Mar 11, 2011 at 9:40 am #1270379
Ben 2 WorldBPL Member
@ben2worldLocale: So Cal
8.9 quake. Wow!!
I hope our Japanese readers are all OK?Mar 11, 2011 at 9:51 am #1707436
Some astonishing video of the tsunami on CNN. Water passing over farm land at an astounding rate carrying ships, cars, and burning debri.
The reminants of the Tsunami hit Maui early this morning.Mar 11, 2011 at 10:25 am #1707455
Lots of scary footage here in the UK. Possibly thousands dead. The Japanese Prime Minister is now announcing an emergency at their coastal nuclear power stations. :(
Fingers crossed.Mar 11, 2011 at 10:53 am #1707481
Japanese authorities have just announced that they are releasing 'radioactive vapour' from one of their plants as a 'safety measure'.
Sound like BS to me. :(Mar 11, 2011 at 11:00 am #1707483
Hikin’ JimBPL Member
@hikin_jimLocale: Orange County, CA, USA
Hey, Miguel, You OK?
(that's the one person whose name I remember off the top of my head)
Hope all BPL'ers are OK.
HJMar 11, 2011 at 11:02 am #1707486
Chris WBPL Member
Miguel posted this up earlier:
So far all the UL walkers I know are okay. Facebook and Twitter have been a godsend. It's 9 hours and STILL shaking.Mar 11, 2011 at 11:06 am #1707488
UK news reporting that the cooling system on a nuclear reactor has failed. Thousands evacuated.
Praying that this doesn't get even worse.Mar 11, 2011 at 12:20 pm #1707515
Mary DBPL Member
@hikinggrannyLocale: Gateway to Columbia River Gorge
Thoughts and prayers for all there!Mar 11, 2011 at 12:46 pm #1707526
Miguel responded to the Christchurch thread – he is OK.Mar 11, 2011 at 2:05 pm #1707566
Rog TallblokeBPL Member
@tallblokeLocale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
2149 GMT: The Kyodo news agency is now citing a safety panel as saying that the radiation level inside one of the reactors at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant is 1,000 times higher than normal.Mar 11, 2011 at 2:42 pm #1707588
They are actually venting radioactive steam.Mar 11, 2011 at 3:10 pm #1707602
Rog TallblokeBPL Member
@tallblokeLocale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Maybe building reactors on coasts isn't such a great idea round the pacific basin
Evac zone is now 10kmMar 11, 2011 at 3:13 pm #1707604
Joe ClementBPL Member
The Tsunami crossing the farmland carrying all that debris was one of the more shocking things I think I've even seen.Mar 11, 2011 at 3:16 pm #1707608
@b-g-2-2Locale: Silicon Valley
One would assume that they scrammed the reactor early in the emergency.
Reactors are often built around large bodies of water for cooling purposes. Unfortunately, if you have no power to pump the cooling water, it doesn't do much good.
–B.G.–Mar 11, 2011 at 4:02 pm #1707627
Sarah KirkconnellBPL Member
@sarbarLocale: In the shadow of Mt. Rainier
Yes they are. The old plant in Oregon was built right on the Columbia River for that reason – easy access to cold water.Mar 11, 2011 at 5:07 pm #1707651
"Maybe building reactors on coasts isn't such a great idea round the pacific basin"
Maybe building reactors isn't such a great ideaMar 11, 2011 at 5:28 pm #1707664
@retropumpLocale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
"Maybe building reactors isn't such a great idea"
That could be the topic for a whole new thread. However, in hindsight it does seem reactors of the future should be built so that backup power for pumping water is not affected by submersion and cooling will carry on no matter what. It's a tough ask. Rivers can be diverted by landslides and earthquakes. Backup generators need oxygen for combustion, so can't be housed in waterproof containers. maybe they should have a huge snorkel that will suck in air no matter how big the tsunami. Anyway, it's water under the bridge now. All we can do is hold our breath and hope they get the reactors under control, and find fewer loved ones have been lost than predicted. It's an unimaginably terrible tragedy.Mar 11, 2011 at 5:42 pm #1707667
"All we can do is hold our breath and hope they get the reactors under control"
We could not build any more
Another problem with reactors is the shortage of Uranium. It comes from a few countries, like Nigeria, so we'll be in the same problem we're already in with oil.Mar 11, 2011 at 5:51 pm #1707671
@socal-nomadLocale: North San Diego county
All I can say is wow of the helicopter images coming from Japanese television coverage. Now we know why the tsunami is Japanese word it like a dam bursted unbelievable. I lived in Okinawa, Japan while I was in the air force. Most of the island is mountainous juts out on the west side that would have been affected. But if the tidal surge did wrap around at the bottom part of the island they may have gotten flooding. Okinawa has low lying areas on the sea of japan side or east side they have 15 to 20 foot sea walls that are 3/4 pipes with giant cement "Jack's" in front of the sea wall to send out tidal surges back out to sea during typhoons.
I was in 1971 Sylmar earthquake it was big and thrashed our house. I really feel sorry for the japanese people getting hit with a 8.9 earth quake clean up and rebuilding will take a long,long time.
Hopefully the rest of the world will chip in with aid like the last earth quake and tsunami.Mar 11, 2011 at 5:58 pm #1707674
James KleinBPL Member
Maybe not building reactos isn't such a great idea. Life is a risk / reward game. Consider any method for making electricity and you will find something undersireable. Find a risk free, zero impact, cheap and reliable source of electricity gereration and you will make yourself a very rich fellow. I guess the easiest way to check all of those boxes would be to turn off the lights.
Uranium supply should be of pretty low concern relative to other forms of "fuel". Heck, the steel needed for a plant is probably scarcer than U235.Mar 11, 2011 at 6:03 pm #1707678
James KleinBPL Member
The newer designs are trying to incorporate passive cooling for post scram cooling w/ active safety system availability. AP1000 is one that has recieved final design approval from the USNRC (not sure about elsewhere) — though it still has its questions to answer.Mar 11, 2011 at 6:23 pm #1707686
NHK is advising that everyone within 10 ks of the the reactor is to evacuate – about 60,000 people.Mar 11, 2011 at 7:38 pm #1707716
"Uranium supply should be of pretty low concern relative to other forms of "fuel". Heck, the steel needed for a plant is probably scarcer than U235."
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_market
There is 80 years of supply of Uranium at current consumption levels
If we increase the number of nuclear plants, this is obviously reduced
This is not much of a long term solution to energy production
If we could make fast breeder reactors, and figure out how to process the fuel, it would multiply the usable supply by a factor of 100, plus it would largely solve the waste problem, but this would require expensive development and the final result would be more expensive than the already expensive nuclear plants. Maybe we should work on that.Mar 11, 2011 at 7:41 pm #1707718
@fluffinreach-comLocale: no. california
was almost to fort bragg (very close to trail) when i got stuck in the morass of roadblocks designed so that every fiefdom of gov't near that region could get in on the money and glory of saving peter.
there where police road closures, sheriff closures, highway patrol closures, eventually a fireman closure guy told me just to go back home,."it's useless, and if you ge there, they;ll probably just throw you out.."
was up on a substantial cliff at 8am and saw the monster hit. oh brother. it covered up a rock and some seaweed.
on the other hand.
was "scheduled" to be parked On The Beach in Usal at 8m and sleeping in my rig, which could have been icky depending upon how high above the tide line things got parked.
got sidetracked by shepherding two blitzed chicks back to town last night and that made me so late i did't make Usal beach.
"Maybe i could give you ladies a lift back into town, as it looks like that's the direction you came from. it might not be a bad idea, as ya'll look about half knackered.."
"just WHAT exactly makes you think We've been drinking" in a acquisatory tone.
"well .. for one.. you just asked me for jumper cables .. and for two .. and the both of you haven't quite figured this out yet … your van won't move .. because … there's a TREE stuck underneath it…"
twas an interesting evening.
v.Mar 12, 2011 at 6:51 am #1707803
Was trying to find anything specific in republican spending cuts
But not a lot of specifics, this is just a broad proposal and since it isn't being passed it's sort of irrelevant
Lots of cuts to FEMA – if we had an earthquake closer to home we can see how an efficient FEMA would be money well spent. There's potential for a worse quake off the Oregon/Washington coast so I'm worried.
I have heard they want to cut the NOAA Tsunami warning center in Hawaii – maybe they should incease spending on this
Their most vicious cuts are to developing alternate energy – we can see that long term (decades) we have major problems – hydrocarbons produce carbon dioxide that may have catastrophic effects, oil supply is limited, uranium supply is limited/no solution to waste/no matter how safe the proponents claim this is I am not so sure:
We need to be researching long term solutions – this is where government is best because private business is better on problems with short term profits
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.