Breaking~Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant faces new reactor problem

[Pharaoh]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/us-japan-quake-nuclear-cooling-idUSTRE72B3GI20110312


The emergency cooling system is no longer functioning at the No.3 reactor at Tokyo Electric Power Co's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power facility, requiring the facility to urgently secure a means to supply water to the reactor, an official of the Japan Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency told a news conference.

[grahamhgreen]

1. K&R. No Nukes for our childrens future.

[roamer65]

2. SHIT...That reactor is using plutonium-enriched MOX fuel.

[PA Democrat]

3. Here are some recent updates from BBC

Reuters: Operators are preparing to release radioactive steam from the number three reactor at Fukushima No. 1 plant, after the cooling system failed there

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission says that the two experts it has sent to Japan are specialists in boiling water nuclear reactors, and part of a broader US aid team sent to the disaster zone.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698

[HuckleB]

4. What frustrates me here, in the moment of crisis, is why there was no water supply in place by now.

Ugh.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

6. My issue is that the emergency has been going on at the plant.

Someone should have put some resources toward that end, at this reactor, by now, considering what else had been happening.

[Archae]

7. Maybe there was nothing they COULD do.

This is a worst-case scenario.

Severe earthquake, then a tsunami.

No way could they adequately prepare for all of that.

[HuckleB]

8. That's a given.

But it's not an excuse for whoever is in charge of this. It's difficult to understand why, after seeing what's happened at the other reactors, how nothing moved forward at this reactor. This is not Haiti.

[Desertrose]

9. If there is no way could they adequately prepare for all of that...

then are nukes really safe?

Shouldn't there be a plan for "worst case scenarios"?

[Archae]

11. Risk is a part of life.

(And no, not the game.) :-)

I have more of a chance of slipping and falling in my shower, than I do of being hurt from a nuclear meltdown.

Cars are getting safer, but people still get killed or maimed in them.
Should cars be banned?
Airplanes?

Bicycles?

Skateboards?

Roller blades?

Buses?

[Desertrose]

12. I agree risk is part of life, however

...bicycles, skateboards, cars, buses...even airplanes do not pose the same risks as a nuclear meltdown or release of radioactive gases does.


My decision to take a risk on a plane or car....that's my choice....for a onetime incident that does not poison parts of the planet for centuries. That choice will not cause cancer or mutations in others for how many years in the future? will not kill animals and humans in the area and for how many miles around.


Nuke plants may be safe 99% of the time...but that small chance of an big accident, affects a lot more people, a lot more of the planet and a lot longer time span...is it worth that risk?

Is this the same thinking that somehow "collateral damage" in "war" is worth it too?

[Pharaoh]

10. It is total chaos over there

roads are down and a lot of first responders have other problems or dead or whatever, no one can ever fully prepare for a disaster of this magnitude.

[HuckleB]

13. That is all known.

That does not mean the government and the energy company should not have had water ready to go at this reactor after what happened at the other reactors.

[JCMach1]

14. Fresh Water- they have been trying to SAVE their investment!