Japan's Quake Could Have Irradiated the Entire United States

[Karmadillo]

http://www.counterpunch.org/wasserman03112011.html

Japan's Quake Could Have Irradiated the Entire United States
By HARVEY WASSERMAN

Had the violent 8.9 Richter-scale earthquake that has just savaged Japan hit off the California coast, it could have ripped apart at least four coastal reactors and sent a lethal cloud of radiation across the entire United States.

The two huge reactors each at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon are not designed to withstand such powerful shocks. All four are extremely close to major faults.

<edit>

The Obama Administration is now asking Congress for $36 billion in new loan guarantees to build more commercial reactors.

It has yet to reveal its exact plans for dealing with a major reactor disaster. Nor has it identified the cash or human reserves needed to cover the death and destruction imposed by the reactors' owners.

more...

[MineralMan]

1. The threat is still far from over, actually. If there is a full-scale

meltdown, there could still be contamination in the United States. The situation has not ended yet, and the results are not known. It could happen, or might not. We shall see.

Nuclear power is not safe. It has never been safe. It will never be safe.

While traditional fossil fuel power generation is also not safe, it does not have the immediate and devastating risk that a nuclear plant meltdown has. We need to move away from fossil fuel, but nuclear is not a safe way to move.

[Marthe48]

2. Nuclear power has been scary for yrs

Humans are arrogant, and refuse to see that they cannot and will not beat the natural world. The Sengai earthquake and tsunami should open eyes, but it won't. The island of Honshu moved 8 feet east, the earth rotation sped up, and the earth is wobbling in space a different way now, yet the immensity of these changes will be ignored, as energy-hungry nations say, 'well, we can make safe nuclear plants.' Well, I don't see that, at all. The plates that move will move again, and we have no way to stop them. And even if we did, we'd effectively kill the planet, the plates are a huge part of its vitality and renewal processes. We need to find a way to live with this planet, or we'll cause and become part of the next great extinction. If we aren't already dead people walking.

[Karmadillo]

3. MSNBC is discussing the issue of US/Earthquakes/Nukes now (12:34 pm)

nt

[roamer65]

4. I would agree that San Onofre and Diablo Canyon need to be shutdown.

San Onofre is definitely susceptible to tsunami, from the pictures I have seen of it.

[xchrom]

5. recommend

[Renew Deal]

6. Some of the anti-nuke lobby is just as ridiculous as some of the pro-nuke lobby,

[fascisthunter]

8. one costs lives, the other prevents loss of life

nice try

[Karmadillo]

11. How does this article support the point you're trying to make?

nt

[snot]

7. The plants built on fault lines need to be shut down NOW.

I'm no expert, but I don't think you have to be one to realize that the quakes in New Zealand and Japan mean there's been a major increase in the stress on the rest of the fault lines along the "Ring of Fire" perimeter.

[Confusious]

9. While I support nuclear

I would have to agree, I would have agreed even before this.

I don't see it as a long term solution, just something to get us through the next 50 years until renewables can be built up or they can get fusion working.

I wonder if Alaska is next? It's been going around the ring. If it is, time to start calling to get those California plants offline.

[felix_numinous]

10. +1000

Seems like a no brainer. The risk vs benefit of keeping the high risk plants open should speak for itself. Trouble is, disaster capitalists do not analyze situations based on safety, it is all about the freaking $$$$$$. People will have to insist on public safety, like Germany is doing right now.

[jp11]

12. The bigger issue of nuclear plants is they like just about anything get

built for the lowest cost possible, meeting the minimum laws/regulations required. Our reactors are old, the technology used to make them is from what 25+ years ago? New reactors would benefit from better technology and practices but ONLY if there were laws and regulations to do so. They would still then be extremely dangerous when something goes wrong.

Remember the Blow out preventer valve? How much faith can we have that more than adequate safeties would be used or adhered to?

Nuclear power is part of our electricity generation means, BUT it should have been phased out in favor of solar, wind, thermal, and hydro power technology. It wasn't and there isn't a real serious effort to phase it out OR move on to new technologies, we go for what is cheap or profitable that is coal, gas and nuclear power.