For those here who are more ignorant than news-conscious, here is a simple video that will explain to those who obviously haven't been paying the least bit of attention, how the nuclear disaster was initiated due to the backup diesel generators, making electricity for cooling, failing in the tsunami:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdbitRlbLDc

3rd level of defense (batteries) has to be able to last at least a week (not a day or 2.) This ain't the Little League snack bar.

Oh, they have a sea wall in front of the plant. They got this covered. They've got this. They've prepared for all possible scenarios. Japan can safely do Nuclear. Even Obama said so.

Yeah, except for that 0.000000001% chance of the 9.0 earthquake immediately followed by 3-meter tsunami ...

And Japan does a better job than we do.

^^^^ Dunning-Kruger effect

Responding to him is a waste of time Riot.

Japan doing a better job than us is questionable, and I don't say that based on this unforseeable event.

Japan is either on or close to the boundary of four tectonic plates: the Pacific, North American, Eurasian which are primary plates, and Philippines Sea plate, which is one of the secondary plates. To say that a 9.0 earthquake (and/or the resulting tsunami from it) shouldn't have been on the list of possibilities, is stupid. They had a 9.5 in Chile (1960.) They had a 9.2 in Alaska (1964.) They had a 9.1 in Indonesia (in 2004.) They had a 9.0 in Kamchatka, Russia (1952.) Where these plates come together, there is a possibility of very large quakes. We could have a 9.0 along our Pacific Coast (Norther California Coast, all the way up to Canada.) I believe the San Andreas can only go as high as an 8. Our coastal Nuclear plants should be required to be able to handle the worst Tsunami that could possibly hit them. The same goes for the Japanese Nuclear plants. They were not equipped to handle it. The results were "beyond their expectations." That is not an excuse. It's the reason the people of Japan are are being terrorized by a nuclear plant accident. They didn't prepare for this possible scenario. They fkd up.

It's not unforseeable. Sorry, but it's on the ring of fire. An earthquake this large is a possibility. If it happens in the ocean, there will be a big Tsunami hitting coastlines. It took place in Indonesia in 2004. There is no reason it couldn't of taken place in 2011 in Japan (or many other areas.)

I'm sorry, but this is not like an asteroid hitting Japan. This (a 9.0 quake) happened in Asia in 2004. You may not see documentaries about the possibility of a 9 quake hitting where you live. I guarantee you that people living in Japan were aware it was very possible, and their nuclear plant was not as prepared as it should have been.

[quote=Riot;761134]Sometimes people feel they have to fight aggressively against huge government overreach, the violation of and removal of our constitutional rights, and illegal overreach by politicians thinking they are dictators.

you took the words right outta my mouth!

Well, if we go by their history of government hiding, I can only imagine ours.

:zz: Huh? My post was sarcasm. No, I think they SHOULD have looked at it. They played the odds, and we lost. This is nuclear. There is no taking that small chance.

Especially after the Indonesia Quake showed them just how much water will come ashore. Look at the white car sitting on a decently high hill (center left.)
This would be at least as high as their sea wall. Eventually, the water does take that car, and it did flood that nuclear plant. I'm sure this is at least a mile in. On the coast, it would be much worse. A sea wall is about as useful as a paper fan in 105 degree heat.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/wor...deo.cnn?hpt=C2

Our sea wall for that nuclear plant that is literally on the ocean in CA is 30 feet.

anyone that actually planned their life around the possibility of a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami would be paralyzed. risk takers have out competed them over the last few million years.

which is why you see otherwise rational people building nuclear reactors on the coast of a seismically active country.

this is the price we pay for deciding not to stick with looking for tasty roots within easy walking distance as our main choice for dinner and then dying of starvation at 27 because our teeth are bad.

it's not like there won't be plenty of blame to go around but unless you want to go back to living in an open plan cave, get over the "how could they have built it there?" crap. we all do that. the odds of that specific nuclear plant getting hit by a tsunami was miniscule. if they had built a 50 foot flood wall around it there's still the chance of a 51 foot tsunami next year.

Oh, fk off!! You are not God. This ain't Mexico, Russia, or China. Take that lame gargage above, and put it in your dark spaces.

You're on a horse racing message board and worried about time? Get over yourself, delusional vamp wannabe.

Scuds fringe sites are already picking up the story that a scientist was against this type of plant being built. More than likely the cause of this will come down to the decision to save money. And don't be surprised if pockets were lined to achieve this.

Just can't believe the big shyt-covered tarp of unaccountability that people try to put up. 2 weeks ago, they'd of said it was safe, and now they say it was a risk people should be happy to take. Love the quick pivot (so Chantal.)