hope to achieve by such deceptions, to be honest.
What I think it means is to look at the big picture instead of trying to focus on one aspect and then use deception to make whatever point you think you are making in all this. I know that FXM is an idiot…and seemingly stupid as well. I don’t know what your excuse is though, since I didn’t think you were either.
Geez. Please for once watch the video in this link. It’s transcribed as well, but I want you to see the video. Those farmers are sitting on tons of fresh produce they can’t sell. Those are not farmers dog paddling past shit and dead bodies floating around their farms.
I think you need to stop looking at disaster pictures and try to imagine that the entire “affected area” isn’t nearly as devastated as the worst pictures you’re looking at.
In case I haven’t, I urge interested persons to read Martin Cruz Smith, author of Gorky Park. The book is called Wolf Eats Dog, and is something of a mystery, but takes place in the Ukraine after Chernobyl. Many older residents have returned to their contaminated farms and homes, preferring to live under that threat than leave their homes. It compellingly describes the very strange fear of something you cannot see, cannot sense and cannot avoid. One of the ironies is that the older folks are eating better than ever, but they are eating food they cannot sell, that the State does not want.
How did I miss that Arkady Renko novel?! Thanks, 'luc. Smith has written intelligent fiction about nuclear subjects before (Stallion Gate). Wolves Eat Dogs sounds pretty good.
The tsunami was horrible. It killed a lot of people and destroyed buildings and devastated the farming .
After the shock is over, they will rebuild. Life will go on.
At the nuke plant, a lot of radiation will poison the land and kill people for generations. There will be a streak in the Japanese coast they will take a lot of work to seal up. It will be completely useless forever. The waste is being flushed into the ocean. That of course for a people who eat a lot of seafood, is a big problem. The air is being poisoned by radioactive waste. It has traveled all the way to America. I suspect it is even worse in Japan.
Japan is a densely populated area. It is not like Chernobyl.
Those are a number of interesting opinions that you have. I don’t share them. I don’t agree the plants were built to be as safe as possible at the time, or that it is only to a degree you find acceptable that the displaced are hurt. I am of the opinion that they are injured beyond your and my abilities to understand and emphasize with. I disagree with the attitude that these consequences are acceptable. In my opinion they are not. It’s pretty clear that your attitude is limited to something like: “yeah, its tragic, but what can we do? What’s done is done, blah, blah, blah.” It’s not over with respect to Fukushima. It’s just beginning.
The consolation that I have is that there will never be another nuclear reactor used for generating power in the US. There isn’t likely to be another in Japan as well. This means massive investments in an upgraded power grid for the US and investments in wind and solar with the generating capacity not centralized, but spread out. Profits and gains will also be spread out. I think that is all good.
I was watching a Chinese English language news piece yesterday. It was bragging about China’s nuke power program. They only have a few actually working reactors, and get 1% of their electricity from nuke. Even going full steam ahead, as only China could I guess, they’re bragging that nuke power will produce TEN TIMES that by 2050. Wow, 10% nuke power in as little as 40 years. Woo, save the world from all that CO2!
10%. Ha, ha, ha, ha!
Anyhoo, we might see one or two hyper-expensive trophy plants built. I’m fine with that; I think that’s all they’ve ever been anyway. Keep science alive and all that.
I’m with you though. Please, let’s dump those billions into smart grids and distributed power generation. It’s always windy somewhere, and always sunny somewhere.
Sure, China has more people so you’d think they’d publish more scientific papers. Good for them. They’re still way behind in having their work cited by other scientists, and China hasn’t come out with any killer apps or game-changing technologies. They’re getting their nuke technology from the west. That’s sort of a relief. They’re inevitably going to have explosions and meltdowns and much running and screaming, but if could be worse using their own nuke tech.
China heats many of its homes and cooks with compressed coal. They have a lot of coal. But they realize they can not continue along that path. They are having serious pollution problems.
They are leading the world in solar research. They are spearheading wind energy. They are working hard on alternative energy.They are interested in nuclear as a stopgap. Their needs are huge.
Anybody should be able to see nuclear is fraught with danger and huge costs. Especially if you include accidents as part of the cost. Japan is going to lose billions dealing with their nuke problems. They will have a radioactive scar where part of the coast used to be.
And yet they are building coal plants like mad…just like they are building every other type of power generator like mad. They get over 80% of their generated electricity from COAL…and that figure isn’t likely to change that much (though they are building a boat load of nuclear power plants and expect a 10 fold increase in nuclear energy by 2020…so that might drop that figure to 70 or even 60%). Wind? Solar? Yeah, they are developing it…right now it’s not even a percent and I seriously doubt they will get it to 10% in that same time frame…hell, the way they are growing, I doubt they will EVER get solar AND wind combined to 10% of their total energy production.
Yes, that’s why they are working hard at importing cleaner and cheaper coal, and are building cleaner plants. Coal will be, in China as in the rest of the world, a very important power source for some decades yet.
I have cited here (or elsewhere…losing track but somewhere on this Board):
Nuclear is cheaper than all but coal
ZERO people in the US have been killed as a result of nuclear power generation
Whether it was this thread or other thread I am sure I have pointed this out to you.
You refuse to listen to facts or argue the merits and prefer to cling to your overt biases. You claimed before you could provide a thousand cites to debunk the cost issue I raised in another thread. You have yet to provide one such cite (well, you did provide one but I showed it was so horribly biased and skewed and essentially worthless as to be ignored completely).