Just a thing. The Chornobyl Disaster can not happen againt in western nuclear power plants, only in russians (since The Sunny Father blessed everything that the Soviet engineers created). The power plants are safe even in the event of a full blown core meltdown thanks to core catchers and other safety mesures. So stop sweating around they are safe.
Coal and oil are just as bad, they just kill you more slowly. When are we going to smarten up and start putting more money into solar and geothermal power and hydrogen cars?
It was the 4th largest tsunami in recorded history. And coal plants have a higher radioactive output in normal operation than nuclear plants (in normal operation). Nuclear still worth it I think, if we insist to consume as much energy as we do now.
LOL I still don't know how I feel about these facilities! I really think this issue should at lease be addressed in an open forum with top scientist to help with peoples concerns. I truely think we need to start moving on the path of alternative energy.
we now can track fault lines and risk zones for earthquakes with much greater precision than when the facilities in japan were built. if we had something that was as clean as nuclear power and as efficient than i would agree. but the few things that are cannot be built in as many different areas as nuclear facilities. and even these few natural power plants are incapable of producing the power generated in nuclear facilities.
Dude, this should convince you that nuclear plants are brilliant. Yes it was an earthquake, the biggest recorded in history which was then followed by a tsunami on a forty year old plant that exploded.
What's the result? 2 dead by drowning and a 2 dozen with physical injuries from the earthquake and two people taken to hospital for no lethal radiation treatment.
Check out environmentalist George Monbiot's blog where he talks about the actual evidence or even xkcd com/radiation
If I lived near the Australian Bush, I'd be worried about ANY building made of flamable material near my house, never mind a bloody fireworks factory.
A Nuclear Power Plant in an Earthquake area is a little more worrying than a Fireworks factory. Fireworks just explode and eventually stop burning.
Insurance companies are basically all about gambleing. Ideally (from the companie's POV) you just keep paying them for years without them ever paying you. If they think it'll probably happen they'll make you pay more. If they think it's definitely gonna happen they won't insure you at all.
Nuclear reactors are too dangerous and they produce nuclear waste that no one knows how to dispose of safely. Our money would be better spent on researching other alternatives.
The best way to solve nuclear reactors beeing vulnerable to things like this is not to stop funding but to increase funding to develop better facilities. It really is that simple. Nuclear is by far the best energy source in the world, its development has been incredibly slowed down because people are scared and still it's the best. That says alot.
@MAXBLAYLOCK So the war over oil is not dagerous? Climate change is not dangerous? Blocking rivers and thereby exterminating entire ecosystems is not dangerous? Or worst of all; power shortages are not dangerous? I think you would find, if you did some research that comparatively, nuclear is fairly safe. And there have been very promising attempts at breaking down waste that have been shut down because uninformed people are blindly scared cuz its called nuclear.
@MAXBLAYLOCK As I said, entire ecosystems have been wiped out, and loads of people had to be more or less forcefully removed from their land to make room for hydropower. In the entire history of nuclear, this is the second proper incident. And this is just because the reactor type is underdeveloped due to a lack of research in the area.
Also, hydropower will not produce enough energy to meet demand.
@tanekki The ongoing incident is the buildup of radioactive waste sitting in artificial ponds that will have to be kept there for thousands of years. And how many people are being forced from their land in Japan right now? How much farmland is being ruined? Not to mention the fish. Chernobyl is still surrounded by unusable soil. Sorry for your stock options pal but nuclear power is the worst form of power generation mankind has developed so far.
@MAXBLAYLOCK No point in arguing. Clearly the proportions are lost on you. Also, as far as stock options, I have none. I do have a sense for loss/gain comparisons and an understanding on nuclear power, though.
@MAXBLAYLOCK Half of Honshu? Try a small part of Honshu, specifically in Fukushima. I live 260km from the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, and the radiation here is actually lower than the radiation in Paris, London and Rome.
nuclear power is safer, cheaper, and pollutes less than oil or coal power...people just have a bad stigma attached to it, you also forget that the reactors in Japan having trouble are all 40 years old, at least. they are not up to standards, they were in the middle of bringing them up to standards when the earthquake hit.
There were many earthquakes before this one that did not cause a melt down. In fact, no earthquake has ever caused a reactor to fail until now.
The fact is, nuclear energy, despite all the subsidies (investment in our future independence from oil which is the REAL threat to the environment and peace) is a calculated risk
that is a fairly low price for a high gain. It's this kind of mentality of fear that causes the development of nuclear energy to be slower than it needs to be. It's that fear of nuclear energy that makes nuclear energy unsafe. If anything we should be putting MORE money into nuclear, not less. It will help to PREVENT conflicts in the future over oil. Of course, many will say "what about fusion or solar" but the problem is what if those avenues don't pan out for another 30 years? What
we do in the meantime before we have fusion and efficient commercially viable solar energy is still important. A lot can happen in the next 30 years. We might have a peak oil situation, or an economic collapse, or something unimaginable. Worrying about the dangers of a nuclear meltdown because of a once in a lifetime megaquake just 30 years from the technological singularity is like spending a million dollars on car insurance just to drive half of a mile down a quiet road in the middle
of nowhere. Sure, it's within the realm of possibility that we will have another containment failure in another reactor somewhere, but it is worth it if it means we are using that much less petroleum and coal. If there are 10 more containment failures, then I would concede the point, but if it's just 1 or 2, then it was worth it. Even if thousands of people die. Just consider how many more lives would be spared from war.
I discussed this with my sciency friends and we agreed that although there is no flawless place to put a power plant, but there are places on this earth that are pretty close. Ones that aren't near fault lines or close to volcanic activity can be pretty safe from earthquakes.
If we learned anything it was where not to put power plants. I am not trying to say nuclear power is close to our best option, but rather that this tragedy hasn't removed it from being an option.
I don't like nuclear reactors near me either. But there's one a few hundred miles away. Every news article I see makes me glad I'll be gone in no more than 40 years. When I go, I'm going to flip the bird literally to all the asshole greedy fucks and dumb shits who have nearly made the world a shithole to live in.
you can have a meltdown-free reactor but it is not cost-effective so not many get made. I think it's something like 5% of reactors that are like this.
@n3rdm4n I meant that Japan would have trouble building a reactor that was safe from an earthquake but of course they didn't think about the one-two punch that would hit so hard I guess. Sure, they suspected a big quake SOMEDAY. But I agree with sm. You can never FULLY plan for the unimaginable. That would be like blaming everyone for any calamity that befell them. Well, they just didn't plan well enough.
smpuditz, I live in Japan. I'm not sure what sources you get your news from, but I'll be brief on what's happening and what's happened. The earthquake actually didn't do much damage at all. The power plant came through the earthquake with flying colours. The tsunami was the problem. Actually, if the backup generators hadn't been damaged, there would be no problem right now. I say again, the earthquake did not do the damage. And this was an old design! The newer ones are much safer.
@michalchik They were prepared for a 5 metre tsunami, not a 10 metre tsunami. And yes, they are questioning that. Most likely, even higher walls will be built to protect the power plants from a 10 metre tsunami.
@ExistentialExistent Well then, they should build a 50 metre wall. But tsunami can be even taller than that. The thing is, you can't plan for a tsunami that size. The strength of it is incredible.
@TruthSurge Did you not watch the video - he stats that short of making a Nuclear Power Plant float in the sky, you cant protect it from an earthquake. As for Japan, building reactors in such an active location they should have had Dead Man mechanical safties for such an event.
@Dakayrus did you not go to school? You made a point that it was stupid to build a reactor on a fault line. I then said WHERE would Japan need to build a reactor in order to be safe or fairly safe? The whole island sits on or near a fault line. What, build the reactor in the heart of Tokyo? In China then run a thousand mile pipeline of wire to direct the electricity back to Japan? Oh, no, that's right. You changed your position already. :)
@TruthSurge Clearly you dont know what my possition was, try reading comments and understanding the context of the video before running your mouth, the situation in Japan was predictable but the engineers who raised objections were ignored. Clear they couldn't avoid building on a fault line, but quack proofing the reactors is a design and engineering issue that can be overcome, however this video is more American-centric BS where they can easily avoid building on a fault line.
Nuclear is less harmful than other types of power, excluding solar and wind. But these are far more costly than nuclear. Cancer deaths related to fossil fuel pollution are estimated to be 10,000+ per year, whereas the worst nuclear disaster in history, Chernobyl, caused 60 deaths, once. I agree that we can't completely keep nuclear reactors safe from earthquakes, but to say that we should change our policy based on the results of the 4th most powerful earthquake ever recorded is ridiculous.
There are modern reactor designs which make better use of modern materials and 'passive' safety features (e.g gravity) to cool/shut down the plant.
These systems *can* be engineered to be much safer than the fukushima ones... it's a matter of making sure the laws are in place to enforce higher standards.
even if it melts down, it would be like a dirty bomb, not Hiroshima. it's all about cost benefit. i think your overreacting big time to this. it's generally a safe way to get energy. there is not much you can do about a 8.9 earthquake.
@freethinker3161 if WW2 was fought today what do you think would be the main target of bombers? I know this is an extreme example in our current political climate but we don't know what things will be like 20 years from now. Of course it's about cost benefit but nuclear reactors are major liabilities. The chances of a reactor meltdown are admittedly low but the costs are not to be understated.
@smpunditz not to mention what to do with the waste.It will take thousands of years for this stuff to be safe enough for people to be around.The longest standing buildings we currently have as human beings is the pyramids you need something with twice the staying power of that to house this stuff and find a way so that future generations that may have whole new languages will know to stay the fuck way from it .Sorry I just don't see the appeal.
@smpunditz it may have been an "fucking earthquake" but sooner or later we will NEED Nuclear power. Because windpower and such are just pipe dreams and fussion is still being tested and is a long way from being used as a long term energy sourse.
@Bicthslave They are pipe dreams because people won't go and refine them.The sun is everywhere!You have some places that are plentiful in wind, or geothermal activity.But for the last 30 years instead of investing in the research to develope these technologies so that they could be ready by now they give the same tired excuse essentially "it won't solve ALL the problem".No one thing is going to get us out of this mess it's going to be a combination of solutions.
Nuclear power is about the worst idea man has come up with. New plants are much much safer than old ones like Chernobyl, but they still can meltdown and still produce nuclear waste which will be unsafe for the next, say, billion years. Seriously, how much IS the government being paid to promote it?
so wait...i haven't been keeping up...the nuclear reactor exploded? Large amounts of nuclear waste and radiation are poring out of it and hurting lots of people? Seems like the plant just proved that a nuclear power plant CAN withstand an earthquake...
@smpunditz - so what if it's not in serious danger, and everything turns out ok...will you say "looks like nuclear reactors can survive a 9.0 earthquake...they must be pretty safe?"
In my country we have had electricity for like 150 years relying almost solely on hydroelectric power, though in dry years with some imports from other countries using coal and nuclear. Now we got natural gas plants and wind farms in the sea.. In the future, we might build thorium nuclear plants as well as vast tide-powered plants in the ocean.
Nuclear power isn't very cool, but it produces a great amount of electricity. The problem is that the alternative energy production (photovoltaic, wind turbines, etc) isn't as efficient for now. That's why i've always been in favour of nuclear energy. But i look forward to the day when we won't need nuclear energy anymore.
Also, i thought that nuclear power plants were safer, like disaster-proof. I was wrong.
I miss living near a nuclear energy plant. I miss $60 a month electric bills (I pay 6x that now for gas and electric); thats running washer, dryer, dishwasher, air conditioner, heater, everydamnthing off of electricity too. Oldest reactor in the US, never been a problem that was a threat to the public that I recall. Bury the crap at Yucca mountain and be done so we dont end up with more Hanfords and well be golden.
By the way, the potential for even a worst case scenario meltdown at the Fukushima plants would not even come close to reaching the severity of Chernobyl... and they're not in any sense similar to a bomb like Fat Man or Little Boy. Unlike Chernobyl, all of these reactors have thick containment shielding sealing the reactors off from the local environment... though there is some repairable structural damage allowing radiation to seep out. Chernobyl's reactor had no shield, and was fully exposed.
@Sinuev1 that's why I called them 'little chernobyls' and 'little hiroshimas'. Obviously a nuclear plant isn't going to be anything like Hiroshima because they are not designed to explode. People like you have taken this video far to seriously and interpreted everything I've said as literal just because I disagree with them.
Sorry if I didn't pick up on the levity you intended, but there is so much misinformation and unfounded fears surrounding nuclear energy in general and Fukushima in particular, that "people like me" tend to get a little over-critical of criticisms that play into those misconceptions.
There's people here all the way in north-central Indiana stocking up on iodine tablets because they think "the cloud" is on it's way. It's getting stupid.
Fukushima in a 50 year old design and a 40 year old plant. Look at the record of the nuclear power industry vs the oil companies. I'll take nuclear, irrational fears of radiation and fear mongering fostered by the oil industry means America will never wake up. Which was worse, TMI or the Exxon Valdez oil spill? Fukushima or the BP Gulf of Mexico disaster? Wars of aggression to secure access to oil, or energy independence based on nuclear power plants? For me the choice is clear. Go nuclear.
We desperately need to work on alternative energy. I don't think we can count on governments or corporations to do it either. The best, overall, sources of energy can't be turned into a huge profit.
Although pebble bed reactors show a great deal of promise, I think it's very telling that nuclear plants can't get insurance at a rate that makes nuclear power affordable. It is urgent that we develop a diverse range of alternatives not based on fossil fuels--ethanol from switchgrass, biodiesel, solar, and geothermal (often overlooked).
Nothing is 100% safe. But if you look at how many nuclear plants Japan has, their overall performance during the disaster, compare how many were killed or injured by the nuclear plants as opposed to the disaster itself, and maybe you are overreacting. Not to mention that if an earthquake and tsunami of that magnitude were to hit your typical American reactor, I think the whole world would be shaking and the reactors would be the least of our problems.
@SamySantana building them away from fault lines isn't even a viable solution for everyone. Transferring power over increasingly greater distances tends to reduce efficiency.
How is an earthquake new information? Did you forget they happen?Maybe you forgot that places that frequently experience earthquakes are going to have another one?
@explosivoification if you don't stay in a earthquake prone area or know someone that does you might not consider that when thinking about nuclear power.But still the argument stands these things are just ticking timebombs waiting to explode.All they need is a large enough disaster to light the fuse.Sorry I get no solace that it took a big one in conjuntion with a earthquake inducing tidal wave to knock these things offline.
@explosivoification it simply never crossed my mind that a natural disaster would cause the reactor to explode. Sure it would seem obvious in hindsight but I never thought about it.
@explosivoification oh for crying out loud how many times will people misinterpret what I say? I didn't mean to say it did explode I never thought about an earthquake possibly making it explode.
@explosivoification that's alright. Looking back I could see how you thought I meant otherwise. A lot of people have taken things I said in this video that were intended to be funny a little too seriously so people get the impression that I know absolutely nothing about the issue. I'll have to be a little more careful next time.
@smpunditz Wow, that was a fairly big explosion, I wonder if they had some sort of failsafe to prevent a larger explosion....they were after all expecting to be hit by earthquakes and tsunamis. I'd look into it now but I'm so halfassed, might just do it tomorrow.
@smpunditz It could be that you mentioned 'hiroshima' and 'bombs.. next to us' - if you don't want to be misinterpreted.. go easy on the hyperbole!
While I think modern plants are much safer, I'm also aware that at the time the fukushima plants were built - they were probably saying the same thing 'oh our modern plants are safe'. These things really need to be overengineered to the max and the law should require them to take into account natural disasters bigger than ever experienced.
Back in the early 80s, my wife and I protested the Diablo Canyon double reactor, in California, from going online. They built the fucking thing within 2 miles of an active quake fault!!! A branch of the San Andreas fault goes right by the site. Also, the town we were living in was just outside the zone for the siren alarms to be installed(30miles). So much for relaxing during quakes. Sure enough, we experienced a large quake around that time which flattened the town of Colinga, just 70 mi away.
I have an even better idea, let's take the billions of dollars we are going to spend on nuclear reactors and put it towards R&D of fusion reactors which would eliminate the threat of meltdown while providing a source of UNLIMITED, CLEAN, and CHEAP energy. And I'm not talking about funding the giant money pit that the DOE has been working on for 20+ years with no success. We really need a substantial X-Prize for a sustainable fusion reactor.
The fact that THE LARGEST EARTHQUAKE they've ever had is the one that finally knocked it into this shape.. don't you think that it's somewhat good that only a huge one has done this to the thing?
All the little earthquakes, of course, they don't count, it's only when a HUGE RARE AAAAH SCREAM CRIPPLING THE ECONOMY FOREVER kinda earthquake hits that anyone brings up the fact that it went through an earthquake.
@smpunditz That doesn't negate the fact that Earthquakes of that magnitude happen rarely.
Shit, we could say the same thing about conventional energy facilities. Oil plants? Well, for a start, they release carbon into the atmosphere EVERY year, without needing a disaster to start that process, nuclear plants don't. Also, more oil plants have exploded, than nuclear plants. How do you suggest we get our energy, without destroying the environment?
@smpunditz If you haven't already, I highly suggest watching some TED Talks that Bill Gates has done on the subject. He best explains why Nuclear is currently the only alternative that we should be using as of now.
@FmMan33 It's easy to say that nuclear is the only alternative when it is really the only form of energy other then oil that is heavily subsidized by the government. We spend 10 BILLION on the damn things. Imagine what we could accomplish in alternatives with that much money.
@smpunditz Give me just one example of a non subsidized method that we use to produce power for our nations that could sustain a city, let alone a planet without requiring many square miles.
@smpunditz Woah Nelly, calm down, I simply asked what alternatives you think should be subsidized.... jesus man. "when it is really the only form of energy other then oil that is heavily subsidized by the government. " - You state that Nuclear is the only other subsidized power method we have other than coal and natural gases, I merely asked you to give me an example of a possible fuel as an alternative to subsidize........ Crickey...
@FmMan33 dude do not presume to think you can know my demeanour from reading those words. I do apologize if I misunderstood you but it does seem as though you are not asking a completely different question.
In any case to answer the latter one I believe solar is the way to go.
@smpunditz Currently we need a lot more research into solar energy. It produces far too little energy for our current needs, and storage is a big problem. For that sort of energy you need batteries, and to quote Bill Gates, "Our current battery technology, with all the batteries in the world, would provide us with only 10 minutes of power" - I think that sums up why we can't really start subsidizing solar power atm.
I've heard estimates that project viable solar power (including battery capacity) should be available within about 10 to 15 machine generations (whatever that means). It's close enough apparently to dissuade serious investors away hydrogen energy, since solar power should reach large scale adoption before the technology and infrastructure necessary for a hydrogen economy is tenable.
I love their optimism, but I'm finding it harder to trust in the assertions of futurists.
And that makes it worse than coal... how? If we abandon Nuclear, coal will be the fuel to pick up the majority of the slack. But it's not like coal power doesn't contaminate the local environment with low levels of radioactive material as part of the waste in normal operating procedure... and setting a vein on fire can just as effectively poison the soil and wipe out nearby towns. The coal mine fire under Centralia, PA is estimated to keep burning for the next 500 ~ 1k years.
And that's not counting other hazards such as mine collapses trapping workers, the chance of flooding causing sinkholes under major cities, the run off from mining operations releasing toxic chemicals into ocean, the CO2 and mercury produced... etc. Even with today's reactors, the effective safety of nuclear energy beats coal hands down... except coal is much cheaper. That's not even counting the gen IV reactors proposed which can use existing waste as fuel for over a century.
"It was a fucking earthquake" ... weird, that's the EXACT same thing I say in response to people who claim nuclear energy isn't safe. So odd that people don't see it this way: Personally, I'm surprised the thing held up so goddamn well! In fact, the earthquake didn't even fully damage it.. it was the earthquake followed by A FUCKING TSUNAMI that finally crippled it.
You people are fucking crazy. You should be IMPRESSED and REASSURED, if anything. Jesus.
The cause of the failure is irrelevant is it not? The safety measures for that plant failed and there has been some release of radioactive contaminants. Despite the undoubted millions of dollars that were spent on engineering, design, & construction QC they failed to construct a 100% safe facility. 1979, 1986, 2011& we should be 'IMPRESSED' by the record of safety?
The earthquake was more severe than the reactors were designed to withstand. The underlying strata were far more friable than believed. Even so, the earthquake did no serious damage.
The tsunami took out the grid AND the backup generators so cooling was lost. THAT did the damage.
Japan has shitloads of tsunamis (that's why we call them by the Japanese word for them). That was a serious design flaw.
But the underlying problem is inadequate regulators.
The tsunami could have been less damaging. The epicentre of the earthquake could have been on land and not caused a tsunami. Your reasoning fails, and fails badly.
Oh, wait, earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics, so the damage was caused by plate tectonics. Oh, wait, plate tectonics occur on some planets, so it was the planet that caused the damage. Oh, wait, planets occur in universes, so it was the universe that caused the damage.
@bdf2718 What you sarcastically said is ironically all correct. It's called semantics. Quit trying to differentiate between two words that cause the same result. Trying to say the damage was caused by the tsunami and not the earthquake is idiocy, because the tsunami was created by the earthquake. You might as well say the flooding was not caused by the tsunami. And yes, saying the universe caused the damage is vague but correct. Last time I checked, earthquakes are part of the universe.
The reactors could and WERE hardened against earthquakes.
The reactors could have been, SHOULD have been but were NOT hardened against tsunamis.
Do you see the important difference there? If not, never attempt a career in engineering design.
Most rational people actually understand the distinction. This is engineering not law and "proximate cause" (aka "but for") does not apply (but may apply when blame is assigned).
Although from what I understand, most if not all of the disastrous damage to Fukushima Daiichi was caused by the tsunami. It took the quake like a champ, as did all the other nuclear plants in Japan.
very true It wasn't very clever of them to build a site that can be hazardous to a country
in a earthquake prone country ,,,and the Japanese are all like "Oh we are use to them" And did you see that wall that the water came over?...Again not clever It must have been 5 foot from the ground (or 3 feet from water level) If you in a country prone to Earthquakes and tsunamis you don't build nuclear sites and you build a 30 foot wall around the waters edge
Just a thing. The Chornobyl Disaster can not happen againt in western nuclear power plants, only in russians (since The Sunny Father blessed everything that the Soviet engineers created). The power plants are safe even in the event of a full blown core meltdown thanks to core catchers and other safety mesures. So stop sweating around they are safe.
thergonomic 9 months ago
Coal and oil are just as bad, they just kill you more slowly. When are we going to smarten up and start putting more money into solar and geothermal power and hydrogen cars?
HentaiGaiJin 10 months ago
It was the 4th largest tsunami in recorded history. And coal plants have a higher radioactive output in normal operation than nuclear plants (in normal operation). Nuclear still worth it I think, if we insist to consume as much energy as we do now.
bocckoka 10 months ago
LOL I still don't know how I feel about these facilities! I really think this issue should at lease be addressed in an open forum with top scientist to help with peoples concerns. I truely think we need to start moving on the path of alternative energy.
SloppyLarry 10 months ago
we now can track fault lines and risk zones for earthquakes with much greater precision than when the facilities in japan were built. if we had something that was as clean as nuclear power and as efficient than i would agree. but the few things that are cannot be built in as many different areas as nuclear facilities. and even these few natural power plants are incapable of producing the power generated in nuclear facilities.
greycloud24 11 months ago
Dude, this should convince you that nuclear plants are brilliant. Yes it was an earthquake, the biggest recorded in history which was then followed by a tsunami on a forty year old plant that exploded.
What's the result? 2 dead by drowning and a 2 dozen with physical injuries from the earthquake and two people taken to hospital for no lethal radiation treatment.
Check out environmentalist George Monbiot's blog where he talks about the actual evidence or even xkcd com/radiation
dominictemple 11 months ago
If I lived near the Australian Bush, I'd be worried about ANY building made of flamable material near my house, never mind a bloody fireworks factory.
A Nuclear Power Plant in an Earthquake area is a little more worrying than a Fireworks factory. Fireworks just explode and eventually stop burning.
dechha1981 11 months ago
The Insurance part is interesting.
Insurance companies are basically all about gambleing. Ideally (from the companie's POV) you just keep paying them for years without them ever paying you. If they think it'll probably happen they'll make you pay more. If they think it's definitely gonna happen they won't insure you at all.
They won't insure nuclear plants.
You do the math.
dechha1981 11 months ago
Nuclear reactors are too dangerous and they produce nuclear waste that no one knows how to dispose of safely. Our money would be better spent on researching other alternatives.
MAXBLAYLOCK 11 months ago
The best way to solve nuclear reactors beeing vulnerable to things like this is not to stop funding but to increase funding to develop better facilities. It really is that simple. Nuclear is by far the best energy source in the world, its development has been incredibly slowed down because people are scared and still it's the best. That says alot.
tanekki 11 months ago
@tanekki It's not the best it's the most dangerous and the waste products will remain dangerous for centuries.
MAXBLAYLOCK 11 months ago
@MAXBLAYLOCK So the war over oil is not dagerous? Climate change is not dangerous? Blocking rivers and thereby exterminating entire ecosystems is not dangerous? Or worst of all; power shortages are not dangerous? I think you would find, if you did some research that comparatively, nuclear is fairly safe. And there have been very promising attempts at breaking down waste that have been shut down because uninformed people are blindly scared cuz its called nuclear.
tanekki 11 months ago
@tanekki Half of Honshu is radioactive! You can't drink the tap water or eat the food! How often does that happen with hydro-power? Never.
MAXBLAYLOCK 11 months ago
@MAXBLAYLOCK As I said, entire ecosystems have been wiped out, and loads of people had to be more or less forcefully removed from their land to make room for hydropower. In the entire history of nuclear, this is the second proper incident. And this is just because the reactor type is underdeveloped due to a lack of research in the area.
Also, hydropower will not produce enough energy to meet demand.
tanekki 11 months ago
@tanekki The ongoing incident is the buildup of radioactive waste sitting in artificial ponds that will have to be kept there for thousands of years. And how many people are being forced from their land in Japan right now? How much farmland is being ruined? Not to mention the fish. Chernobyl is still surrounded by unusable soil. Sorry for your stock options pal but nuclear power is the worst form of power generation mankind has developed so far.
MAXBLAYLOCK 11 months ago
@MAXBLAYLOCK No point in arguing. Clearly the proportions are lost on you. Also, as far as stock options, I have none. I do have a sense for loss/gain comparisons and an understanding on nuclear power, though.
tanekki 11 months ago
@MAXBLAYLOCK Half of Honshu? Try a small part of Honshu, specifically in Fukushima. I live 260km from the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, and the radiation here is actually lower than the radiation in Paris, London and Rome.
snarf66 11 months ago
@snarf66 It ain't over till the fat lady mutates into a giant fire breathing monster. ; )
MAXBLAYLOCK 11 months ago
@wspol624
"Of course building such plants away from coastlines and major fault lines is sane"
Not when it needs lots of water and when the entire country is sitting on said fault line.
mecher3k 11 months ago
I used to be for nuclear energy too, but it's clear the costs outweigh the benefits.
ExistentialExistent 11 months ago
nuclear power is safer, cheaper, and pollutes less than oil or coal power...people just have a bad stigma attached to it, you also forget that the reactors in Japan having trouble are all 40 years old, at least. they are not up to standards, they were in the middle of bringing them up to standards when the earthquake hit.
MobileThinker 11 months ago
*sigh*
There were many earthquakes before this one that did not cause a melt down. In fact, no earthquake has ever caused a reactor to fail until now.
The fact is, nuclear energy, despite all the subsidies (investment in our future independence from oil which is the REAL threat to the environment and peace) is a calculated risk
DeimosSaturn 11 months ago
that is a fairly low price for a high gain. It's this kind of mentality of fear that causes the development of nuclear energy to be slower than it needs to be. It's that fear of nuclear energy that makes nuclear energy unsafe. If anything we should be putting MORE money into nuclear, not less. It will help to PREVENT conflicts in the future over oil. Of course, many will say "what about fusion or solar" but the problem is what if those avenues don't pan out for another 30 years? What
DeimosSaturn 11 months ago
we do in the meantime before we have fusion and efficient commercially viable solar energy is still important. A lot can happen in the next 30 years. We might have a peak oil situation, or an economic collapse, or something unimaginable. Worrying about the dangers of a nuclear meltdown because of a once in a lifetime megaquake just 30 years from the technological singularity is like spending a million dollars on car insurance just to drive half of a mile down a quiet road in the middle
DeimosSaturn 11 months ago
of nowhere. Sure, it's within the realm of possibility that we will have another containment failure in another reactor somewhere, but it is worth it if it means we are using that much less petroleum and coal. If there are 10 more containment failures, then I would concede the point, but if it's just 1 or 2, then it was worth it. Even if thousands of people die. Just consider how many more lives would be spared from war.
DeimosSaturn 11 months ago
@DeimosSaturn You must work for the nuclear power lobby to be spreading such weak propaganda.
MAXBLAYLOCK 11 months ago
@MAXBLAYLOCK You must work for the military industrial complex to replying with such weak anti-nuclear energy propaganda.
DeimosSaturn 11 months ago
I discussed this with my sciency friends and we agreed that although there is no flawless place to put a power plant, but there are places on this earth that are pretty close. Ones that aren't near fault lines or close to volcanic activity can be pretty safe from earthquakes.
If we learned anything it was where not to put power plants. I am not trying to say nuclear power is close to our best option, but rather that this tragedy hasn't removed it from being an option.
supafly345 11 months ago
I don't like nuclear reactors near me either. But there's one a few hundred miles away. Every news article I see makes me glad I'll be gone in no more than 40 years. When I go, I'm going to flip the bird literally to all the asshole greedy fucks and dumb shits who have nearly made the world a shithole to live in.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
you can have a meltdown-free reactor but it is not cost-effective so not many get made. I think it's something like 5% of reactors that are like this.
gratex 11 months ago
There is one thing you can do to ensure that you reactors aren't damaged by earthquakes: don't build them in earthquake-prone areas.
n3rdm4n 11 months ago
@n3rdm4n not very feasible for Japan, eh?
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge Totally. Countries that have places not prone to earthquakes / tsunamis are much better locations for nuclear power plants.
n3rdm4n 11 months ago
@n3rdm4n I meant that Japan would have trouble building a reactor that was safe from an earthquake but of course they didn't think about the one-two punch that would hit so hard I guess. Sure, they suspected a big quake SOMEDAY. But I agree with sm. You can never FULLY plan for the unimaginable. That would be like blaming everyone for any calamity that befell them. Well, they just didn't plan well enough.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
smpuditz, I live in Japan. I'm not sure what sources you get your news from, but I'll be brief on what's happening and what's happened. The earthquake actually didn't do much damage at all. The power plant came through the earthquake with flying colours. The tsunami was the problem. Actually, if the backup generators hadn't been damaged, there would be no problem right now. I say again, the earthquake did not do the damage. And this was an old design! The newer ones are much safer.
snarf66 11 months ago
@snarf66 The tsunami was just as predictable as the earthquake. People did not do their job. Japan will suffer greatly for it.
michalchik 11 months ago
@michalchik Yes, you didn't. Why didn't you warn Japan if you knew it would happen?
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@michalchik They were prepared for a 5 metre tsunami, not a 10 metre tsunami. And yes, they are questioning that. Most likely, even higher walls will be built to protect the power plants from a 10 metre tsunami.
snarf66 11 months ago
@snarf66 then what if a 11 meter tsunami hits?
ExistentialExistent 11 months ago
@ExistentialExistent Well then, they should build a 50 metre wall. But tsunami can be even taller than that. The thing is, you can't plan for a tsunami that size. The strength of it is incredible.
snarf66 11 months ago
@snarf66 my point is that we may not be able to predict what to protect against. I agree such things are difficult if not impossible to plan for.
ExistentialExistent 11 months ago
From what I've heard, it's nearly impossible, earthquake or not, for another Chernobyl to happen. Worst case is a three mile island.
HonestDiscussioner 11 months ago
"floating in the sky" yeh that could work or Not On A Fucking Fault Line might be a good start dont you think.
Dakayrus 11 months ago
@Dakayrus Where do you suggest Japan could have built their reactors? In China?
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge Did you not watch the video - he stats that short of making a Nuclear Power Plant float in the sky, you cant protect it from an earthquake. As for Japan, building reactors in such an active location they should have had Dead Man mechanical safties for such an event.
Dakayrus 11 months ago
@Dakayrus did you not go to school? You made a point that it was stupid to build a reactor on a fault line. I then said WHERE would Japan need to build a reactor in order to be safe or fairly safe? The whole island sits on or near a fault line. What, build the reactor in the heart of Tokyo? In China then run a thousand mile pipeline of wire to direct the electricity back to Japan? Oh, no, that's right. You changed your position already. :)
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge Clearly you dont know what my possition was, try reading comments and understanding the context of the video before running your mouth, the situation in Japan was predictable but the engineers who raised objections were ignored. Clear they couldn't avoid building on a fault line, but quack proofing the reactors is a design and engineering issue that can be overcome, however this video is more American-centric BS where they can easily avoid building on a fault line.
Dakayrus 11 months ago
Nuclear is less harmful than other types of power, excluding solar and wind. But these are far more costly than nuclear. Cancer deaths related to fossil fuel pollution are estimated to be 10,000+ per year, whereas the worst nuclear disaster in history, Chernobyl, caused 60 deaths, once. I agree that we can't completely keep nuclear reactors safe from earthquakes, but to say that we should change our policy based on the results of the 4th most powerful earthquake ever recorded is ridiculous.
ethervagabond 11 months ago
Don't forget, this is a 1970's era plant.
There are modern reactor designs which make better use of modern materials and 'passive' safety features (e.g gravity) to cool/shut down the plant.
These systems *can* be engineered to be much safer than the fukushima ones... it's a matter of making sure the laws are in place to enforce higher standards.
neuronstorm 11 months ago
even if it melts down, it would be like a dirty bomb, not Hiroshima. it's all about cost benefit. i think your overreacting big time to this. it's generally a safe way to get energy. there is not much you can do about a 8.9 earthquake.
freethinker3161 11 months ago
@freethinker3161 if WW2 was fought today what do you think would be the main target of bombers? I know this is an extreme example in our current political climate but we don't know what things will be like 20 years from now. Of course it's about cost benefit but nuclear reactors are major liabilities. The chances of a reactor meltdown are admittedly low but the costs are not to be understated.
smpunditz 11 months ago
@smpunditz not to mention what to do with the waste.It will take thousands of years for this stuff to be safe enough for people to be around.The longest standing buildings we currently have as human beings is the pyramids you need something with twice the staying power of that to house this stuff and find a way so that future generations that may have whole new languages will know to stay the fuck way from it .Sorry I just don't see the appeal.
gamesmaster35 10 months ago
Nuclear plants can't be "potential Hiroshimas", because the fuel they use is not weapons grade.
TheCrappyPhilosopher 11 months ago
@TheCrappyPhilosopher 'little potential Hiroshimas' I wasn't being literal.
smpunditz 11 months ago 2
@smpunditz I liked the hyperbole.
ExistentialExistent 11 months ago
@smpunditz it may have been an "fucking earthquake" but sooner or later we will NEED Nuclear power. Because windpower and such are just pipe dreams and fussion is still being tested and is a long way from being used as a long term energy sourse.
Bicthslave 10 months ago
@Bicthslave They are pipe dreams because people won't go and refine them.The sun is everywhere!You have some places that are plentiful in wind, or geothermal activity.But for the last 30 years instead of investing in the research to develope these technologies so that they could be ready by now they give the same tired excuse essentially "it won't solve ALL the problem".No one thing is going to get us out of this mess it's going to be a combination of solutions.
gamesmaster35 10 months ago
Man, that was CLASSIC SMP. Have to catch up...
rationalmuscle 11 months ago
Nuclear power is about the worst idea man has come up with. New plants are much much safer than old ones like Chernobyl, but they still can meltdown and still produce nuclear waste which will be unsafe for the next, say, billion years. Seriously, how much IS the government being paid to promote it?
SAOS451316 11 months ago
so wait...i haven't been keeping up...the nuclear reactor exploded? Large amounts of nuclear waste and radiation are poring out of it and hurting lots of people? Seems like the plant just proved that a nuclear power plant CAN withstand an earthquake...
Graffight 11 months ago
@Graffight there were explosions but not disastrous. I think it's still in serious danger though.
smpunditz 11 months ago
@smpunditz - so what if it's not in serious danger, and everything turns out ok...will you say "looks like nuclear reactors can survive a 9.0 earthquake...they must be pretty safe?"
Graffight 11 months ago
In my country we have had electricity for like 150 years relying almost solely on hydroelectric power, though in dry years with some imports from other countries using coal and nuclear. Now we got natural gas plants and wind farms in the sea.. In the future, we might build thorium nuclear plants as well as vast tide-powered plants in the ocean.
prophetchannel 11 months ago
@prophetchannel Which county would that be?
LicoriceLain 11 months ago
Nuclear power isn't very cool, but it produces a great amount of electricity. The problem is that the alternative energy production (photovoltaic, wind turbines, etc) isn't as efficient for now. That's why i've always been in favour of nuclear energy. But i look forward to the day when we won't need nuclear energy anymore.
Also, i thought that nuclear power plants were safer, like disaster-proof. I was wrong.
StormWolf01 11 months ago
Are u suggesting we build some type of "cloud" "city"? U put a brick in the sky and tell me how that goes...
Great upload smp!
adrastea 11 months ago
I miss living near a nuclear energy plant. I miss $60 a month electric bills (I pay 6x that now for gas and electric); thats running washer, dryer, dishwasher, air conditioner, heater, everydamnthing off of electricity too. Oldest reactor in the US, never been a problem that was a threat to the public that I recall. Bury the crap at Yucca mountain and be done so we dont end up with more Hanfords and well be golden.
AmsterdamHeavy 11 months ago
@AmsterdamHeavy 'I miss $60 a month electric bills'
Nuclear power plants costs more then that, you just aren't the one who paid it.
smpunditz 11 months ago
By the way, the potential for even a worst case scenario meltdown at the Fukushima plants would not even come close to reaching the severity of Chernobyl... and they're not in any sense similar to a bomb like Fat Man or Little Boy. Unlike Chernobyl, all of these reactors have thick containment shielding sealing the reactors off from the local environment... though there is some repairable structural damage allowing radiation to seep out. Chernobyl's reactor had no shield, and was fully exposed.
Sinuev1 11 months ago
@Sinuev1 that's why I called them 'little chernobyls' and 'little hiroshimas'. Obviously a nuclear plant isn't going to be anything like Hiroshima because they are not designed to explode. People like you have taken this video far to seriously and interpreted everything I've said as literal just because I disagree with them.
smpunditz 11 months ago
@smpunditz
Sorry if I didn't pick up on the levity you intended, but there is so much misinformation and unfounded fears surrounding nuclear energy in general and Fukushima in particular, that "people like me" tend to get a little over-critical of criticisms that play into those misconceptions.
There's people here all the way in north-central Indiana stocking up on iodine tablets because they think "the cloud" is on it's way. It's getting stupid.
Sinuev1 11 months ago
Fukushima in a 50 year old design and a 40 year old plant. Look at the record of the nuclear power industry vs the oil companies. I'll take nuclear, irrational fears of radiation and fear mongering fostered by the oil industry means America will never wake up. Which was worse, TMI or the Exxon Valdez oil spill? Fukushima or the BP Gulf of Mexico disaster? Wars of aggression to secure access to oil, or energy independence based on nuclear power plants? For me the choice is clear. Go nuclear.
disrxt 11 months ago 18
Agreed.
V3xify 11 months ago
We desperately need to work on alternative energy. I don't think we can count on governments or corporations to do it either. The best, overall, sources of energy can't be turned into a huge profit.
tattooskin72 11 months ago
@tattooskin72 well to be fair the nuclear power plants they aren't actually money makers to begin with.
smpunditz 11 months ago
@smpunditz true enough.
tattooskin72 11 months ago
Although pebble bed reactors show a great deal of promise, I think it's very telling that nuclear plants can't get insurance at a rate that makes nuclear power affordable. It is urgent that we develop a diverse range of alternatives not based on fossil fuels--ethanol from switchgrass, biodiesel, solar, and geothermal (often overlooked).
DandAinTac 11 months ago 3
Nothing is 100% safe. But if you look at how many nuclear plants Japan has, their overall performance during the disaster, compare how many were killed or injured by the nuclear plants as opposed to the disaster itself, and maybe you are overreacting. Not to mention that if an earthquake and tsunami of that magnitude were to hit your typical American reactor, I think the whole world would be shaking and the reactors would be the least of our problems.
Blackmark52 11 months ago
sky-floating nuclear power plants? I'm investing ASAP.
ozmoroid 11 months ago
good video
slLLyhumans 11 months ago
OR...build them away from faults and make them strong enough to withstand hurricanes/cyclones and tornadoes/twisters.
SamySantana 11 months ago
@SamySantana building them away from fault lines isn't even a viable solution for everyone. Transferring power over increasingly greater distances tends to reduce efficiency.
smpunditz 11 months ago
Comment removed
mecher3k 11 months ago
@mecher3k and what do you think caused the tsunami?
smpunditz 11 months ago
Comment removed
kzdavis1000 11 months ago
@mecher3k Earthquakes do damage especially when they are 9.0
kzdavis1000 11 months ago
@kzdavis1000
Earthquake did no damage.
mecher3k 11 months ago
How is an earthquake new information? Did you forget they happen?Maybe you forgot that places that frequently experience earthquakes are going to have another one?
explosivoification 11 months ago
@explosivoification if you don't stay in a earthquake prone area or know someone that does you might not consider that when thinking about nuclear power.But still the argument stands these things are just ticking timebombs waiting to explode.All they need is a large enough disaster to light the fuse.Sorry I get no solace that it took a big one in conjuntion with a earthquake inducing tidal wave to knock these things offline.
gamesmaster35 11 months ago
@explosivoification it simply never crossed my mind that a natural disaster would cause the reactor to explode. Sure it would seem obvious in hindsight but I never thought about it.
smpunditz 11 months ago
@smpunditz Didn't even think of that, i didn't hear that it actually exploded either.....I thought it was just damaged.
explosivoification 11 months ago
@explosivoification oh for crying out loud how many times will people misinterpret what I say? I didn't mean to say it did explode I never thought about an earthquake possibly making it explode.
smpunditz 11 months ago
@smpunditz Ha, ok my bad.
explosivoification 11 months ago
@smpunditz Ha, ok my bad, but the answer to your question is 7.
explosivoification 11 months ago
@explosivoification that's alright. Looking back I could see how you thought I meant otherwise. A lot of people have taken things I said in this video that were intended to be funny a little too seriously so people get the impression that I know absolutely nothing about the issue. I'll have to be a little more careful next time.
smpunditz 11 months ago
Actually now that I think about it the nuclear reactors did explode. Not in a destroy city blocks kind of way but they did explode.
watch?v=DHfR_wybvw0
smpunditz 11 months ago
@smpunditz Wow, that was a fairly big explosion, I wonder if they had some sort of failsafe to prevent a larger explosion....they were after all expecting to be hit by earthquakes and tsunamis. I'd look into it now but I'm so halfassed, might just do it tomorrow.
explosivoification 11 months ago
@smpunditz It could be that you mentioned 'hiroshima' and 'bombs.. next to us' - if you don't want to be misinterpreted.. go easy on the hyperbole!
While I think modern plants are much safer, I'm also aware that at the time the fukushima plants were built - they were probably saying the same thing 'oh our modern plants are safe'. These things really need to be overengineered to the max and the law should require them to take into account natural disasters bigger than ever experienced.
neuronstorm 11 months ago
Back in the early 80s, my wife and I protested the Diablo Canyon double reactor, in California, from going online. They built the fucking thing within 2 miles of an active quake fault!!! A branch of the San Andreas fault goes right by the site. Also, the town we were living in was just outside the zone for the siren alarms to be installed(30miles). So much for relaxing during quakes. Sure enough, we experienced a large quake around that time which flattened the town of Colinga, just 70 mi away.
saxmanchiro 11 months ago
I have an even better idea, let's take the billions of dollars we are going to spend on nuclear reactors and put it towards R&D of fusion reactors which would eliminate the threat of meltdown while providing a source of UNLIMITED, CLEAN, and CHEAP energy. And I'm not talking about funding the giant money pit that the DOE has been working on for 20+ years with no success. We really need a substantial X-Prize for a sustainable fusion reactor.
atheistNalabama 11 months ago
@atheistNalabama
ITER.
Fail.
mecher3k 11 months ago
Polywell FTW
atheistNalabama 11 months ago
The fact that THE LARGEST EARTHQUAKE they've ever had is the one that finally knocked it into this shape.. don't you think that it's somewhat good that only a huge one has done this to the thing?
All the little earthquakes, of course, they don't count, it's only when a HUGE RARE AAAAH SCREAM CRIPPLING THE ECONOMY FOREVER kinda earthquake hits that anyone brings up the fact that it went through an earthquake.
FmMan33 11 months ago
@FmMan33 only one nuclear reactor has to meltdown to kill thousands of people and poison the surrounding land for centuries.
smpunditz 11 months ago
@smpunditz That doesn't negate the fact that Earthquakes of that magnitude happen rarely.
Shit, we could say the same thing about conventional energy facilities. Oil plants? Well, for a start, they release carbon into the atmosphere EVERY year, without needing a disaster to start that process, nuclear plants don't. Also, more oil plants have exploded, than nuclear plants. How do you suggest we get our energy, without destroying the environment?
FmMan33 11 months ago
@FmMan33 I believe we should find alternatives to oil plants and slowly get off of it. I don't think nuclear is the answer though.
smpunditz 11 months ago
@smpunditz If you haven't already, I highly suggest watching some TED Talks that Bill Gates has done on the subject. He best explains why Nuclear is currently the only alternative that we should be using as of now.
FmMan33 11 months ago
@FmMan33 It's easy to say that nuclear is the only alternative when it is really the only form of energy other then oil that is heavily subsidized by the government. We spend 10 BILLION on the damn things. Imagine what we could accomplish in alternatives with that much money.
smpunditz 11 months ago
@smpunditz Give me just one example of a non subsidized method that we use to produce power for our nations that could sustain a city, let alone a planet without requiring many square miles.
FmMan33 11 months ago
@FmMan33 do not strawman me. i didn't say a non-subsidized method existed nor did I advocate one. I recommended we subsidize something else.
smpunditz 11 months ago
@smpunditz Woah Nelly, calm down, I simply asked what alternatives you think should be subsidized.... jesus man. "when it is really the only form of energy other then oil that is heavily subsidized by the government. " - You state that Nuclear is the only other subsidized power method we have other than coal and natural gases, I merely asked you to give me an example of a possible fuel as an alternative to subsidize........ Crickey...
FmMan33 11 months ago
@FmMan33 dude do not presume to think you can know my demeanour from reading those words. I do apologize if I misunderstood you but it does seem as though you are not asking a completely different question.
In any case to answer the latter one I believe solar is the way to go.
smpunditz 11 months ago
@smpunditz Currently we need a lot more research into solar energy. It produces far too little energy for our current needs, and storage is a big problem. For that sort of energy you need batteries, and to quote Bill Gates, "Our current battery technology, with all the batteries in the world, would provide us with only 10 minutes of power" - I think that sums up why we can't really start subsidizing solar power atm.
FmMan33 11 months ago
@FmMan33
I've heard estimates that project viable solar power (including battery capacity) should be available within about 10 to 15 machine generations (whatever that means). It's close enough apparently to dissuade serious investors away hydrogen energy, since solar power should reach large scale adoption before the technology and infrastructure necessary for a hydrogen economy is tenable.
I love their optimism, but I'm finding it harder to trust in the assertions of futurists.
Sinuev1 11 months ago
@smpunditz
And that makes it worse than coal... how? If we abandon Nuclear, coal will be the fuel to pick up the majority of the slack. But it's not like coal power doesn't contaminate the local environment with low levels of radioactive material as part of the waste in normal operating procedure... and setting a vein on fire can just as effectively poison the soil and wipe out nearby towns. The coal mine fire under Centralia, PA is estimated to keep burning for the next 500 ~ 1k years.
Sinuev1 11 months ago
@Sinuev1
And that's not counting other hazards such as mine collapses trapping workers, the chance of flooding causing sinkholes under major cities, the run off from mining operations releasing toxic chemicals into ocean, the CO2 and mercury produced... etc. Even with today's reactors, the effective safety of nuclear energy beats coal hands down... except coal is much cheaper. That's not even counting the gen IV reactors proposed which can use existing waste as fuel for over a century.
Sinuev1 11 months ago
"It was a fucking earthquake" ... weird, that's the EXACT same thing I say in response to people who claim nuclear energy isn't safe. So odd that people don't see it this way: Personally, I'm surprised the thing held up so goddamn well! In fact, the earthquake didn't even fully damage it.. it was the earthquake followed by A FUCKING TSUNAMI that finally crippled it.
You people are fucking crazy. You should be IMPRESSED and REASSURED, if anything. Jesus.
Nuclear ftw.
AcidRain64 11 months ago
@AcidRain64
The cause of the failure is irrelevant is it not? The safety measures for that plant failed and there has been some release of radioactive contaminants. Despite the undoubted millions of dollars that were spent on engineering, design, & construction QC they failed to construct a 100% safe facility. 1979, 1986, 2011& we should be 'IMPRESSED' by the record of safety?
GeeKayKayGee 11 months ago
Sorry, you're wrong.
The earthquake was more severe than the reactors were designed to withstand. The underlying strata were far more friable than believed. Even so, the earthquake did no serious damage.
The tsunami took out the grid AND the backup generators so cooling was lost. THAT did the damage.
Japan has shitloads of tsunamis (that's why we call them by the Japanese word for them). That was a serious design flaw.
But the underlying problem is inadequate regulators.
bdf2718 11 months ago 13
@bdf2718 Well that is fail logic. Earthquakes cause the tsunamis. So earthquakes are the cause of that damage.
Bloodthr0e 11 months ago
@Bloodthr0e
The tsunami could have been less damaging. The epicentre of the earthquake could have been on land and not caused a tsunami. Your reasoning fails, and fails badly.
Oh, wait, earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics, so the damage was caused by plate tectonics. Oh, wait, plate tectonics occur on some planets, so it was the planet that caused the damage. Oh, wait, planets occur in universes, so it was the universe that caused the damage.
bdf2718 11 months ago
@bdf2718 What you sarcastically said is ironically all correct. It's called semantics. Quit trying to differentiate between two words that cause the same result. Trying to say the damage was caused by the tsunami and not the earthquake is idiocy, because the tsunami was created by the earthquake. You might as well say the flooding was not caused by the tsunami. And yes, saying the universe caused the damage is vague but correct. Last time I checked, earthquakes are part of the universe.
Bloodthr0e 11 months ago
@Bloodthr0e
Nope, it's not down to semantics.
The reactors could and WERE hardened against earthquakes.
The reactors could have been, SHOULD have been but were NOT hardened against tsunamis.
Do you see the important difference there? If not, never attempt a career in engineering design.
Most rational people actually understand the distinction. This is engineering not law and "proximate cause" (aka "but for") does not apply (but may apply when blame is assigned).
bdf2718 11 months ago
Boy you up outcho damn mind!
Although from what I understand, most if not all of the disastrous damage to Fukushima Daiichi was caused by the tsunami. It took the quake like a champ, as did all the other nuclear plants in Japan.
patienceking 11 months ago 2
As I understand it, the tsunami did more damage than the earthquake did to the facilities. So yeah, simulate a tsunami at the end instead lol.
mathmexican4234 11 months ago
very true It wasn't very clever of them to build a site that can be hazardous to a country
in a earthquake prone country ,,,and the Japanese are all like "Oh we are use to them" And did you see that wall that the water came over?...Again not clever It must have been 5 foot from the ground (or 3 feet from water level) If you in a country prone to Earthquakes and tsunamis you don't build nuclear sites and you build a 30 foot wall around the waters edge
gunnerdan70 11 months ago
nice earthquake at the end there
shanellypooh 11 months ago