3 ms·

I don't know Japan's geography, so, maybe it is possible for it to have tsunamis everywere. However, if there is some part of Japan's territory that is safe fro

I don't know Japan's geography, so, maybe it is possible for it to have tsunamis everywere. However, if there is some part of Japan's territory that is safe from tsunamis, wouldn't it be easier to just build those reactors there, and not in a place that is known to have tsunamis since, at least, the year 684 AD?

pasbesoin 14y ago
I haven't read the OP article, yet, but as I vaguely recall from past media reporting on the topic, I believe one of the reasons such sites were chosen is that the were economically fairly poor. The jobs were welcome and outweighed residents' safety concerns. (Perhaps safety concerns were also somewhat diminished by said residents having on average a lower degree of independent information and/or education.) This is from memory; feel free to correct me if and as I'm wrong. Such approaches can also be spun positively as "economic development packages/projects". Whenever such is said, the observer should look critically at who is really benefiting -- as often as not, I think, the project owners' interests come ahead of, and sometimes at the cost of, those of local residents. Ideally, all parties gain. But to do so, amongst other things someone has to keep those in power from cutting too many corners.
- ams6110 14y ago
  Politics will trump public safety almost every time. Why do we keep rebuilding communities in flood areas, for example?
_delirium 14y ago
I believe due to the need for cooling water nuclear reactors are almost always built on a large body of water, either a lake or the ocean. I believe the only reactor in the world that isn't built in such a location is the Palo Verde station in Arizona, which uses (partially treated) municipal sewage for its cooling needs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_S...
mjvandenbergh 14y ago
In general the west coast of Japan is much less susceptible to tsunamis.

pasbesoin 14y ago

I haven't read the OP article, yet, but as I vaguely recall from past media reporting on the topic, I believe one of the reasons such sites were chosen is that the were economically fairly poor. The jobs were welcome and outweighed residents' safety concerns. (Perhaps safety concerns were also somewhat diminished by said residents having on average a lower degree of independent information and/or education.) This is from memory; feel free to correct me if and as I'm wrong. Such approaches can also be spun positively as "economic development packages/projects". Whenever such is said, the observer should look critically at who is really benefiting -- as often as not, I think, the project owners' interests come ahead of, and sometimes at the cost of, those of local residents. Ideally, all parties gain. But to do so, amongst other things someone has to keep those in power from cutting too many corners.

ams6110 14y ago
Politics will trump public safety almost every time. Why do we keep rebuilding communities in flood areas, for example?

_delirium 14y ago

I believe due to the need for cooling water nuclear reactors are almost always built on a large body of water, either a lake or the ocean. I believe the only reactor in the world that isn't built in such a location is the Palo Verde station in Arizona, which uses (partially treated) municipal sewage for its cooling needs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_S...

mjvandenbergh 14y ago

In general the west coast of Japan is much less susceptible to tsunamis.