Fukushima is real serious

I agree. Hazmat training will become more prominent in years to come

Been there, done that, don't want to ever do it again.

Considering the half-life of plutonium 239 is approximately 24000 years, the 'fires' could burn for a really, really long time.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the people responsible for the site are losing their grip, if they ever had a grip in the first place.

The damage to the area and the entire population of the Earth is immeasurable. It's kind of ironic, though. We nuked them...then sixty years later they nuke us. It's sad.

> ....It's kind of ironic, though. We nuked them...then sixty years later they nuke us. It's sad.

Payback is a b*tch, ain't it?? And is best served 55 years cold...

Although, I wouldn't wish what has happened to them on anybody... Maybe Al Queda and the Taliban... but that's about it. Why couldn't those nuclear winds blow onto North Korea too... hmmmm....

Kill the fire and turn to the Sun.

RIP Dan.

[flash width=480 height=390] http://www.youtube.com/v/xAp2v3r-QZc?fs=1&hl=en_US [/flash]

:beer:

I briefly read a link somewhere that said some inside TEPCO were made aware of the potential problem a tsunami would create at Fukushima but did nothing.

I bet they're rethinking it now...

I heard on the radio this morning that TEPCO refused to douse the reactors with sea water right away, in fear of damaging them.

whoops

A bigger thing they're rethinking is the idea to save money by putting multiple reactors on the same site... Turns out, that wasn't such a great idea. The way they set things up, a serious problem in just one reactor can prevent access to all the others.

TEPCO is apparently pretty bad at disclosing details, so it's difficult to say how this will all pan out. But it's possible that it will actually end up being a good argument FOR nuclear energy.

After all, at the moment, the disaster appears to be on par with 3-Mile Island, and nowhere near the level of Chernobyl. I've only heard of two people who have gotten serious doses of radiation. There have been no deaths. And that's all from a deteriorating 40-year old plant that was only designed for a 7.0 earthquake, and not for a tsunami. Yet it managed to survive a 8.9 earthquake AND tsunami with some serious problems, but nothing like the sorts of disasters that have been predicted for such an event.

Contrast that with the thousands of deaths per year worldwide directly resulting from coal mining, as well as the huge environmental impact of coal burning, mountaintop removal, etc.... It may be a bad disaster, but it looks different when put in context with other sources of energy...

I gonna have to rethink my plans to convert my Maple Syrup Evaporator to Nuclear Power.

Actually, it sounds way more serious then Three Mile Island. They have detected fallout here in NH and the latest news is that several of the workers will die within weeks of radiation poisoning.

So, after seeing that map, I'm thinking about moving to Wyoming. Anyone care to join me?

Alaska is further away yet Wendell

Wendell, We NEED all tha power

We have hundreds of thousands of empty parking lots and office buildings to light.

The Yellowstone Caldera will blow up soon; You don't want to be there when that happens! 😉

It's kind of ironic, though. We nuked them...then sixty years later they nuke us. It's sad.

Could you elaborate on this a bit? ... I don't understand...

Nice! I just re-looked at the map and noticed the tiny print regarding the lack of reactors in Alaska and Hawaii.

I like that guy a lot. I've seen him on several shows on the History Channel about the universe and stuff.

Uh, yes, yes, & yes.

I totally dig your post.

The 8.9 (revised 9.0) quake + massive subsequent tsunami is essentially an Armageddon type event. 1000 years ago, an event like that basically wiped civilizations off the map (no pun intended).

Prevailing winds would direct fallout to go east of Hanford. Dallas, Oregon is probably as safe as Wyoming.