Huge Explosion at Japanese Nuclear Plant

Byrnzie · March 2011

This looks bad:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12720219

Japan quake: Huge explosion at Fukushima nuclear plant

A massive explosion has struck a Japanese nuclear power plant after Friday's devastating earthquake.

A huge pall of smoke was seen coming from the plant at Fukushima and several workers were injured.

Japanese officials fear a meltdown at one of the plant's reactors after radioactive material was detected outside it.

A huge relief operation is under way after the 8.9-magnitude earthquake and tsunami, which killed more than 600.

Hundreds more people are missing and it is feared about 1,300 may have died.

The offshore earthquake triggered a tsunami which wreaked havoc on Japan's north-east coast, sweeping far inland and devastating a number of towns and villages.

Japan's Prime Minister Naoto Kan declared a state of emergency at the Fukushima 1 and 2 power plants as engineers try to confirm whether a reactor at one of the stations has gone into meltdown.

It is an automatic procedure after nuclear reactors shut down in the event of an earthquake, allowing officials to take rapid action.

Continue reading the main story

Japan quake: video reports
Quake: Wave forecast map
Japan's NHK TV showed before and after pictures of the Fukushima plant. They appeared to show that the outer structure of one of four buildings at the plant had collapsed.

Cooling systems inside several reactors at the plants stopped working after Friday's earthquake cut the power supply.

Japan's nuclear agency said on Saturday that radioactive caesium and iodine had been detected near the number one reactor of the Fukushima 1 plant.

The agency said this may indicate that containers of uranium fuel inside the reactor may have begun melting.

Air has been released from several of the reactors at both plants in an effort to relieve the huge amount of pressure building up inside.

Mr Kan said the amount of radiation released was "tiny".

Thousands of people have been ordered to evacuate the area near the plants.

Analysts say a meltdown would not necessarily lead to a major disaster because light-water reactors would not explode even if they overheated.

The 8.9-magnitude tremor struck in the afternoon local time on Friday off the coast of Honshu island at a depth of about 24km, 400km (250 miles) north-east of Tokyo.

It was nearly 8,000 times stronger than last month's quake in New Zealand that devastated the city of Christchurch, scientists said.

Some of the same search and rescue teams from around the world that helped in that disaster are now on their way to Japan.

Claireack · March 2011

This is just terrible.

BinauralJam · March 2011

Fuckin UnReal

catefrances · March 2011

BinauralJam wrote:

Fuckin UnReal

oh its very real.

to allow a country in such a sensitive seismic location to build nuclear power stations is irresponsible.. not only to the locals but to the entire planet.

BinauralJam · March 2011

catefrances wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

Fuckin UnReal

oh its very real.

to allow a country in such a sensitive seismic location to build nuclear power stations is irresponsible.. not only to the locals but to the entire planet.

But i mean this is just a Nitemare on top of everything else.

catefrances · March 2011

BinauralJam wrote:

catefrances wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

Fuckin UnReal

oh its very real.

to allow a country in such a sensitive seismic location to build nuclear power stations is irresponsible.. not only to the locals but to the entire planet.

But i mean this is just a Nitemare on top of everything else.

i dont have nightmares.. tis why the horror genre doesnt do anything for me.

i see it more as mankinds arrogance.

dimitrispearljam · March 2011

oh boy..

LikeAnOcean · March 2011

catefrances wrote:

i see it more as mankinds arrogance.

From what I understand, the whole country is a hot spot for earthquakes. The big one they think will happen some day is located in the complete opposite side of where this one occurred.

They could substitute much dirtier energy production methods. Either way, they are damned if the do and damned if they don't. Disasters can happen anywhere, such as life. Earthquakes are very unpredictable.

With this thought, there's a supervolcano located in Yosemite national park in the US. It goes off every 600,000 to 800,000 years. Last time it went of was 640,000 years ago. It killed virtually all life in north America and sent the world into an ice age.. In the last five years, the land in Yosemite has risen a foot, which is unusual in the time of recorded history. Does this mean we should stop building in North America and evacuate? It could blow today, it could blow 160,000 years from now.

Point being, as much as I'd love to, you can't tell people to stop living. No one can predict a 8.9 earthquake, or an asteroid, or a supervolcano. It's in the top ten in recorded history. No one saw this coming.

SK84993 · March 2011

to allow a country in such a sensitive seismic location to build nuclear power stations is irresponsible.. not only to the locals but to the entire planet.

Well when they apply for there next nuclear building permits,The planet will have to take into consideration the location in which it is going to be built.No countries were an earthquake could happen no countries bent on mass destruction.What else should we tell people do?

Jeanwah · March 2011

Living on coastlines isn't really a good idea either, but people do it anyway. Coastlines are shrinking, so why do we insist on living on them?

LikeAnOcean · March 2011

SK84993 wrote:

to allow a country in such a sensitive seismic location to build nuclear power stations is irresponsible.. not only to the locals but to the entire planet.

Well when they apply for there next nuclear building permits,The planet will have to take into consideration the location in which it is going to be built.No countries were an earthquake could happen no countries bent on mass destruction.What else should we tell people do?

In recorded history, Japan has never experienced such a large quake. Natural disasters can happen anywhere there's a nuclear plant. It's going to happen. There's no way around it. They could resort to much dirtier methods and add to global warming, is that what you would suggest?

ed243421 · March 2011

LikeAnOcean wrote:

catefrances wrote:

i see it more as mankinds arrogance.

From what I understand, the whole country is a hot spot for earthquakes. The big one they think will happen some day is located in the complete opposite side of where this one occurred.

They could substitute much dirtier energy production methods. Either way, they are damned if the do and damned if they don't. Disasters can happen anywhere, such as life. Earthquakes are very unpredictable.

With this thought, there's a supervolcano located in Yosemite national park in the US. It goes off every 600,000 to 800,000 years. Last time it went of was 640,000 years ago. It killed virtually all life in north America and sent the world into an ice age.. In the last five years, the land in Yosemite has risen a foot, which is unusual in the time of recorded history. Does this mean we should stop building in North America and evacuate? It could blow today, it could blow 160,000 years from now.

Point being, as much as I'd love to, you can't tell people to stop living. No one can predict a 8.9 earthquake, or an asteroid, or a supervolcano. It's in the top ten in recorded history. No one saw this coming.

"Does this mean we should stop building in North America and evacuate?"

stop building nuclear power plants?
yes
we are supposed to learn from our mistakes

LikeAnOcean · March 2011

Jeanwah wrote:

Living on coastlines isn't really a good idea either, but people do it anyway. Coastlines are shrinking, so why do we insist on living on them?

Because that is where life evolved from. We need the coasts.I forget the numbers, but something like 90% of the world has to live near a coast to survive. Not everyone has a crop supportive midwest to survive on.

The whole country of Japan is a coast. Where do you suggest they move?

ed243421 · March 2011

LikeAnOcean wrote:

SK84993 wrote:

to allow a country in such a sensitive seismic location to build nuclear power stations is irresponsible.. not only to the locals but to the entire planet.

Well when they apply for there next nuclear building permits,The planet will have to take into consideration the location in which it is going to be built.No countries were an earthquake could happen no countries bent on mass destruction.What else should we tell people do?

In recorded history, Japan has never experienced such a large quake. Natural disasters can happen anywhere there's a nuclear plant. It's going to happen. There's no way around it. They could resort to much dirtier methods and add to global warming, is that what you would suggest?

i think the sun and the wind contain enough clean energy to feed this planet

LikeAnOcean · March 2011

ed243421 wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

catefrances wrote:

i see it more as mankinds arrogance.

From what I understand, the whole country is a hot spot for earthquakes. The big one they think will happen some day is located in the complete opposite side of where this one occurred.

They could substitute much dirtier energy production methods. Either way, they are damned if the do and damned if they don't. Disasters can happen anywhere, such as life. Earthquakes are very unpredictable.

With this thought, there's a supervolcano located in Yosemite national park in the US. It goes off every 600,000 to 800,000 years. Last time it went of was 640,000 years ago. It killed virtually all life in north America and sent the world into an ice age.. In the last five years, the land in Yosemite has risen a foot, which is unusual in the time of recorded history. Does this mean we should stop building in North America and evacuate? It could blow today, it could blow 160,000 years from now.

Point being, as much as I'd love to, you can't tell people to stop living. No one can predict a 8.9 earthquake, or an asteroid, or a supervolcano. It's in the top ten in recorded history. No one saw this coming.

"Does this mean we should stop building in North America and evacuate?"

stop building nuclear power plants?
yes
we are supposed to learn from our mistakes

And burn coal instead? Nuclear is much cleaner for the environment. Where will we get power from? This kind of thing is so rare, its worth the risk when you look at the other options.

LikeAnOcean · March 2011

ed243421 wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

SK84993 wrote:

to allow a country in such a sensitive seismic location to build nuclear power stations is irresponsible.. not only to the locals but to the entire planet.

Well when they apply for there next nuclear building permits,The planet will have to take into consideration the location in which it is going to be built.No countries were an earthquake could happen no countries bent on mass destruction.What else should we tell people do?

In recorded history, Japan has never experienced such a large quake. Natural disasters can happen anywhere there's a nuclear plant. It's going to happen. There's no way around it. They could resort to much dirtier methods and add to global warming, is that what you would suggest?

i think the sun and the wind contain enough clean energy to feed this planet

I sure hope so. All of earths energy comes from the sun. The sun creates wind.. The trick is the methods to collect and distribute that energy.

SK84993 · March 2011

My point is one of sarcasm.This is a natural disaster unavoidable.

Jeanwah · March 2011

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Living on coastlines isn't really a good idea either, but people do it anyway. Coastlines are shrinking, so why do we insist on living on them?

Because that is where life evolved from. We need the coasts.I forget the numbers, but something like 90% of the world has to live near a coast to survive. Not everyone has a crop supportive midwest to survive on.

The whole country of Japan is a coast. Where do you suggest they move?

I'm talking literally living on the coast, i.e. coastal towns. Yes, we do need access to the coasts and live near them, but living directly on them can be disastrous with rising sea levels.

LikeAnOcean · March 2011

Jeanwah wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Living on coastlines isn't really a good idea either, but people do it anyway. Coastlines are shrinking, so why do we insist on living on them?

Because that is where life evolved from. We need the coasts.I forget the numbers, but something like 90% of the world has to live near a coast to survive. Not everyone has a crop supportive midwest to survive on.

The whole country of Japan is a coast. Where do you suggest they move?

I'm talking literally living on the coast, i.e. coastal towns. Yes, we do need access to the coasts and live near them, but living directly on them can be disastrous with rising sea levels.

Some places though don't have high ground. There are islands that can be completely submerged.

qontheboard · March 2011

catefrances wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

Fuckin UnReal

oh its very real.

to allow a country in such a sensitive seismic location to build nuclear power stations is irresponsible.. not only to the locals but to the entire planet.

Perhaps it was irresponsible for the U.S. to use the coastal waters of Japan as a nuclear testing ground
for years.

haffajappa · March 2011

This whole situation is messed up.
I can't tell you how many times i've teared up thinking about it, or listening to the news on the way to work, when you're in a car all by yourself with nothing else to think of.

I heard that one town has 9500 people unaccounted for...

Huge Explosion at Japanese Nuclear Plant

Comments

Categories