Published: May 12th, 2012 at 11:49 pm ET
|
Nuclear disaster casts shadow on Tokyo’s 2020 Olympic bid
AJW by The Asahi Shimbun
KAMOME FUJIMORI
May 12, 2012
[...] The Tokyo metropolitan government, led by outspoken Governor Shintaro Ishihara, and the 2020 Olympic bid committee became aware of the serious implications of the nuclear disaster last fall when a Paris-based consulting firm said concerns were growing in Europe about the possible contamination of Tokyo.
Japanese officials explained that the capital is more than 200 kilometers from the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant. However, a representative of the consulting firm pointed out that to Europeans, Tokyo appears to be situated quite close to the stricken facility.
In a closed-door teleconference with officials at IOC headquarters in Switzerland last month, the Tokyo 2020 bid committee had to reassure the IOC that Tokyo was safe when asked about the impact of radiation, according to sources familiar with the meeting. When Tokyo officials submitted their bid to the IOC in February, they emphasized that the city is clear of any radioactive contamination.
“No radioactive particles have been detected in Tokyo’s tap water since July 2 last year,” proclaimed the bid files. [...]
Published: May 12th, 2012 at 11:49 pm ET
|
...
sending...
4.4
Date-Time Sunday, May 13, 2012 at 03:05:45 UTC
Sunday, May 13, 2012 at 12:05:45 PM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones
Location 37.354°N, 141.147°E
Depth 58 km (36.0 miles)
Region NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
Distances 40 km (24 miles) NE of Iwaki, Honshu, Japan
68 km (42 miles) E of Koriyama, Honshu, Japan
75 km (46 miles) SE of Fukushima, Honshu, Japan
223 km (138 miles) NNE of TOKYO, Japan
Report Comment
Tokyo is not likely to host any Olympics, unless it's the Reactor Heads: who can top this BS-a-thon.
I would like to see some American statesman start to address the reality of the JAPAN melt-outs. Even Ron Wyden was quick to say this is a needed industry with a few safety issues. Memo to Ron Wyden: NO NUKES! You have been had and Oregon is endangered. Shut them all down now and get the fuel out of the FOOL POOLS, and try and have a Road to Damascus conversion all your own.
This is the biggest management blunder in the history of capitalism. (Forbes Magazine) Stop coddling these Morgan ghouls. Nuke is only necessary if you went out and bought a bunch of uranium ore like Standard Oil (now Exxon) and General Electric did in the fifties and sixties.
Nuke Power is holding back the flowering of the alternative sector. It is way too expensive and not safe. It is not necessary and unsafe. Get it straight. It is a scam and we've been had and now we've been poisoned. And GE still sings that revolting lie, "We bring good things to life!"
What utter crap. Mothball them. Shutter them. Defuel them. Dry-cask them . Admit your mistakes. Go bankrupt if you have to. Nuclear fission is crap. Einstein said so. Ted Teller did, too. What are you waiting for you lying nuclear thugs? A bone cancer? A mutation? A soft tissue cancer? Death dealing nitwits. Peace.
Report Comment
+500 Becquerels, nedlifromvermont!
Report Comment
There is NO "alternative sector"!!
Please get real. There cannot be any wind, solar, tidal, nor even geo-thermal electricity generation without coal, oil and gas.
Even nuclear power generation depends on conventional sources, not least for the mining of uranium, processing and transportation … and then, as with ALL other 'alternatives' for just generating electricity, there is the extraction and refining of other ores to obtain steel, aluminium, copper, tungsten, nickel, magnesium, manganese, cobalt and a mryiad other metals and their alloys.
Then there is concrete and what about the numereous plastics used with 'alternatives', all derived from oil … that's part of the reason for why 'alternatives' have negative energy returns.
To tout 'alternatives' is to clutch at straws to maintain the/your status quo. That's the harsh truth.
If people knew more about materials, technology and science, then they would not promote rubbish ideas.
For some three hundred years our form of civilization has been essentially coal and oil based. There are NO 'alternatives' and there is no way out … as "going nuclear" has proved.
Report Comment
Talk about misinformed.
Here are the studies by actual experts if anyone is interested:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/sad1109Jaco5p.indd.pdf
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/summary.pdf
Providing all global energy with wind, water and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf
Providing all global energy with wind, water and solar power, Part II: Reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf
Report Comment
YEEEEESSSSS!
Report Comment
I guess you have never worked in building, construction, engineering and materials sciences, for instance. (I have.)
I guess that you select reports/findings/etc. which support your first premis, i.e. that 'alternatives' can replace coal and oil (never mind nuclear – which was supposed to be an 'alternative' for generating electrical power by boiling water, that is all).
Well we all know how that 'alternative' to coal, oil and gas has ended up … so no argument on that and that is why Japan is having to increasingly import fossil fuels.
But answer this simple question. How do you actually make anything from electricity?
Electricity is all that you 'green alternative' folks go on about … environmentally destructive winds farms, wanting to pollute desert regions with solar arrays, wanting to ruin river estuaries with tidal generators and so on.
But I simply come back to asking you – and those technologists and corporations with a vested interest supposedly "green" 'alternatives': how the hell are you going to obtain and process the necessary raw materials, without using more coal, oil and gas?
You CANNOT produce aluminium directly from electricity.
You CANNOT produce anything directly from electricity muppets.
Do some research on just aluminium, which you doubtless take foregranted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium
You think nothing of aluminium objects you use. Get f*** educated. It was a 'precious metal' in the 1900s.
Report Comment
Hi gerryhiles, I see your point. I think it's a no-brainer that we desperately need to get to a more efficient use of all ressources our planet provides. As the fossil fuels are finite, we should at least try to save them for absolutely nessecary production processes (like aluminium, as you say), instead of burning them in power plants mostly even without using the heat produced in the process!
We should also reconsider our mindless use of "stuff", I agree with you on that. Most people are not aware that the chair they sit on, the keyboard they type on and all things that sorround us are made from natural ressources. They are taken from Mother Earth's natural abundance and wasted without care.
*peace
Report Comment
My essential point is that we are totally screwed.
Fukushima is a global extinction event … as I said here in Enenews about a week after the quake and tsunami.
In the context of Japan (laughably) now starting to 'go green' with such as wind farms, it is obviously too late … even if wind could ever provide base load.
The whole 'green thing' is laughable.
Don't you muppets know that Wall Street just longs for a "carbon trading tax" to be yet another derivative.
You are being conned again. The banksters just love well-meaners selling products for them.
The bad knews for both banksters AND their unwitting supporters, is that the party for ALL is over, bar kicking some cans down the road to economic, social and environmental oblivion.
OK I hate the PTB who rule the world on a route to ruin, but I also have to patience/time for muppets who imagine that there is some escape from the termination of experiment with our species actually knowing anything important.
Banally, nedlifromvermont, I would almost rather a nuclear reactor plonked next door to me, than one of your noisy wind farms, environment obliterating solar arrays, or estuary-destroying tidal generators of electricity.
Report Comment
Muppets, twice? Childish name calling… Have a nice break.
Report Comment
Agree completely. You will never be able to run heavy mining equipment with electricity. All heavy industries could not function without coal, oil and natural gas.
Report Comment
Agree completely with GerryHiles that is. I know guys that worked for the mining companies up in Minnesotas Iron Range area. You could never mine Iron Ore without diesel fuel, gasoline, natural gas and coal. Unless you went in and tried to dig it out by hand, and that ain't gonna happen.
Report Comment
SPS, liquid fuel can be made from almost any biomass. For example, a cord of wood can be made into gassified and catalyzed into 120 gallons of diesel fuel. This is not good use of our forest resources, but it is nearly carbon neutral, and has a much lower carbon footprint than we have if the wood is eaten by termites.
Algae is only one biomass resource. It is much more efficient use of land than corn is. Other, similar resources are duckweed, azola, and water hyacinth.
But we do not have use agriculture for our only biomass resource. Manure and human waste can be digested, and the resulting gas can be catalyzed into any of a number of alkanes, including gasoline, propane, and diesel oil, all better than what is pumped, because all are sulfur free.
We can hide our heads in holes in the ground, because it is all too painful to contemplate, or we can get excited about the possibilities. The former path leads to starvation and environmental destruction. The later might lead to success. I prefer the later.
Can I please be a Muppet?
Report Comment
SPS, have you read the studies? People should become informed about what the experts are saying, not just what they think or hear from others.
Via http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/summary.pdf
"Biomass… such as microalgae grown in a high-CO2 environment, can form a large part of the energy supply [for] gaseous fuels for transport and industry.
Microalgae have been demonstrated to capture over 80 percent of the daytime CO2 emissions from power plants and can be used to produce up to 10,000 gallons of liquid fuel per acre per year."
Report Comment
And this liquid fuel produced by algea produces no CO2 when burned? I'm all in favor of reducing global warming and finding alternative fuels, to be sure. But, replacing one 'burned fuel' with another hardly seems to be fixing anything. The U.S. uses 400,000,000 gallons of gasoline EACH DAY, that would require 14,600,000 ACRES (22,812.5 sq miles about the size of West Virginia) of such plant to meet TODAYS fuel requirements. It doesn't compete economicaly with oil, sad to say.
Report Comment
When did I say microalgae was good? You claimed:
"You could never mine Iron Ore without diesel fuel, gasoline, natural gas and coal".
Your statement is incorrect, do you see this?
However, Stanford's Jacobson makes clear that biomass fuels like microalgae are not preferred because of pollution and other concerns.
Again I encourage everyone to read the peer-reviewed studies. The second part of your comment regarding the vehicle fleet is addressed in great detail by Jacobson.
———————————————
From ENENews
April 29, 2012 at 2:24 pm · Reply · Edit
"Jacobson does not recommend bio-fuels as they do not solve the negative effects of pollution from combustion"
http://enenews.com/forum-alternative-energy/comment-page-1#comment-240823
Report Comment
Goodness, we could get all our fuel out of an area as small as West Virginia. That is not much space compared to our total agricultural land. Think of it! Agriculture could fuel us on a small fraction of what it takes to feed us!
Report Comment
Industrial hemp can also produce a large amount of biomass.
Report Comment
Learn to spell.
Report Comment
My suggestion is that you check your own sources. According to the Wikipedia article you site, aluminum smelting was underway in the 1880s, which was when it stopped being considered precious. By 1900, it was appearing in Montgomery Ward catalogs as the latest rage for shaving mugs, and it cost about three times as much as ceramic.
My suggestion is that instead of yelling at other people about how much they need to be educated, you check out science yourself. I fail to see how solar arrays will necessarily pollute desterts. Will the heavy metals vitrified in the solar cells be leached out? Or is the issue too much shade? Or is the real problem the mere presence of man.
As to wind, what is the issue? Noise is down in the new designs. More birds are killed by cats today than would be by all the turbines combined, if we made all our electricity from wind. Or is it a problem with the appearance. Perhaps that's it – I had a friend who nearly got into an accident because he found the motion of turning vanes too distractingly beautiful.
Green power is rather a broad subject to be taken out in a single stroke of a brush. Can the Sabatier process be helpful? How about Fischer-Tropf catalysis? What about the Mobil process? So far, I have not even got past chemistry. What of low tech fuel saving technologies such as rocket stoves?
Are we really lost? Or are we really to ignorant to see what we have?
Report Comment
Excellent post.
Thanks!
Report Comment
Misinformation is not the only issue in the gerryhiles posts, nor is the irritating style (muppets etc). The posts also might set a record for the number of logical fallacies in a single outburst at Enenews.
How many fallacies can you find?
Here's a cheat sheet (not all were present in the posts):
Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
Bandwagon Fallacy
Fallacist’s Fallacy
Fallacy of Composition
Fallacy of Division
Gambler’s Fallacy
Genetic Fallacy
Irrelevant Appeals
Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Consequences
Appeal to Force
Appeal to Novelty
Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Popularity
Appeal to Poverty
Appeal to Wealth
Moralistic Fallacy
Naturalistic Fallacy
Red Herring
Weak Analogy
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
Report Comment
We can be 80% done with all that old school crap in less than 20 years.
Report Comment
No more nuclear is possible only if we figure out how to get rid of the fuel cells….not just stick them somewhere to be monitored, kept cool. Takes people to do that…hope we have them..
Report Comment
Everything that can be made from drilled oil can be made from various types of algae grown in sewage in plants powered by solar. Even limestone can be duplicated from algae grown in sewage. That limestone can be heated by concentrated solar without a fossil fuel input.
Steel can also be refined using solar energy powered arc furnaces. An arc furnace does not care if the electricity that it uses comes from the Palo nuclear plant or the windmills in Story County Iowa.
If you burn oil made from algae in a facility next to a facility where the algae is grown, the CO2 becomes more like a catalyst. For the algae grown oil, the CO2 is a wash. However, the fossil sourced oil will have a net gain of CO2 released to the atmosphere relative to current CO2 content.
Report Comment
Let's ALL get real. Let's start by identifying how much energy we NEED to consume in order to have a decent life in a technological society. I think it is less than HALF of what we consume now. Then let's get real about the amount of OIL and NATURAL GAS and COAL which exist in the world. It's HUGE!
But before we do all that let's talk about how we can CONSERVE energy. http://energyconservation.nodes.org
We can also talk about how we can SHARE RESOURCES INTELLIGENTLY so that everyone doesn't need to OWN their own car, computer, home, etc.
Then we can build solar, wind, hydro, tidal and other forms of power as well as make a smart grid.
Don't make carbon dioxide the focus … make pollution the focus. How much pollution has been generated by Fukushima? Long-lasting, lethal, immensely destructive radioactive pollution.
Consume less and share more. That's something we can all do TODAY.
Let's all get REAL about energy use.
Report Comment
Agreed a million times, metamind – though, while we're at it, let's also make carbon dioxide the focus, eh?
So true what you say about "using without owning" and a decent life.
Apart from saving ressources and money, a less-cluttered life is great.
My partner and me are using a total of 2800 kWh electricity per year in our household, including his kingsize computer, as he works from home.
Some people on this board were impressed how low our usage is – but we're not even seriously saving energy! We could easily go with another 15% less.
Again: + a zillion.
Report Comment
"Nuke Power is holding back the flowering of the alternative sector."
YES! This is the message that has to driven home to our elected officals. End nuclear welfare.
Report Comment
The quote is from "nedlifromvermont's" comment at the top of this thread.
Report Comment
Check!
Report Comment
Who cares that Tokyo is 200km from Fukushima, its how much radiation there is that counts. I'm getting really tired of officials coming out with disingenuous statements like 'no immediate effects' and 'no radioactive particles found in tap water'. These statements are only designed to confuse and hide the truth. I try to stop myself from feeling like this very often but I'd sure like to strap one these idiots down and 'Explain'
to them the error of their ways.
Report Comment
TBL sez… "disingenuous statements like 'no immediate effects' and 'no radioactive particles found in tap water'
SP: I don't think they are disingenuous. Far from it. That would imply there was a shred of doubt about radiation in Tokyo water. The Tokyo officials are liars.
There is significant radiation in the tap water and with proper testing the truth would reveal the threat to Tokyo residents who still drink tap water (I think only three winos and two homeless bums still drink tap water instead of bottled water).
The IOC is not fooled. Stop wasting precious money lying to people and start working on public health measures to help save the Tokyo citizens who are quickly getting accumulated doses of a raft of radioactive isotopes. Tokyo officials can't stop the wind from bringing death to the Emerald City.
Report Comment
There are seven known isotopes of hydrogen. What we know as water contents mostly a combination of the first three of them. The most abundant isotope is known as hydrogen. The next isotope is known as deuterium. Deuterium is almost identical to hydrogen except the extra neutron and a slightly different bond energy. When a molecule of water is consumed in the manufacture of RNA or DNA, it prevents the "unzipping" and halts cell division.
Even when it does not leave an emitting isotope, radiation renders water slightly less able to support life as the irradiated portion increases.
When we were given our first radiation safety class, old military training materials were used. Their statement about radiated water was that it would not kill the victim during a typical mission duration (sorry that I am paraphrasing, it has been 21 years).
It appears for the military, success is the ability to live through and complete the assigned task. The survival of the soldier past that point is a liability. That is not the view that we should have for radiation in the civilian world where apparently our purpose is to generate revenue for corporation shareholders and die before we can reach retirement age.
Report Comment
nedlifromvermont, Right square on you are! "Nuke Power is holding back the flowering of the alternative sector."
The Blue Light
Strapped down and lobotomized.
Report Comment
I think 'Strapped down and Lobotomised' might be a bit strong, but 'Water boarding' Mmm…now there's a thought.
Report Comment
We could use the water out of Tokyo Bay!
Report Comment
Noone "deserves" waterboarding or torture. I hope you don't mean it the way you write.
We as societies must come to our senses and stop the nuclear madness. We've been asleep far too long.
Report Comment
Sorry B&B I was just being naughty.
Report Comment
Hey TBL, I thought so!
*peace
Report Comment
Let' try a translation:
"they emphasized that the city is clear of any radioactive contamination."
->"It is clear that the city is radioactive contaminated."
“No radioactive particles have been detected in Tokyo’s tap water since July 2 last year,” proclaimed the bid files. [...]"
Because they don't search for?
h.
Report Comment
They raised the limit of radiation in tap water to a huge level. Then, if it doesn't exceed that level, they say no radiation was detected in it.
Report Comment
There are a lot of reasons not to believe Japan`s affirmations of safety. Just an example.
A South Korea's IT company has set up a special web page [ko] which gives real-time data on nuclear radiation levels. The website enlists major cities’ radiation levels by coalescing data gathered from Japanese Ministry of Science and Technology and the IERNet (Integrated Environmental Radiation Monitoring Network). (read more about it here)[en].
http://www.stubbytour.com/nuc/
If you have a careful look and compare the data from the 2 countries, you will see that Korea is more radioactive, than Japan. The key is who provides the data!
Report Comment
Results of the Nuke Poll
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2012/05/results-of-nuke-poll.html
Report Comment
Country/Territory US cents/1kWh As of Sources
France
19.39
November 1, 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing
France is 80% Nuke, and they pay 19 cents per kWH (in USD) Yer solar can be produced at 3 cents per kHW. hmmmmmm
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/renewable-and-energy-efficiency.html
Report Comment
Cha-Ching!!!
Report Comment
Actually it's funny, I been trying to go green. I have some panels, inverters, regulators, copper wire, batteries. It's been more expensive that I thought, and I Can see how someone might get suckered in, to spend for a system and then find out, it requires battery maintenance, copper wire, and inverters.
Are they half wave modified inverters? Or full wave inverter?
Those charts are "proposed" for a 7.5 KW system.
Heck I know a garage band with guitars and amps can use 20 KW.
If I was setting a per home deal I would argue 15-20 KW. That's about 3X more expensive than the "proposed" system.
Sure you can spend more money on 12VDC appliances (if you HAVE money), but even then, you can't use sensitive test equipment on a modified sign wave. (Well I guess you can… but I digress) Ironically the same equipment you need to pull the ripple out of DC and make the AC full wave.
I suggest. Forget "price per watt" and strictly panel shopping. Think WHOLE SYSTEM.
The FULL wave inverters need to come down in cost.
$200 for a 3000 Watt modified half wave. and OUCH how much for the full wave?
Deep cycle batteries. (I didn't see it on the proposed list)
Big cost. BIG..
I ain't saying don't go green, but … the tech ISN'T monetarily there yet. Unless it's subsidized, or you are well off. -IMO
Another funny thing, I noticed some eco/green "journalists" who push "green news" but when asked how green they were, they attacked the…
Report Comment
… messenger
Report Comment
And they thought Uncle Joe Stalin was a mean guy. i mean, he didn't care who voted, he only wanted to be the one who counts the votes.
How is that any different from the guy who has the SPEEDI data, but "forgets to hit the send key", or deletes the file so he can save some disk space?
Or the guys at EPA who turned off the radiation monitors. Gotta do what Stephen Chu says … I mean he has a Nobel prize! What prize do you have? A music essay prize from your high school? A pity prize? A cordwood prize?
I'm not a nuclear engineer from the U.S. Navy, or MIT, or RPI or Cal Tech, or even WPI. So don't listen to me. Just another conspiracy theorist. (Demi-God Hyman Rickover recanted on nuclear, just a little late …)
These nuke plants are safe alright. Safe from GAAP. No accounting required. Just build the Nukes and give us the plutonium. We need a lot of the stuff. Those Russians are really hard to kill, and we probably need about three nuclear bombs for each invading Russian, right?
Bill Gates' daughter will have deformities programmed into her egg cells by now. Sasha and Malia too. But that's alright, 'cause we're Big Nuclear and we bring good things to life.
Maybe I'm getting a little off track (shit-eating grin back on) and indignant (nice time for a little Arab spring weather around here)
We are not yet dead, so we will make like our Quaker great-grandfathers and speak a little truth to power. In passionate compassion…
Report Comment
Sounds like a good ol anti Yankee rant to me!
Report Comment
These are all really really pertinent discussions, like what it requires to produce any useful or deemed useful material. Yes it takes knowledge to get facts. You then light up the action needed to get something desirable whose value is appreciated by people. You will notice the lack of a value based approach to life. India is embarking upon a foolish nuclear energy programme(nep) saying they are short of electricity to run their industries(which require mined materials). There is no energy generated from nukes save for 4780 MW electricity gross ca. How can they embark on a nuclear power programme requiring a lot of embedded energy to be supplied from coal and hydro? When they are so short of electricity to run their industries? Especially when from year to year the nep consumes all the power it produces and more to have all the nuclear capacity? A nep consumes five times the energy that it produces during its entire supposed life time. So how are these neps pertinent? Anywhere? When I write that it is the biggest scam of all time and that it is criminal to go ahead with neps, comments are that the present leaders of agitation against the nukes be arrested and baseless charges put on them. This is the progress to a developed country that India is making aided by stupid nuke deals with the US, France, Russia etc.
There is no pure reason for the non harmonised.
They do not furnish the info requested by people on nukes they are going ahead even though the supreme court wants!
Report Comment
The "Tokyo 2020 bid committee" are a bunch of liars.
Report Comment
@ gerryhiles above … actually the aluminum smelter needs vast quantities of electricity, but hydro generated works fine and is why huge Alcoa smelting capacity is in the Pacific Northwest, and even planned for an Iceland glacial melt river …, but the mining might require some nitro or black powder or a aluminum nitrate, along with a bunch of trucks modified to burn wood gas produced by an on-board wood distiller (think of a mobile charcoal producing unit (no shit … the Germans got quite handy using these propulsion methods in the bush in Central Africa and at home, during the war ………..
But, yeah, we Muppets are mostly concerned with replacing the stupidest things first … like the death dealing nuclear scam poison factories ,,, then we'll put up lots of NOT SO OR DEATH DEALING wind farms on our ridges and NOT SO POLLUTING (what a joke!!) solar farms all over our pristine southewest (you really won't notice a thing, unless you look up from your in-fight readinig material) while you whisk around to your nuclear shill customers on your private jet.
Report Comment
… should read … NOT SO ENVIRONMENTALLY DESTRUCTIVE OR DEATH DEALING WIND FARMS …
Transportation goes to rechargeable electric (there is a lot of lithium on the planet) for short haul commuting and hybrid diesel electric or hydrogen fuel cell for long haul and air flight transit, per Makhijani.
Heating goes to geothermal (requiring an electric load), better insulation, district systems using co-generation technologies and solar …. lots of it!!!
Some oil, coal, natural gas will persist for a long time, no doubt, but that does not give nuclear a pass. And I'm worried about your negativity. Is it the building slump got you down, or are you just as emotionally challenged as the rest of us by the realization of the depth of the lies and the deceit from smart, rich, white, capitalist guys who outwardly resemble me and you?
Peace Buddy … from Muppet Farm.
Report Comment
It's pellets, right?
Or 12' tubes right?
If I was on a suicide mission I could pick up pellets. Or a 12' pipe. No camera, no nothing, and nothing to lose physically. (Will say's – Pay my family handsomely – eh?)
Okay add camera, and tech. this isn't much different than the "claw vs stuffed animal game" at a Dennys. It's just the actuators, motors, and electronics don't like being too close to the source, and we are too stupid to make a shield? Okay use a ZOOM Lens – isn't SONY who does vegas out near there?
Someone around here said 2 Year Cleanup, and I "think I heard" Arnie say 5. I think the truth is in the middle, depending on conditions, corruption and apathy.
Also, for the record, wasn't there already a 7 aftershock? (fires up earthquake 3D)… well failure… don't go back far enough Or I can't see the numbers.
Trying search the web…
Hit on ABC article…
.. Another Rabbit hole ..
Okay ABC. has a M 7.1 article (why no date? except comments- I guess they want to arrest and document people that are angry?!)
Now it makes me search for a timeline where #4 blew up vs #4SPF concerns. Man this is maliciously not being recorded properly.
A new timeline needs to be written before I can say anything else. Cause I see flaw in my own words now, until I can prove a 7+ Hit since the 9. Whatever. I guess I am saying maybe TEPCO THINKS it's the truth?!
Report Comment
Yes, multiple 7+ aftershocks, but why is that relevant? The experts are saying a future 7.0 magnitude (or so) earthquake can collapse SPF #4.
Report Comment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami
"The main earthquake was preceded by a number of large foreshocks, with hundreds of aftershocks reported. The first major foreshock was a 7.2 MW event on 9 March, approximately 40 km (25 mi) from the epicenter of the 11 March earthquake, with another three on the same day in excess of 6.0 MW.[2][38] Following the main earthquake on 11 March, a 7.0 MW aftershock was reported at 15:06 JST (6:06 UTC), succeeded by a 7.4 MW at 15:15 JST (6:16 UTC) and a 7.2 MW at 15:26 JST (6:26 UTC).[39] Over eight hundred aftershocks of magnitude 4.5 MW or greater have occurred since the initial quake.[40] Aftershocks follow Omori's Law, which states that the rate of aftershocks declines with the reciprocal of the time since the main quake. The aftershocks will thus taper off in time, but could continue for years.[41]"
Report Comment