The loonie greens will use the Japanese example to illustrate why nuclear power should not be used.

Facts are the Japanese made an error in the geographical location.

Building a nuclear power plant on a fault line is not smart by any definition

BTW - you can see on news channels of Australian journalists reporting directly from Japan in the city of this nuclear reactor. If the danger of a nuclear meltdown is so great then these people are already dead!

The reality is the journalists are in no danger at all!

Maqqa wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 8:31am:

The loonie greens will use the Japanese example to illustrate why nuclear power should not be used. Facts are the Japanese made an error in the geographical location. Building a nuclear power plant on a fault line is not smart by any definition BTW - you can see on news channels of Australian journalists reporting directly from Japan in the city of this nuclear reactor. If the danger of a nuclear meltdown is so great then these people are already dead! The reality is the journalists are in no danger at all!

Maybe they will start doing live shots and their skin is melting off.

Quote:

Facts are the Japanese made an error in the geographical location.

I wouldn't blame the Japanese entirely - after all they take their direction and advice off the World Nuclear Association who would have reassured them that it was "perfectly safe" - as they describe all NP reactors.

Apparently we've built the research reactor at Lucas Heights on a couple of fault lines also.

mantra wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 9:49am:

Quote: Facts are the Japanese made an error in the geographical location. I wouldn't blame the Japanese entirely - after all they take their direction and advice off the World Nuclear Association who would have reassured them that it was "perfectly safe" - as they describe all NP reactors. Apparently we've built the research reactor at Lucas Heights on a couple of fault lines also.

like most I am sure my first thought was

Y in Hell Did They Build a Reactor There!.

seems we dont have enough to worry about with human error..

my geography is lousy so not sure if the whole of Japan  is at risk with a tsunami at any old tick of the clock.. I didnt even know it was the earthquake capital of the world....

so really shouldnt someone have been prepared for this to happen???????


its a good job Lucan Heights isnt in Newcastle then mantra.. or even Canberra we have had a tiny shake up here as well.. I guess theres not that many that are not affected by earthquakes

just most are not as shallow as this one is and the one in Christchurch. that is the difference I am thinking.

I mean in little over 12months we have had Haiti Christchurch and now Japan all enormous...yet they are not all on the same fault line..

plus the vulcanos doing their thing..

I dont think its much to worry about...

lol lets face it we cant put a TAX on it and make  it  go away..

what we do is learn from it..last I heard not too much was being done in Haiti and thats pretty disgsusing

cods wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 10:01am:

mantra wrote on Mar 14th, 2011 at 9:49am: Quote: Facts are the Japanese made an error in the geographical location. I wouldn't blame the Japanese entirely - after all they take their direction and advice off the World Nuclear Association who would have reassured them that it was "perfectly safe" - as they describe all NP reactors. Apparently we've built the research reactor at Lucas Heights on a couple of fault lines also. like most I am sure my first thought was Y in Hell Did They Build a Reactor There!. seems we dont have enough to worry about with human error.. my geography is lousy so not sure if the whole of Japan  is at risk with a tsunami at any old tick of the clock.. I didnt even know it was the earthquake capital of the world.... so really shouldnt someone have been prepared for this to happen??????? its a good job Lucan Heights isnt in Newcastle then mantra.. or even Canberra we have had a tiny shake up here as well.. I guess theres not that many that are not affected by earthquakes just most are not as shallow as this one is and the one in Christchurch. that is the difference I am thinking. I mean in little over 12months we have had Haiti Christchurch and now Japan all enormous...yet they are not all on the same fault line.. plus the vulcanos doing their thing.. I dont think its much to worry about... lol lets face it we cant put a TAX on it and make  it  go away.. what we do is learn from it..last I heard not too much was being done in Haiti and thats pretty disgsusing

If your interested to learn a bit more Cods
Google Ring of fire pacific

Here's a map showing it

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Pacific_Ring_of_Fire.png

I presume that someone has gone to the trouble of overlaying the locations of the nuke plants in and around the ring of fire...

The geographically-small and densely-populated country of Japan is riddled with nuke plants - and therefore it would seem to be a grave folly to locate them such that the entire population could be irradiated in the event of a major nuclear incident...

With the potential for a series of aftershocks in the massive order of 7 on the Richter scale, the extent of the folly may yet be realised - both in Japan itself and in countries who may be affected by the forces of nature spreading the nuclear fallout far and wide...

The prevailing winds may yet deliver a significant dose of radioactive Karma to the pro-nuke West Coast of America...

Quote:

its a good job Lucan Heights isnt in Newcastle then mantra.. or even Canberra we have had a tiny shake up here as well.. I guess theres not that many that are not affected by earthquakes

I'm a little further down the coast, but we felt the Newcastle Quake at the time. If we were to have reactors in Australia - they would have to be situated in our areas.

If there is a natural disaster and a NP reactor's infrastructure is damaged - there is no guarantee how much radiation would leak into the atmosphere and we wouldn't be told the truth by the government. Japan is keeping very quiet about this, although we know two reactors have gone into meltdown.

Most of the Japanese people are terrified of another explosion. They've got nowhere to go, can't drink tap water or use airconditioners and they're terrified that their crops could be contaminated.

If our energy infrastructure is ever damaged through a natural disaster - at least a coal plant, windfarm or solar power plant would not pose anywhere near the risk to the population of a nuclear reactor.

Japan reactor is no Chernobyl: experts
Posted 51 minutes ago

Experts say health risks from Japan's quake-hit nuclear power reactors seem fairly low and winds are likely to carry any contamination out to the Pacific without threatening other nations.

Authorities are fighting to avert a meltdown at stricken reactors at the Fukushima plant in the worst nuclear accident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

Radiation levels were also up at the Onagawa atomic plant.

"This is not a serious public health issue at the moment," said Malcolm Crick, secretary of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.

"It won't be anything like Chernobyl. There the reactor was operating at full power when it exploded and it had no containment."

As a precaution, around 140,000 people have been evacuated from the area around Fukushima.

Mr Crick said a partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island plant in the United States in 1979 - rated more serious than Japan's accident on an international scale - released low amounts of radiation.

"Many people thought they'd been exposed after Three Mile Island," he said.

"The radiation levels were detectable, but in terms of human health it was nothing."

The World Health Organisation (WHO) also said the public health risk from Japan's atomic plants remained "quite low".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/14/3163166.htm?section=justin



I did hear the Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd, say this morning that there was no real threat as the "whatever they are that are reactive" are contained and that their "cover" has not been breached.

I suppose though,  that it isn't the best place to build nuclear reactors on a fault line.  

Someone has already posted about this elsewhere (inclusive of maps - the first map shows the US West Coast, even though the blog is focusing on the East Coast): -

http://peninsulapeasant.blogspot.com/2011/03/ring-of-fire-new-madrid-next.html


Quote:

I get up from my comfortable overstuffed chair and head toward the kitchen.  I begin thinking in earnest about the earthquake and volcano news since the beginning of the year.  There definitely seems to be something building, I can positively feel it.  I heard talk of perhaps the New Madrid could be one of the news makers this year.  Arkansas has been having a boat load of tremblers lately.  Japan had quite a few shakers before the big one 8.9 quake today.   A few posts back I was writing about this months supermoon and now it is all over the place.  The supermoon on the 19th is making headlines. http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2011/03/marchs-super-moon-more-earthquakes-weird-weather-volcanic-eruptions/ The really hard news story to digest was the one about Japan calling emergencies on 5 nuclear reactors.  I  don't think about other countries nuclear power plants until they make headline news.   http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_japan_quake_power_plant "Officials began venting radioactive vapors from the unit to relieve pressure. . .". Radioactive vapors, are you kidding me?? "Even once a reactor is shut down, radioactive byproducts give off heat that can ultimately produce volatile hydrogen gas, melt radioactive fuel, or even breach the containment building in a full meltdown belching radioactivity into the surroundings, according to technical and government authorities."  And the wind direction is what, west to east you say.  How long will it take to reach California, Oregon coast? This got me thinking, where are the nuclear power facilities in the U.S?  Would we be in danger of a melt down should a quake  the size of Japans quake happen here?  I went looking for a map and here is what I found;

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dKKe3JEaE0E/TXrdAB4ksaI/AAAAAAAAAM4/j3cfQxTufCg/s1600/united_states.png

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VGkBy_NHN3w/TXrdAj73PAI/AAAAAAAAANA/vBZg9FCLe3Y/s320/070822_Hopi_sea_level.jpg


Quote:

Interesting.  The little red circles on the top map are nuclear power facilities in the U.S. overlay that map with the bottom map of the New Madrid Fault breaking open, well, you can see where this is all leading? The bottom map is a map of the Hopi Indians prophecy for the U.S.  The Hopi say that sea levels will rise and take away much land from the people.  I'm sure they meant after the New Madrid breaks open, right? Fault in central Arkansas could be more destructive than thought . The one TV commercial I pay attention to is the one from Federal Emergency Management Agency.   http://www.fema.gov/  FEMA advises that every family should have at least 3 days of food and water stored in their homes.  Personally, I'd plan on 3 weeks.  Even 3 months worth wouldn't hurt, in my estimate.  And it could be that 3 years even wouldn't be out of the question.  If you have any doubts, just go back and take a look at those earthquake survivors from Haiti, Chili, Australia and now Japan.

http://www.kspr.com/news/local/kspr-destructive-arkansas-earthquakes-guy-ar-greenbrieer-ar-20110309,0,2918666.story


Quote:

Fault in central Arkansas could be more destructive than thought More than 800 earthquakes have been recorded in the area in the past six months Associated Press 9:15 a.m. CST, March 9, 2011 kspr-destructive-arkansas-earthquakes-guy-ar-greenbrieer-ar-20110309 LITTLE ROCK, Ark. Geologists say a fault in central Arkansas where hundreds of earthquakes have been recorded in recent months is longer and potentially more destructive than initially believed. Scientists had thought the fault is 3.7 miles long. Now they estimate it to be 6 to 7.5 miles long. Arkansas Geological Survey geohazard supervisor Scott Ausbrooks told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that the length is a concern because a longer fault could trigger bigger earthquakes.

nichy wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 10:25am:

Japan reactor is no Chernobyl: experts Posted 51 minutes ago Experts say health risks from Japan's quake-hit nuclear power reactors seem fairly low and winds are likely to carry any contamination out to the Pacific without threatening other nations. Authorities are fighting to avert a meltdown at stricken reactors at the Fukushima plant in the worst nuclear accident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Radiation levels were also up at the Onagawa atomic plant. "This is not a serious public health issue at the moment," said Malcolm Crick, secretary of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. "It won't be anything like Chernobyl. There the reactor was operating at full power when it exploded and it had no containment." As a precaution, around 140,000 people have been evacuated from the area around Fukushima. Mr Crick said a partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island plant in the United States in 1979 - rated more serious than Japan's accident on an international scale - released low amounts of radiation. "Many people thought they'd been exposed after Three Mile Island," he said. "The radiation levels were detectable, but in terms of human health it was nothing." The World Health Organisation (WHO) also said the public health risk from Japan's atomic plants remained "quite low". http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/14/3163166.htm?section=justin I did hear the Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd, say this morning that there was no real threat as the "whatever they are that are reactive" are contained and that their "cover" has not been breached. I suppose though,  that it isn't the best place to build nuclear reactors on a fault line.

They may well be correct that the situation may not deteriorate if current environmental conditions are maintained - but what happens if the likely aftershocks do hit 7 on the Richter Scale over the next few days, weeks and months - and further large tsnunami waves are triggered!?

Equitist wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 10:32am:

nichy wrote on Mar 14th, 2011 at 10:25am: Japan reactor is no Chernobyl: experts Posted 51 minutes ago Experts say health risks from Japan's quake-hit nuclear power reactors seem fairly low and winds are likely to carry any contamination out to the Pacific without threatening other nations. Authorities are fighting to avert a meltdown at stricken reactors at the Fukushima plant in the worst nuclear accident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Radiation levels were also up at the Onagawa atomic plant. "This is not a serious public health issue at the moment," said Malcolm Crick, secretary of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. "It won't be anything like Chernobyl. There the reactor was operating at full power when it exploded and it had no containment." As a precaution, around 140,000 people have been evacuated from the area around Fukushima. Mr Crick said a partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island plant in the United States in 1979 - rated more serious than Japan's accident on an international scale - released low amounts of radiation. "Many people thought they'd been exposed after Three Mile Island," he said. "The radiation levels were detectable, but in terms of human health it was nothing." The World Health Organisation (WHO) also said the public health risk from Japan's atomic plants remained "quite low". http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/14/3163166.htm?section=justin I did hear the Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd, say this morning that there was no real threat as the "whatever they are that are reactive" are contained and that their "cover" has not been breached. I suppose though,  that it isn't the best place to build nuclear reactors on a fault line.   They may well be correct that the situation may not deteriorate if current environmental conditions are maintained - but what happens if the likely aftershocks do hit 7 on the Richter Scale over the next few days, weeks and months - and further large tsnunami waves are triggered!?

And what about if none of the above happen  ;)

Then there's this map, courtesy of Greens: -

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/8m6k8n7f8q7z7.jpg

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1299890683/75#82

bwood1946 wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 10:35am:

Equitist wrote on Mar 14th, 2011 at 10:32am: nichy wrote on Mar 14th, 2011 at 10:25am: Japan reactor is no Chernobyl: experts Posted 51 minutes ago Experts say health risks from Japan's quake-hit nuclear power reactors seem fairly low and winds are likely to carry any contamination out to the Pacific without threatening other nations. Authorities are fighting to avert a meltdown at stricken reactors at the Fukushima plant in the worst nuclear accident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Radiation levels were also up at the Onagawa atomic plant. "This is not a serious public health issue at the moment," said Malcolm Crick, secretary of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. "It won't be anything like Chernobyl. There the reactor was operating at full power when it exploded and it had no containment." As a precaution, around 140,000 people have been evacuated from the area around Fukushima. Mr Crick said a partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island plant in the United States in 1979 - rated more serious than Japan's accident on an international scale - released low amounts of radiation. "Many people thought they'd been exposed after Three Mile Island," he said. "The radiation levels were detectable, but in terms of human health it was nothing." The World Health Organisation (WHO) also said the public health risk from Japan's atomic plants remained "quite low". http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/14/3163166.htm?section=justin I did hear the Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd, say this morning that there was no real threat as the "whatever they are that are reactive" are contained and that their "cover" has not been breached. I suppose though,  that it isn't the best place to build nuclear reactors on a fault line.   They may well be correct that the situation may not deteriorate if current environmental conditions are maintained - but what happens if the likely aftershocks do hit 7 on the Richter Scale over the next few days, weeks and months - and further large tsnunami waves are triggered!? And what about if none of the above happen  ;)

I'm guessing that there would be a collective sigh of relief - because I doubt that the 'experts' are as confident in their thoughts as their calming words suggest...

"If you have any doubts, just go back and take a look at those earthquake survivors from Haiti, Chili, Australia and now Japan."

Did I miss something?

Quote:

The one TV commercial I pay attention to is the one from Federal Emergency Management Agency.   http://www.fema.gov/  FEMA advises that every family should have at least 3 days of food and water stored in their homes.  Personally, I'd plan on 3 weeks.  Even 3 months worth wouldn't hurt, in my estimate.  And it could be that 3 years even wouldn't be out of the question.  If you have any doubts, just go back and take a look at those earthquake survivors from Haiti, Chili, Australia and now Japan.

Good information Equitist. This is scary stuff. We just keep stuffing up this planet all for the sake of feeding the multinationals who feed the politicians.

The US - being the greediest nation on the planet, could easily take all their neighbours down with them in the event of a serious disaster - and they have plenty of them. I think it's been predicted that San Francisco is due for an earthquake in the near future - and they have 2 NP plants there.

And we're about to build a nuclear waste tip in the Northern Territory to deposit all the world's nuclear waste. Pity we can't predict how stable the area will be for the next 500,000 years.

mantra wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 10:41am:

Quote: The one TV commercial I pay attention to is the one from Federal Emergency Management Agency.   http://www.fema.gov/  FEMA advises that every family should have at least 3 days of food and water stored in their homes.  Personally, I'd plan on 3 weeks.  Even 3 months worth wouldn't hurt, in my estimate.  And it could be that 3 years even wouldn't be out of the question.  If you have any doubts, just go back and take a look at those earthquake survivors from Haiti, Chili, Australia and now Japan. Good information Equitist. This is scary stuff. We just keep stuffing up this planet all for the sake of feeding the multinationals who feed the politicians. The US - being the greediest nation on the planet, could easily take all their neighbours down with them in the event of a serious disaster - and they have plenty of them. I think it's been predicted that San Francisco is due for an earthquake in the near future - and they have 2 NP plants there. And we're about to build a nuclear waste tip in the Northern Territory to deposit all the world's nuclear waste. Pity we can't predict how stable the area will be for the next 500,000 years.

Afraid so...

BTW, I suspect that the blogger in question is not up on their geography - since they are counting the NZ quake as Australian...

remember_when64 wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 10:37am:

"If you have any doubts, just go back and take a look at those earthquake survivors from Haiti, Chili, Australia and now Japan." Did I miss something?

Was it the absence of nuclear power stations?

Ah Thy and Pansi.

Not ones for being hysterical about something.

Hang on, actually what are we all doing here??

Thy - we're we supposed to have all been wiped out by swine flu 18 months ago?

Remember, that mass epidemic of doomsday proportions??
;D

By the way, if we got rid of all the nuclear plants in America - you do realise how much more coal we'd burn right??

So you advocate America polluting more than today??

Go figure....