Warning!Radiation from damaged Japanese reactors headed to U.S./Canada!

[JonS]

what's a micro Seiver? Is that a really, really small person who holds one of these:

[JonS]

Information. It's good for you.

Source

(Wikipedia is actually really really good for these kinds of evolving situations)

But what, I hear you ask, is an "MP"?

[Thomm]

I have had to convince my own mother in Nevada not to take the pills.

My wife yesterday showed me one of the videos with "UFOs" flying across the screen in tsunami videos.

Took me five seconds to find a site that showed the same footage in HD, the "UFOs" suddenly turning into helicopters.

Best regards,

Thomm

[LukeFF]

Judging by severe deep freeze, murderous headache despite pain meds, lit up back, intense sadness (not my own) and more, another devastating event is imminent. It will involve mass trauma and/or mass casualties. Wouldn't be surprised if it hit tomorrow. Don't know the where. Am also expecting a powerful eruption soon, based on extensive volcanic symptoms.

Give it a rest already. You are an empty-headed fool.

[dieseltaylor]

I was listening to te radio this morning when a financier just baxk from Tokyo how it felt. He said they often get quakes and they last 10-30 seconds. This one went on for 4:30 so every one knew it was seriously major.

It is kind of scary to consider that parts of Jpan are now 4 metres further west.

And how do we feel about nuclear power vis a vis renewables now?

[Other Means]

I was listening to te radio this morning when a financier just baxk from Tokyo how it felt. He said they often get quakes and they last 10-30 seconds. This one went on for 4:30 so every one knew it was seriously major.

It is kind of scary to consider that parts of Jpan are now 4 metres further west.

And how do we feel about nuclear power vis a vis renewables now?

I think this has been a ringing endorsement of nuclear safety.

Force 9 earthquake, 7m tsunami, 40 year old design - zero dead.

[dieseltaylor]

Did you want to add - so far?

The fact that this one survived may be a tribute to massive engineering in those early days, but then why not ask if the quake had been 50 miles closer - answer me that.

My main gripe is that I am in favour of de-centralised power generation as it is inherently better for catastrophic events if the power is not taken down. Nuclear power is the complete opposite as it can only ever be massive investmnets and sites.

Catastrophes, civil insurrection, sabotage could all take down a country's power infrastructure. The infestation of the Iranian nuclear plant with Stuxnet is a warning of what might be possible regardless of physical attacks.

The UK is heavily reliant on the French for power balancing the electricity supply currently. When you consider that virtually all nuclear power stations for the UK and France are on the coast, and we have rising sea levels it does seem almost moronic not to be looking at distributed power systems.

Incidentally Australia with huge amounts of land and solar resource has plumped for eleven nuclear reactors - who was paid off? : ) The public were 80% strong in wanting renewables.

And Australian neighbour Indonesia:

INDONESIA said four nuclear reactors it plans to build near a volatile fault will be safe and more modern than the Japanese plant critically damaged by an earthquake and tsunami. Ferhat Aziz, a spokesman for Indonesia's Nuclear Energy, says the nation of 237 million badly needs alternative energy sources.

The four reactors will be built on Bangka island by 2022. Bangka is near Sumatra, the heavily populated island where a 2004 earthquake caused the massive tsunami that killed 230,000 people in a dozen nations.

[abneo3sierra]

I think this has been a ringing endorsement of nuclear safety.

Force 9 earthquake, 7m tsunami, 40 year old design - zero dead.

I entirely agree..and yes, it is 0 dead 'so far' but these reactors are not anywhere near as well built as current ones are..so yes...once the hype is over, I hope people can realize this.

[dieseltaylor]

Fundamentally I refuse to believe any major building* is earthquake proof. You can lengthen the odds but any building sufficiently close must be suspect. Rather like watches are very unlikely to be water-proof but nowdays are water resistant.

* to rule out yurts, single storey bamboo structures ...

However neither of you seems to want to visit system redundancy or rising water levels. Incidentally rising water levels is not just - the water is a foot higher but what happens to coast lines and storm surges at the higher level.

If things do go titsup and sea-levels do rise rapidly then what are you going to do then for power?

I do not expect you to have the answers, you can popoo the speed that sea levels may rise, the attacks/disasters with centralised power generation, but taking everything together you are adding three unlikelys to happens together to justify a nuclear power based system for electrical generation.

1. Earhquakes cannot damage reactors

2. Grid distribution is not likely to breakdown under attack/disaster

3. Sea levels are not likely to get to a level to affect power production *

* I should point out that France cut power to the UK as their nuclear reactors one hot summer were having difficulty cooling. And yes seas are warming : )

[abneo3sierra]

Fundamentally I refuse to believe any major building* is earthquake proof. You can lengthen the odds but any building sufficiently close must be suspect. Rather like watches are very unlikely to be water-proof but nowdays are water resistant.

* to rule out yurts, single storey bamboo structures ...

However neither of you seems to want to visit system redundancy or rising water levels. Incidentally rising water levels is not just - the water is a foot higher but what happens to coast lines and storm surges at the higher level.

If things do go titsup and sea-levels do rise rapidly then what are you going to do then for power?

I do not expect you to have the answers, you can popoo the speed that sea levels may rise, the attacks/disasters with centralised power generation, but taking everything together you are adding three unlikelys to happens together to justify a nuclear power based system for electrical generation.

1. Earhquakes cannot damage reactors

2. Grid distribution is not likely to breakdown under attack/disaster

3. Sea levels are not likely to get to a level to affect power production *

* I should point out that France cut power to the UK as their nuclear reactors one hot summer were having difficulty cooling. And yes seas are warming : )

For what it's worth, Diesel, I agree also with you.. I think we should be aiming for a new technology. But in the meantime....

[Terahn]

Did you want to add - so far?

Of course so far. Be patient, there is need to use conjectures to teach us lessons about Fukushima. Shortly we will have a useful history to go on.

[Other Means]

Fundamentally I refuse to believe any major building* is earthquake proof. You can lengthen the odds but any building sufficiently close must be suspect. Rather like watches are very unlikely to be water-proof but nowdays are water resistant.

* to rule out yurts, single storey bamboo structures ...

However neither of you seems to want to visit system redundancy or rising water levels. Incidentally rising water levels is not just - the water is a foot higher but what happens to coast lines and storm surges at the higher level.

If things do go titsup and sea-levels do rise rapidly then what are you going to do then for power?

I do not expect you to have the answers, you can popoo the speed that sea levels may rise, the attacks/disasters with centralised power generation, but taking everything together you are adding three unlikelys to happens together to justify a nuclear power based system for electrical generation.

1. Earhquakes cannot damage reactors

2. Grid distribution is not likely to breakdown under attack/disaster

3. Sea levels are not likely to get to a level to affect power production *

* I should point out that France cut power to the UK as their nuclear reactors one hot summer were having difficulty cooling. And yes seas are warming : )

Unfortunately your premise is wrong:

http://www.cringely.com/2011/03/is-anything-nuclear-ever-really-super-safe-small-and-simple/

{edit to add}

The French nuclear reactors were built on rivers, not seas. The rivers got hot in a hot summer. Go figure.

[StellarRat]

I think this has been a ringing endorsement of nuclear safety.

Force 9 earthquake, 7m tsunami, 40 year old design - zero dead.

There are far safer designs now. The pebble bed design would not have had any problems in scenario that we are seeing. It goes quiet when the temperature gets too high.

[Stalins Organ]

I think this has been a ringing endorsement of nuclear safety.

Force 9 earthquake, 7m tsunami, 40 year old design - zero dead.

Generally I agree, however I read a report this morning (can't find it now ) the death toll at he reactors is at least 4 from fires and collapses,

and the media are now pumping the "50 heroes" - the crew still trying to work around the reactors to evaluate teh damage, etc - as if they have all sworn to commit suicide if need be to do their jobs - it's all a bit bizarre/morbid - and I wish those individuals all the luck in the world!

[dieseltaylor]

OM

All but four of EdF's nuclear power plants (14 reactors) are inland, and require fresh water for cooling. Eleven of the 15 inland plants (32 reactors) have cooling towers, using evaporative cooling, the others use simply river or lake water directly. With regulatory constraints on the temperature increase in receiving waters, this means that in very hot summers generation output may be limited.

I read that as 25% approximately of French atomic power generation which provides 77% of their electricity is seaside : ) As for the UK that appears to 100% of eleven active stations.

The link to cringely was interesting. The Toshiba designs sounded fine for a mesh grid - until the problems were pointed out. I will need to look at other designs.

[StellarRat]

But France and England aren't in active geologic areas at least as far as I know. The danger of tsunami s and earthquakes seems very small.

[Stalins Organ]

There have been some major tsunami's (or things that might have been tsunamis) in the UK, such as the one in the Bristol estuary in 1607, and the North Sea is known to generate the occasional tsunami too.

And there is enough seismic activity in the UK to make monitoring and addressing it worthwhile.

One thing about tsunamis is their ability to affect at a distance, and their ability to be generated by events that do not require fault-lines - eg continental shelvs can have "landlsides" at their edges due to errosion, etc. And hte tsunami can then travel many hundreds of miles to cause destruction on land.

[abneo3sierra]

There was a study I read last week on the German MSN site (msn.de) in which the hypothetical (but believable) volcanic eruption in the Azores, created a fast moving tsunami that hit the US eastern seaboard, as well as parts of Europe...a very plausible scenario..cannot find it now, probably just too tired lol, but some good "what if" possibilities by a respectable source.

[JonS]

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/17/four-questions-about.html

[Other Means]

There have been some major tsunami's (or things that might have been tsunamis) in the UK' date=' such as the one in the Bristol estuary in 1607, and the North Sea is known to generate the occasional tsunami too.

And there is enough seismic activity in the UK to make monitoring and addressing it worthwhile.

One thing about tsunamis is their ability to affect at a distance, and their ability to be generated by events that do not require fault-lines - eg continental shelvs can have "landlsides" at their edges due to errosion, etc. And hte tsunami can then travel many hundreds of miles to cause destruction on land.

And hit Ireland. Mainly.

[Other Means]

There was a study I read last week on the German MSN site (msn.de) in which the hypothetical (but believable) volcanic eruption in the Azores, created a fast moving tsunami that hit the US eastern seaboard, as well as parts of Europe...a very plausible scenario..cannot find it now, probably just too tired lol, but some good "what if" possibilities by a respectable source.

Dr. Day says: "If the volcano collapsed in one block of almost 20 cubic kilometres of rock, weighing 500 billion tonnes - twice the size of the Isle of Wight - it would fall into water almost 4 miles deep and create an undersea wave 2000 feet tall. Within five minutes of the landslide, a dome of water about a mile high would form and then collapse, before the Mega Tsunami fanned out in every direction, travelling at speeds of up to 500 mph. A 330ft wave would strike the western Sahara in less than an hour."

http://www.rense.com/general56/tsu.htm

[Other Means]

Here's a link to several recent updates on the full blown nuclear crisis in Japan. http://boppinalong.finddiscussion.com/t1382-urgent-warning-fukushima-incident-was-a-meltdown-radiation-headed-to-us-and-canada-protect-yourselves#5800 Per CNN today, nuclear fallout cleanup specialists are headed to Japan from the U.S. That alone should tell you something's happened.

JonS,

Judging by severe deep freeze, murderous headache despite pain meds, lit up back, intense sadness (not my own) and more, another devastating event is imminent. It will involve mass trauma and/or mass casualties. Wouldn't be surprised if it hit tomorrow. Don't know the where. Am also expecting a powerful eruption soon, based on extensive volcanic symptoms.

Thomm,

Good for you!

Regards,

John Kettler

Didn't happen. Been 3 days since you said now so you're at least 300% out.

[hoolaman]

Given the widespread grumbling of the pacific plate I wouldn't be surprised if there was another "big one" in the next few months.

Shouldn't Kettler's head have exploded last week, given one of the biggest quakes in history? But no, he gets a bit sad and feels like cleaning the house.

[Other Means]

Here's a link to the monitoring stations:

http://tsukubanews.wordpress.com/

[Thomm]

Bravo for offering that Japanese family a place to stay!

One of the thousands messages that will not make the news ...

Though it would be great to fly to Vienna where there is no worry about being exposed to radiation. But we can't leave Tokyo for the moment , beacuse we have work here. As long as the hospital opens, we have to work, and as long as people live here, the hospital won't close.

Best regards,

Thomm