Massive quake hits Japan 9.0 Magnitude

[rasmasyean]

Is it possible to like build a "Great Wall of China" arround Japan's tsunami areas?

It seems that a lot of the buildings that actually remained standing looks like some brick / concrete buildings. One even supported some huge ship on top of it!

What if like you had this wall arround Japan and a highway on top instead of a walkway. Of course, you don't need to block barbarians so you can have ramps and tunnel-ramps up to the highway. I don't think this would increase trade costs that much because it doesn't take that much time and gas to go up a ramp and go to the next exit to go back down.

I mean, imagine what kind of destruction that would save. I mean, if it was a major city or something instead of what appears to be "suburbs", that would be a really big blow to Japan.

The largest geothermal country by output is the U.S. Twenty four countries use geothermal to some extent and five produce 10% or more of the countries needs.The problem with Nuclear is not just safety,toxic waste,decommissioning etc but that it locks us all into highly centralised societies which in my opinion is a bad thing.In spite of the nuke industries huge PR job it is not an acceptable alternative to fossils a much better solution is a whole range of alternative green sources with much more local control,micro hydro being just one example..Obviously the real problem is that especially the west uses huge amounts of energy unnecessarily and that needs to be stopped.

(this is not to say geothermal is without problems,it isn't)

Let's put it this way. Japan's economy is nothing to scoff at. It contains prolly the most concentrated world economic influence footprint. So whatever "nuclear damage" had happened will most likely be considered "worth it" for what they have accomplished. Think about this next time you go to buy electronics, a car, play video games, the movies...amoung many other things.


The "better solution" would involve learning from this and design BETTER nucler power plants. Maybe they didn't think this type of tsunami would even hit them, but now they know. And now the US knows too and can upgrade those 23 plants or whatever. I mean, one idea I can think of is having some form of barren/mountainous areas house nuclear plants and have superconduction deliver electricity to far places and such. I mean, you can't expect to dig holes everywhere and expect reliable geothermal energy. Nuclear is the MOST powerful and versatile fuel we know of, and you can even in on a boat for christs sakes. How much eveidence do the "environmentalists" need to see this?

 

[Apple OC]

Is it possible to like build a "Great Wall of China" arround Japan's tsunami areas?

It seems that a lot of the buildings that actually remained standing looks like some brick / concrete buildings. One even supported some huge ship on top of it!.

how big should these walls be? 30-40 feet? ... might as well build them all up the coast of California too.

not really a viable solution

 

[EricNau]

MODERATOR NOTE

Please, this is not the place to debate the advantages and disadvantageous of nuclear power, nor any other politically-charged issue. From the Forum Rules:

Threads and posts on controversial political, religious, and social issues are to be limited to the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum, and made only by those eligible for that forum.​

If you wish to discuss this issue, please start a thread in PRSI if you qualify. Thanks


Meanwhile, my sincerest condolences to all who were affected by this disaster. Hang in there, and stay safe.

 

[Peterkro]

Jesus the poor Japanese,don't take this as fact as it's happening now but reports coming in of new tsunami from recent after shock plus reports of another hydrogen/oxygen explosion from number three reactor at the affected plant.
(Tsunami report maybe false)

 

[joepunk]

There has been another quake, possible 6.2

0134: The tremor struck off-shore 140km (87 miles) north-east of Tokyo, shaking tall buildings in the capital but the authorities did not issue a tsunami alert, AFP reports. It had a depth of 18.8km, the US Geological Survey says.

And sea level has dropped five metres off Fukushima. Possibility of another Tsunami. There were two explosions (hydrogen explosion) at Reactor 3, the operator Tepco says - AFP. Reactor 3 withstood the explosion(s), its operator says.

Probably no tsunami though.

via BBC Twitter feed.

 

[rasmasyean]

Can you use nuclear warheads to disperse a tsunami?

With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.

I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave?

 

[Peterkro]

Can you use nuclear warheads to disperse a tsunami?

With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.

I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave?

All you would do is create another Tsunami (as well as considerable fallout problems).Tsunamis in the ocean are by and large only a few centimetres in height but travel at about 500 mph when thy come to the shelfs near land all that energy is compressed going from a few centimetres to 30 metres or so the force of which destroys pretty much everything that isn't rock in it's path.

( I must go to bed I can't believe I posted a reply to that)

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Can you use nuclear warheads to disperse a tsunami?

With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.

I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave?

That's a pretty short sighted idea. Even if that were an effective way to stop a tsunami do you really think it's very wise to drop radioactive waste on all of our problems?

 

[rasmasyean]

That's a pretty short sighted idea. Even if that were an effective way to stop a tsunami do you really think it's very wise to drop radioactive waste on all of our problems?

Well they shot a lot of nukes at Bikini Atol and that was near the islands where they can observer it. It didn't "create a tsunami" either. Maybe some small waves and such only and they fired off a lot of nukes there. Of course there will be some degree of radioactivity increase, but think about how much damage a tsunami like this does. It's a tradeoff.

 

[Satoneko]

Well they shot a lot of nukes at Bikini Atol and that was near the islands where they can observer it. It didn't "create a tsunami" either. Maybe some small waves and such only and they fired off a lot of nukes there. Of course there will be some degree of radioactivity increase, but think about how much damage a tsunami like this does. It's a tradeoff.

I hope you are aware that Bikini Atol is exactly where Godzilla was born.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I hope you are aware that Bikini Atol is exactly where Godzilla was born.

I cannot like this comment enough. I'm a life long Godzilla fan!

 

[Big-TDI-Guy]

So if the NYT is telling the truth - this now officially a concern in my eyes.

A US warship - 100 miles off the coast - passed through a cloud from the reactor - exposing it to one-months worth of activity. (not the helicopter pilots - the warship itself).

So, 100 miles away, and in one day, accumulated 30 days worth of radioactivity.

The low-level radioactive steam earlier mentioned was only truly dangerous for 5-15 seconds.

Somehow this does not add up. Especially if a warship is measuring 30 times higher levels from 100 miles away. The US warship has decided to move away from this flow. So, I would hardly blame anyone in Japan for wanting to to the same themselves.

 

[Lone Deranger]

Can you use nuclear warheads to disperse a tsunami?

With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.

I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave?

I'd advise you watch less of Hollywood's finest.

 

[takao]

actually the situations has became rather grave now over the night: another hydrogen explosion at the reactor 3 even bigger than the one which destroyed the the building on the block nr1
and now also a cooling failure at the reactor number 2 where after some reports the water levels have dropped so far that the fuel rods aren't covered completly anymore

regarding the US navy driving through a nuclear cloud: just further confirmation that more has leaked than they admit:
just yesterday a nuclear warning was coming from a a third nuclear plant only that they then realized that it was not their own radiation but actually the radition from the fukushima plant from more than 100 miles away

edit: according to some comments of the 5 emergency fire brigade water pumps used for pumping sea water into the reactors 4 aren't in working conditions partially because of the explosion: so now they have 1 pump to cool 3 reactors ? ... not looking good

 

[puma1552]

A voice of reason (read the whole thing):

http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/

 

[darkplanets]

A voice of reason (read the whole thing):

http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/

What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome

Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.

 

[sushi]

A voice of reason (read the whole thing):

http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/

Thanks for posting this article.

So much misinformation is out there these days.

 

[Don't panic]

i find hard to believe that the casualties are only in the 1000-3000 range.

Naturally, I hope they are right and unfortunately that still is a lot of people, but with the news of tens of towns and villages completely razed in densely populated areas I am amazed if the numbers remain so (relatively) low.

it would be a true testament on how well-prepared they were.

 

[awmazz]

.

 

[iJohnHenry]

At the risk of bumping this up to PRSI, let me just say that I thought 'saving face' was a thing of the past.

 

[Sydde]

This here page, fwiw, says the carrier RR was exposed to thirty days radiation in an hour. There are more than 700 hours in a month. You do the math.

 

[takao]

At the risk of bumping this up to PRSI, let me just say that I thought 'saving face' was a thing of the past.

in japan though it's a little bit different. thats why there also isn't much open panic: simply for the fact that the majority of japanese don't want to be seen 'losing it'

off topic side note: for other nuclear plant designs this events could have been massivle more dramatic: like for certain swiss/german/european power plants where if one reactors cooling fails, the emergency generators are actually to be powered by the _other_ nuclear reactors on site ...

leaving the nuclear situation discussion aside for now: interestingly even a town which actually had very expensive tsunami protection wall was hit since it simply wasn't nowhere high enough
the most important point now will be to get the infrastracture running again because those fuel/electricity/food shortages are now turning to be really problematic

 

[awmazz]

.

 

[Sydde]

in japan though it's a little bit different. thats why there also isn't much open panic: simply for the fact that the majority of japanese don't want to be seen 'losing it'

I suspect you are somewhat mistaken on that point. Mostly, what happened happened, not much they can do about that now. Some eyewitnesses I hear on the radio were saying they felt eerily calm during the shaking, now they are mostly fatalistic, I would think. Panic just amounts to a waste of energy.

off topic side note: for other nuclear plant designs this events could have been massivle more dramatic

That remains to be seen. Right now, they are still struggling to keep this disaster from happening. The situation is hardly what I would call stable.

 

[darkplanets]

You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...

Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do. I understand the cause of concern, and that's fine, it's just the unwarranted running around with the chicken little complex that doesn't fit. As per the towers... well, we could make a whole other thread about that, but see this. Having a hole ripped in your primary support structure tends to destroy your building, fireproofed or not.

Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.

Did you read any of my previous posts? Of course they lie. Of course the validity of their statements is in question. I said it previously in this thread, multiple times. They also don't necessarily contradict the "official" line.

Look, again, I understand your concern, but I'm going to have to tow the line at the mutant babies remark. Here's a problem; who do you trust? I don't want to spend the time gathering scientific literature for you, so for this next part I'm going to quote the NRC, since it's convenient. I realize you have on your tin foil hat and will probably call this a farce, but I can assure you that there IS literature out there to corroborate these facts.

1) The average radiation exposure to people is ~620 mrem/year-- this means that this ship picked up 52 mrem/hour of radiation from the could. (Read: Only 52 mrem-- the ship was only "in it" for an hour)

2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.

3) People working with the NRC have an occupational limit of 5000 mrem.

4) Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation – above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year – such as Denver, Colorado, have shown no adverse biological effects.

5) Cancers associated with high-dose exposure (greater than 50,000 mrem) include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancers. Department of
Health and Human Services literature also suggests a possible association between ionizing radiation exposure and prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal and laryngeal, and pancreatic cancer.

6) Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates – below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv).

So yes, if we park the ship in the cloud and wait, and follow the cloud (and it's diffusion), someone may have an adverse effect eventually. You do know how gaseous diffusion works, right? As well as precipitation, metal complexation, and solubility, right? I'll assume not. You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.

Here's the link for the NRC data.

Also, you might want to look up three models of radiation exposure (which I also had previously mentioned, if you read my posts): linear no threshold, linear with adjustment factor, and logarithmic.

The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.