4 ms·

Agreed. After living in Japan for a while, european point of view on this earthquake makes me smile. Anyway, prayers and best wishes to Japan. On nuclear reac

by mantas 16y ago

Agreed. After living in Japan for a while, european point of view on this earthquake makes me smile. Anyway, prayers and best wishes to Japan. On nuclear reactors: I bet Japan will restart them soon. Give them a month, max 3. For the fcks sake, they still hunt whales. IMHO Japan is one of those countries that still don't give a damn about loud-screamos. Although they'll upgrade their plants to prevent failure like this one. Kudos to them.

ugh 16y ago
What is the European view? I have been told time and time again in the German media that Japan is prepared for disasters like this as good as one can be prepared, that they know exactly what to do [0] and that everyone is coping with it without much fuss. I have also seen several maps of the affected regions, showing clearly that not all of Japan is affected. The blog article wasn’t that surprising to me and seemed very much congruent with media reports (at least in Germany). Still, several thousand people died in the third biggest economic power in the world, that’s obviously going to get a lot of coverage and moms are going to call because that’s how moms are. [0] Approximate quote from one report I saw: “There’s no student who doesn’t get to take a ride on the earthquake simulator, no kindergartner who doesn’t learn how high tsunami waves can become.”
- mantas 16y ago
  At least in Lithuanian mass media coverage in one sentence is "Shit did hit the fan". And featured article in biggest news website this weekend is notice issued by National Nuclear Smth saying nuclear stuff shouldn't hit us. Probably. I haven't seen single article in local media saying how well Japanese survived the earthquake/tsunami. It's more about how shitty situation (usually with ever-rising dead/missing headcount) is and rat-race to find worse pictures of post-apocalyptic Japan.
  - ugh 16y ago
    Shit did actually hit the fan. Several thousand people are dead. It could have been much worse but it is bad.
    - HSO 16y ago
      > It could have been much worse but it is bad. Guess the glass can be half-empty or half-full. FWIW, I'm also sitting in Germany and I'm mighty impressed by the Japanese response. It's bad but it could have been much worse.
      - ugh 16y ago
        I did not in any way say that the Japanese response was inadequate or even merely ok and I have seen nobody in the media making a statement to that effect (nuclear incident excluded – but that’s mostly about the lack of information and contradictory information). Saying that the situation in the affected areas in Japan (which, even relative to Japan’s size, is quite a large area) is most certainly bad is in itself not at all a criticism of the Japanese response and I’m a bit baffled at how you could get that impression. There are certain things no diligent and excellent preparation can currently prevent (as evidenced by the horrible death toll).
        HSO 16y ago
        Hmpf, I suppose this is a misunderstanding. I was just "playing" with your last sentence. I did not get that impression and certainly didn't (intend to) put words in your mouth.
    - brazzy 16y ago
      For a comparison of how bad it could have been, you just have to look 6 years back at Indonesia. The quake had pretty exactly the same strength, so I'd assume the tsunami was roughly as powerful. The result: more than 10 times the death toll in an (I think) much less densely populated area. The effort and money Japan is able and willing to spend on earthquake/tsunami preparation has most certainly had a big effect. Even if devastation in the worst-hit areas is complete, a lot of people probably escaped because of the infrastructure and drills.
      - ugh 16y ago
        Arrrg! Why is nobody understanding me? My intention was never to even hint at any deficiencies in Japanese preparedness. But, well, shit did hit the fan! I don’t know what else I should call the death of several thousand people. Those deaths were probably unavoidable and certainly no humans are to blame for them. Between 100,000 and 300,000 people (the numbers are still very much unclear) were killed during the or in the aftermath of the much weaker earthquake in Haiti and if you look at other earthquakes you see similarly high death tolls – that tells me very clearly that Japan was extremely well prepared and I never for one second doubted that.
brazzy 16y ago
Re reactors: you're kidding yourself. The reacors that shut down regularly will be restarted, sure. But those where cooling failed will NOT run in a month or 3. Those where the core melted are gone beyond salvage. And patio11 is talking bullshit as well: the situation at Fukushiuma may not be a Apocalyptic Nightmare Scenarios yet, but the systems did not work "exactly as designed", the situation it's not under control, and may still turn into a ANS if containment fails and the wind turns towards Tokyo (which is forecast to happen around Tuesday). Flooding the building with sea water is a desparate measure, not SOP.
- mantas 16y ago
  Just to clarify - I meant reactors that are OK. Failed ones won't be restarted for sure.
- radu_floricica 16y ago
  Since AFAIK they were designed to withstand a 8.2 earthquake, they pretty much exceeded expectation. And we can reasonably count on the standards being upgraded significantly after this. I like a lot the comparison of nuclear energy with airplane safety: when you look at the statistics, it's a lot safer. But when it fails, it makes the headlines.
  - brazzy 16y ago
    The richter scale is pretty meaningless in that regard because it measures the total energy released by a quake, not the destructive power at a given point. To use it for a design spec, you'd have to specify the depth of the quake, the length and frequency of the shockwaves and, most importantly, the distance from the epicenter. I'd be very interested to learn what those specs actually said. If it really was a Richter scale value, it would logically have to be at point blank, which this quake wasn't. If so, the energy that hit the reactors may well have been considerably less than what they were designed for,
- neutronicus 16y ago
  Desperate, but not unforeseen. I guarantee you that there is something on file at Japan's nuclear regulatory agency describing exactly what they're doing now and the circumstances under which to do it. Nuclear engineering is imagining the worst case, every reload, and coming up with a plan for what to do to contain radioactive material if it happens.

by mantas 16y ago

ugh 16y ago

What is the European view? I have been told time and time again in the German media that Japan is prepared for disasters like this as good as one can be prepared, that they know exactly what to do [0] and that everyone is coping with it without much fuss. I have also seen several maps of the affected regions, showing clearly that not all of Japan is affected. The blog article wasn’t that surprising to me and seemed very much congruent with media reports (at least in Germany). Still, several thousand people died in the third biggest economic power in the world, that’s obviously going to get a lot of coverage and moms are going to call because that’s how moms are. [0] Approximate quote from one report I saw: “There’s no student who doesn’t get to take a ride on the earthquake simulator, no kindergartner who doesn’t learn how high tsunami waves can become.”

mantas 16y ago
At least in Lithuanian mass media coverage in one sentence is "Shit did hit the fan". And featured article in biggest news website this weekend is notice issued by National Nuclear Smth saying nuclear stuff shouldn't hit us. Probably. I haven't seen single article in local media saying how well Japanese survived the earthquake/tsunami. It's more about how shitty situation (usually with ever-rising dead/missing headcount) is and rat-race to find worse pictures of post-apocalyptic Japan.
- ugh 16y ago
  Shit did actually hit the fan. Several thousand people are dead. It could have been much worse but it is bad.
  - HSO 16y ago
    > It could have been much worse but it is bad. Guess the glass can be half-empty or half-full. FWIW, I'm also sitting in Germany and I'm mighty impressed by the Japanese response. It's bad but it could have been much worse.
    - ugh 16y ago
      I did not in any way say that the Japanese response was inadequate or even merely ok and I have seen nobody in the media making a statement to that effect (nuclear incident excluded – but that’s mostly about the lack of information and contradictory information). Saying that the situation in the affected areas in Japan (which, even relative to Japan’s size, is quite a large area) is most certainly bad is in itself not at all a criticism of the Japanese response and I’m a bit baffled at how you could get that impression. There are certain things no diligent and excellent preparation can currently prevent (as evidenced by the horrible death toll).
      - HSO 16y ago
        Hmpf, I suppose this is a misunderstanding. I was just "playing" with your last sentence. I did not get that impression and certainly didn't (intend to) put words in your mouth.
  - brazzy 16y ago
    For a comparison of how bad it could have been, you just have to look 6 years back at Indonesia. The quake had pretty exactly the same strength, so I'd assume the tsunami was roughly as powerful. The result: more than 10 times the death toll in an (I think) much less densely populated area. The effort and money Japan is able and willing to spend on earthquake/tsunami preparation has most certainly had a big effect. Even if devastation in the worst-hit areas is complete, a lot of people probably escaped because of the infrastructure and drills.
    - ugh 16y ago
      Arrrg! Why is nobody understanding me? My intention was never to even hint at any deficiencies in Japanese preparedness. But, well, shit did hit the fan! I don’t know what else I should call the death of several thousand people. Those deaths were probably unavoidable and certainly no humans are to blame for them. Between 100,000 and 300,000 people (the numbers are still very much unclear) were killed during the or in the aftermath of the much weaker earthquake in Haiti and if you look at other earthquakes you see similarly high death tolls – that tells me very clearly that Japan was extremely well prepared and I never for one second doubted that.

brazzy 16y ago

Re reactors: you're kidding yourself. The reacors that shut down regularly will be restarted, sure. But those where cooling failed will NOT run in a month or 3. Those where the core melted are gone beyond salvage. And patio11 is talking bullshit as well: the situation at Fukushiuma may not be a Apocalyptic Nightmare Scenarios yet, but the systems did not work "exactly as designed", the situation it's not under control, and may still turn into a ANS if containment fails and the wind turns towards Tokyo (which is forecast to happen around Tuesday). Flooding the building with sea water is a desparate measure, not SOP.

mantas 16y ago
Just to clarify - I meant reactors that are OK. Failed ones won't be restarted for sure.
radu_floricica 16y ago
Since AFAIK they were designed to withstand a 8.2 earthquake, they pretty much exceeded expectation. And we can reasonably count on the standards being upgraded significantly after this. I like a lot the comparison of nuclear energy with airplane safety: when you look at the statistics, it's a lot safer. But when it fails, it makes the headlines.
- brazzy 16y ago
  The richter scale is pretty meaningless in that regard because it measures the total energy released by a quake, not the destructive power at a given point. To use it for a design spec, you'd have to specify the depth of the quake, the length and frequency of the shockwaves and, most importantly, the distance from the epicenter. I'd be very interested to learn what those specs actually said. If it really was a Richter scale value, it would logically have to be at point blank, which this quake wasn't. If so, the energy that hit the reactors may well have been considerably less than what they were designed for,
neutronicus 16y ago
Desperate, but not unforeseen. I guarantee you that there is something on file at Japan's nuclear regulatory agency describing exactly what they're doing now and the circumstances under which to do it. Nuclear engineering is imagining the worst case, every reload, and coming up with a plan for what to do to contain radioactive material if it happens.