Don't worry about it, they're the safest things in the world. Only a couple have gone ape**** out of control, ever.

It's ironic because they get so bent out of shape every time we have a nuclear naval vessel dock in Japan.

The legal limit for radioactivity has been passed at the Fukushima plant, AFP says, quoting Japan's Kyodo news agency.

Uh oh, they're in violation, they HAVE to stop now!

I expect a strongly worded letter from the UN!

Well... in the face of an offshore 9.1 quake, any beach is a "tsunami beach"... and an awful lot of Japan is beach, and Nuclear plants need a lot of water.

And with the amount of power that Japan consumes, and the amount of real estate it consumes, it's not particularly viable to power the nation by wind farms. Nuclear plants provide a lot of power in a small footprint.

I think Japan's actually slated as the site for the world's first "commercially viable" fusion plant, last I checked.

maybe a documentry. might go viral.

holy ****
Anguish siting

Obamanomics.

Whats wrong with putting it near an inland body of water? Why not make a man made body of water for cooling like we do on a lot of plants here? The whole west coast of Japan is known for Tsunamis probably more so than anywhere else on Earth.

Even if you did put it on the beach like they did, why not raise the backup generators for cooling well above a tsunami's reach? I know one plant in Cali is exactly the same way, you see it driving between San Diego and LA, so if Cali ever has a major tsunami the same situation is likely to arise.

ruh roh......

Top of MOX fuel rods 3 meters above water.

radiation at 1,204 micro sievert.

:shrug: cost?

I'm not trying to defend it, just suggesting some of the reasoning that might have gone into the decisions. No matter where you put it in Japan, there's going to be problems, and I don't think there's much around that's designed with disasters of this magnitude in mind.

BREAKING NEWS: AP: Meltdown likely under way at second reactor, Japan government says

They're wrong. LGBR said everything will be fine. I take his word for it since some girl he ****ed said so. HE HAS THE WORD FROM THE STREETS DAWG!

i thought it was based on his american facebook friends that don't wake up until the middle of the afternoon over there.

God damn.

And apparently in California, Santa Cruz's harbor got wrecked along with Crescent City.

Tsunami Figures from Santa Cruz Harbor - Santa Cruz, CA Patch

Either way, he's got the inside scoop on what's really going on over there. Just like how he had the inside scoop of how credit cards work in that big thread before.

Heh funny looks like CNN used a PWR not a BWR graphic

And earlier today a CNN anchor lady couldn't even say caesium properly. CNN is hiring ****tier and ****tier journalists by the day.

Not to mention the meteorologist they have, they are using him as a plate tectonics and now a nuclear expert, lol

It's probably just like 'well this is the only guy that knows anything about science in the building, let's ask him'

So TW Smart Guys - this possible reactor core deal... somebody posted earlier that it was a not a big deal... is it?

well... people are evacuated...ish... there are many failsafes to contain radiation if it melts down... all that said it's still not a comfortable situation.

It's a big deal. 2 reactors have partially melted down. They have made a last ditch effort and poured sea water in one of them which will probably render that reactor useless. The other one is in the middle of melting down right now.

As long as they don't get totally out of control and completely melt down, or cause an explosion then it should be contained.

One good thing is that the fuel is in cooldown mode as it decays.

Whoever said it wasn't a big deal is pretty ****ing retarded.

http://cdn.buzznet.com/assets/users1...6223315853.jpg

Enjoy the sushi!!

Japan needs you Captain Hindsight!

Makes about as much sense as building a reactor right on the coast of a earthquake prone area.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...PP_cropped.jpg

Heh yea, I've driven by that one and I remember saying what a ****ing retarded place for a nuke plant. :)

it uses seawater for cooling

and there are no faults off the coast there big enough to create a tsunami

the pacific plate is far inland from there - the san andreas fault

no location is retarded with enough concrete

those guys just needed more concrete

Floods in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Granted it was on the north coast of Cali, but they can still rock the whole coast thousands of miles away.

This reactor doesn't have a concrete containment building, in fact most BWRs dont use concrete.

Of course it's a big deal, but it has been blown completely out of proportion by the media who thrive on creating terror stories that invoke fear.

I am not even slightly afraid for my safety because of the power plant.

The hourly tremors are much more convincing...

an earthquake in alaska would create a 1 foot tsunami in southern california at best

A 1 foot wave causing 14 deaths and an economic loss of $14 million in 1964 dollars? The earthquake that just happened in Japan created extensive damage to Crescent city.

I hope thats a troll lol

can you get a better camera to post the first pics of any gozirras that appear from the this?

the real threat would be a hurricane

they form every year off the coast of baja and in perfect conditions a cat 2 or 3 could make it to san diego

a tropical storm made it to long beach last century

a 1 foot tsunami does **** to a random sandy beach on the coast

it did damage to harbors