![]() |
I'd agree that the U.S. press pandering to the potential nuclear disaster is the kind of journalism that brings us Charlie Sheen Week and Lindsey Lohan Mania ... but can you understand how even the threat might play particularly hard in, ya know, Japan?
|
The initial quake has been upgraded to a 9.0
|
Got final confirmation last night that all aunts and cousins are present and accounted for, even if not a bit hungry due to shortened supplies.
*phew* |
Yay!
Would you know of an organization for donations to go out there (other than the Red Cross)? |
Quote:
|
Well, the French national safety authority, ASN, has rated the Japan nuclear reactor danger level at 6 (out of 7 on the international scale). Chernobyl was the only 7. Three Mile Island was a 5.
I don't watch U.S. news, but given this - I don't think serious concerns could be called "overblown." |
Quote:
|
A dam burst in Fukushima prefecture, but I don't hear pundits talking about hydropower policy.
|
That's because it was an irrigation dam (but the point is valid). I'm far more concerned about Oroville Dam in a 6.0 earthquake than I am our various nuclear plants in an 8.5.
Or look one one accident at a single drill site did last year in the Gulf. This is not to say that what is happening at the Japanese reactor isn't serious. But it can be serious and still be true that the press is over-reacting. And having a 6 rating on that scale does not mean that it will have any serious impact on anything other than a local scale. |
I haven't fact checked this yet, but I just read a comment that every nuclear plant in operation saves the burning of about 2 million tons of coal a year. With 442 operating nuclear plants worldwide that's a total of 884 million tons per year. Just think how much mining, waste, and pollution those nukes prevent.
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.