8.8 Quake hits Japan... tsunami warnings issued - Page 8

innerSpaceman · 03-15-2011, 07:07 AM

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?

Kevy Baby · 03-15-2011, 07:58 AM

The initial quake has been upgraded to a 9.0

blueerica · 03-15-2011, 08:56 AM

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*

BarTopDancer · 03-15-2011, 08:58 AM

Yay!

Would you know of an organization for donations to go out there (other than the Red Cross)?

JWBear · 03-15-2011, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

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?

Not having seen how the Japanese media is handling the situation, I can't comment. I was referring to the coverage I've seen in the US media.

innerSpaceman · 03-15-2011, 09:41 AM

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."

JWBear · 03-15-2011, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I don't think serious concerns could be called "overblown."

Neither do I. And don't get me wrong; there are serious concerns. But most of what I see in the media is not serious concern; but overreaction at best and outright hysteria at worst.

CoasterMatt · 03-15-2011, 12:11 PM

A dam burst in Fukushima prefecture, but I don't hear pundits talking about hydropower policy.

Alex · 03-15-2011, 12:40 PM

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.

JWBear · 03-15-2011, 01:02 PM

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.

03-15-2011, 07:07 AM	#71
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	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?
	Submit to Quotes

03-15-2011, 07:58 AM	#72
Kevy Baby Chowder Head Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Yes Posts: 18,500	The initial quake has been upgraded to a 9.0 __________________ The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot verify their validity. - Abraham Lincoln
	Submit to Quotes

03-15-2011, 08:56 AM	#73
blueerica Nueve Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,497	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 __________________ Tomorrow is the day for you and me
	Submit to Quotes

03-15-2011, 08:58 AM	#74
BarTopDancer Prepping... Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Here, there, everywhere Posts: 11,405	Yay! Would you know of an organization for donations to go out there (other than the Red Cross)? __________________ Spork is the new MacGyver Postcards From My Edge
	Submit to Quotes

03-15-2011, 09:41 AM	#76
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	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."
	Submit to Quotes

03-15-2011, 12:11 PM	#78
CoasterMatt BRAAAAAAAINS! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: One Step Beyond... Posts: 8,802	A dam burst in Fukushima prefecture, but I don't hear pundits talking about hydropower policy. __________________ Do you like my photography? Visit photosbymatt.tumblr.com to purchase prints!
	Submit to Quotes

03-15-2011, 12:40 PM	#79
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.
	Submit to Quotes

03-15-2011, 01:02 PM	#80
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	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. __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes