Re: [Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
Sounds like the DOE is getting involved http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-energy-chief-offers-japan-aid-nuke-cleanup-20737047 On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:46 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: David Suzuki issues ominous warning for damaged Fukushima plant http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-buzz/david-suzuki-issues-ominous-warning-damaged-fukushima-plant-195522191.html David Suzuki has issued an ominous warning about the state of Fukushima's nuclear power plant. Fukushima is the most terrifying situation I can imagine, the environmental activist and host of the Nature of Things said last week at the University of Alberta's symposium Letting in the Light: Science to Guide Public Water Policy in the 21st Century. Three out of the four plants were destroyed in the earthquake and in the tsunami. The fourth one has been so badly damaged that the fear is, if there's another earthquake of a seven or above that, that building will go and then all hell breaks loose. And the probably of a seven or above earthquake in the next three years is over 95 per cent, Suzuki said. He added that a recent study found another earthquake could require evacuation of the entire North American coast — and as for Japan — bye bye, Suzuki said.
Re: [Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/radiation-japan-nuclear-plant-arrives-alaska-coast-145848911.html I live on the west coast. Joy. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:44 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Sounds like the DOE is getting involved http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-energy-chief-offers-japan-aid-nuke-cleanup-20737047 On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:46 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: David Suzuki issues ominous warning for damaged Fukushima plant http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-buzz/david-suzuki-issues-ominous-warning-damaged-fukushima-plant-195522191.html David Suzuki has issued an ominous warning about the state of Fukushima's nuclear power plant. Fukushima is the most terrifying situation I can imagine, the environmental activist and host of the Nature of Things said last week at the University of Alberta's symposium Letting in the Light: Science to Guide Public Water Policy in the 21st Century. Three out of the four plants were destroyed in the earthquake and in the tsunami. The fourth one has been so badly damaged that the fear is, if there's another earthquake of a seven or above that, that building will go and then all hell breaks loose. And the probably of a seven or above earthquake in the next three years is over 95 per cent, Suzuki said. He added that a recent study found another earthquake could require evacuation of the entire North American coast — and as for Japan — bye bye, Suzuki said.
Re: [Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
This is silly. The fourth reactor is not badly damaged. The fuel rods will be removed from it soon. Even if another earthquake of the same magnitude occurs the building will not collapse. The reactor buildings were not seriously damaged by earthquake itself. Even if they had been at epicenter, if they had not been running, they would not have been seriously damaged. The major damage was caused by a chain of events: The earthquake triggered a tsunami. The tsunami destroyed the auxiliary generators and generator fuel supplies. After the reactor SCRAM the reactor cores could not be kept cool. The hot reactor cores melted down, bringing the rods closer together, and intensifying the heat. The intense heat fractured the water into free hydrogen and oxygen. The recombination explosion destroyed the plant buildings. So, if the reactors had not been running there would be no disaster. Or, if the auxiliary generators and fuel supplies had been protected from the tsunami, which would not have been difficult. Or, if someone had noticed the generator early in the crisis ran out of fuel at night. (It is understandable that they did not notice, given the chaos and danger.) A long chain of unfortunate events caused this disaster. Any one of them might have been prevented. The same is true of many other major disasters, such as the Titanic and the crash of the DC-10 in June 1972. (See the book Destination Disaster.) Furthermore, the notion that we would have to evacuate all of Japan or the U.S. West Coast is preposterous. The effects of the Fukushima disaster are bad enough already. We don't need this kind of hysteria making them seem even worse than they are. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
Another tsunami could come up and dredge all that out to the ocean and currents will drag it over to the west coast of NA. Tsnuami is a japanese word for a reason. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This is silly. The fourth reactor is not badly damaged. The fuel rods will be removed from it soon. Even if another earthquake of the same magnitude occurs the building will not collapse. The reactor buildings were not seriously damaged by earthquake itself. Even if they had been at epicenter, if they had not been running, they would not have been seriously damaged. The major damage was caused by a chain of events: The earthquake triggered a tsunami. The tsunami destroyed the auxiliary generators and generator fuel supplies. After the reactor SCRAM the reactor cores could not be kept cool. The hot reactor cores melted down, bringing the rods closer together, and intensifying the heat. The intense heat fractured the water into free hydrogen and oxygen. The recombination explosion destroyed the plant buildings. So, if the reactors had not been running there would be no disaster. Or, if the auxiliary generators and fuel supplies had been protected from the tsunami, which would not have been difficult. Or, if someone had noticed the generator early in the crisis ran out of fuel at night. (It is understandable that they did not notice, given the chaos and danger.) A long chain of unfortunate events caused this disaster. Any one of them might have been prevented. The same is true of many other major disasters, such as the Titanic and the crash of the DC-10 in June 1972. (See the book Destination Disaster.) Furthermore, the notion that we would have to evacuate all of Japan or the U.S. West Coast is preposterous. The effects of the Fukushima disaster are bad enough already. We don't need this kind of hysteria making them seem even worse than they are. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
Jed, There will always be a series of events that lead up to any/all disasters of this sort. The fact is we have had at least 3 major nuclear incidents in 35 years, that is once every approx. 12 years. Expect another one within the same period. So, if the reactors had not been running there would be no disaster Idle, loaded reactors, and spent fuel pools still require continuous cooling water. Stewart On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This is silly. The fourth reactor is not badly damaged. The fuel rods will be removed from it soon. Even if another earthquake of the same magnitude occurs the building will not collapse. The reactor buildings were not seriously damaged by earthquake itself. Even if they had been at epicenter, if they had not been running, they would not have been seriously damaged. The major damage was caused by a chain of events: The earthquake triggered a tsunami. The tsunami destroyed the auxiliary generators and generator fuel supplies. After the reactor SCRAM the reactor cores could not be kept cool. The hot reactor cores melted down, bringing the rods closer together, and intensifying the heat. The intense heat fractured the water into free hydrogen and oxygen. The recombination explosion destroyed the plant buildings. So, if the reactors had not been running there would be no disaster. Or, if the auxiliary generators and fuel supplies had been protected from the tsunami, which would not have been difficult. Or, if someone had noticed the generator early in the crisis ran out of fuel at night. (It is understandable that they did not notice, given the chaos and danger.) A long chain of unfortunate events caused this disaster. Any one of them might have been prevented. The same is true of many other major disasters, such as the Titanic and the crash of the DC-10 in June 1972. (See the book Destination Disaster.) Furthermore, the notion that we would have to evacuate all of Japan or the U.S. West Coast is preposterous. The effects of the Fukushima disaster are bad enough already. We don't need this kind of hysteria making them seem even worse than they are. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
Yeah, and the Japanese are amongst the most safety conscious, technically advanced, and nuclear sophisticated cultures in the entire world. The fact that they were so unready for this does not bode well for the rest of the world. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:00 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, There will always be a series of events that lead up to any/all disasters of this sort. The fact is we have had at least 3 major nuclear incidents in 35 years, that is once every approx. 12 years. Expect another one within the same period. So, if the reactors had not been running there would be no disaster Idle, loaded reactors, and spent fuel pools still require continuous cooling water. Stewart On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: This is silly. The fourth reactor is not badly damaged. The fuel rods will be removed from it soon. Even if another earthquake of the same magnitude occurs the building will not collapse. The reactor buildings were not seriously damaged by earthquake itself. Even if they had been at epicenter, if they had not been running, they would not have been seriously damaged. The major damage was caused by a chain of events: The earthquake triggered a tsunami. The tsunami destroyed the auxiliary generators and generator fuel supplies. After the reactor SCRAM the reactor cores could not be kept cool. The hot reactor cores melted down, bringing the rods closer together, and intensifying the heat. The intense heat fractured the water into free hydrogen and oxygen. The recombination explosion destroyed the plant buildings. So, if the reactors had not been running there would be no disaster. Or, if the auxiliary generators and fuel supplies had been protected from the tsunami, which would not have been difficult. Or, if someone had noticed the generator early in the crisis ran out of fuel at night. (It is understandable that they did not notice, given the chaos and danger.) A long chain of unfortunate events caused this disaster. Any one of them might have been prevented. The same is true of many other major disasters, such as the Titanic and the crash of the DC-10 in June 1972. (See the book Destination Disaster.) Furthermore, the notion that we would have to evacuate all of Japan or the U.S. West Coast is preposterous. The effects of the Fukushima disaster are bad enough already. We don't need this kind of hysteria making them seem even worse than they are. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Another tsunami could come up and dredge all that out to the ocean and currents will drag it over to the west coast of NA. No, that is not possible. A tsunami does not dredge the ocean. You can see what it does in the many videos taken of the disaster. A wave, by definition, does not drag on the bottom of the ocean, or disturb it. The water moves up, and then down. There is no back-and-forth motion in a wave. If it did drag, the energy from the wave would soon be dissipated and the wave would vanish. The energy is released when the wave reaches a shallow. That is why the wave then stops moving, rather than crossing the entire continent. Even if the radioactive debris in the shallows is moved by the passing wave, it would fall right back to the bottom again. Or it would be washed ashore, I suppose. It is not going to be transported to the West Coast of North America. Some floating debris did reach the West Coast. If radioactive debris floats, it would be everywhere in the ocean already. Tsunami is a japanese word for a reason. Yes. The reason is that the older English word, tidal wave, is technically inaccurate. It has nothing to do with the tide. The Japanese word is 津波. The first character means port, harbor. The second is wave. In other words, a wave that reaches into the harbor or anchorage. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: So, if the reactors had not been running there would be no disaster Idle, loaded reactors, and spent fuel pools still require continuous cooling water. There was no disaster in the fourth reactor. Therefore, the cooling capacity was sufficient, even though it was greatly reduced. (Some of the emergency cooling systems survived the tsunami.) The cooling pool needs much less cooling capacity than a reactor core right after a SCRAM. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
I wrote: There was no disaster in the fourth reactor. In fact, TEPCO was planning to restart the fourth reactor, until the Prime Minister and the press heard about it. This was before the government decided to shut down nearly every nuke in Japan. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
A tsunami does not dredge the ocean. Ahh, ok. Who are you talking to, btw? On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Another tsunami could come up and dredge all that out to the ocean and currents will drag it over to the west coast of NA. No, that is not possible. A tsunami does not dredge the ocean. You can see what it does in the many videos taken of the disaster. A wave, by definition, does not drag on the bottom of the ocean, or disturb it. The water moves up, and then down. There is no back-and-forth motion in a wave. If it did drag, the energy from the wave would soon be dissipated and the wave would vanish. The energy is released when the wave reaches a shallow. That is why the wave then stops moving, rather than crossing the entire continent. Even if the radioactive debris in the shallows is moved by the passing wave, it would fall right back to the bottom again. Or it would be washed ashore, I suppose. It is not going to be transported to the West Coast of North America. Some floating debris did reach the West Coast. If radioactive debris floats, it would be everywhere in the ocean already. Tsunami is a japanese word for a reason. Yes. The reason is that the older English word, tidal wave, is technically inaccurate. It has nothing to do with the tide. The Japanese word is 津波. The first character means port, harbor. The second is wave. In other words, a wave that reaches into the harbor or anchorage. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
Blaze Spinnaker wrote: Another tsunami could come up and dredge all that out to the ocean and currents will drag it over to the west coast of NA. What the West Coast should be terrified of … in terms of a potential nuclear catastrophe - has nothing to do with Japan. http://rt.com/usa/san-onofre-plant-california-129/ “The San Onofre facility was opened in the late 1960s and has been upgraded since then, although not without incident. Engineers at the Bechtel Group Inc. of San Francisco installed a 420-ton nuclear reactor vessel at the facility in 1977, only to be publically humiliated when it was realized that the plant was constructed backwards.” This facility has been refueled perhaps 10 times by now. How much spent fuel is really onsite? They claim 3500 spent fuel assemblies which usually weigh about 1000 pounds each. That would be more than Fukushima, no?
Re: [Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
There was no disaster in the fourth reactor. You should update the Wikipedia with your knowledge here. They're working under a different set of assumptions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster On 15 March, an explosion damaged the fourth floor rooftop area of unit 4. Japan's nuclear safety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safety agency NISA reported two large holes in a wall of the outer building of unit 4 after the explosion. It was reported that water in the spent fuel pool might be boiling. Radiation inside the unit 4 control room prevented workers from staying there permanently..In October 2012, the former Japanese Ambassador to both Switzerland and Senegal Mitsuhei Murata said that ground under Fukushima unit 4 was sinking, and the structure may collapse.[103]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#cite_note-103 [104]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#cite_note-104 On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: So, if the reactors had not been running there would be no disaster Idle, loaded reactors, and spent fuel pools still require continuous cooling water. There was no disaster in the fourth reactor. Therefore, the cooling capacity was sufficient, even though it was greatly reduced. (Some of the emergency cooling systems survived the tsunami.) The cooling pool needs much less cooling capacity than a reactor core right after a SCRAM. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
Right, But they still need water. Good thing they had an ocean close by to hide their sins. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: So, if the reactors had not been running there would be no disaster Idle, loaded reactors, and spent fuel pools still require continuous cooling water. There was no disaster in the fourth reactor. Therefore, the cooling capacity was sufficient, even though it was greatly reduced. (Some of the emergency cooling systems survived the tsunami.) The cooling pool needs much less cooling capacity than a reactor core right after a SCRAM. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
“The San Onofre facility was opened in the late 1960s and has been upgraded since then, although not without incident. Engineers at the Bechtel Group Inc. of San Francisco installed a 420-ton nuclear reactor vessel at the facility in 1977, only to be publically humiliated when it was realized that the plant was constructed backwards.” Yeah, don't they have bad earthquakes out there too? On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Blaze Spinnaker wrote: Another tsunami could come up and dredge all that out to the ocean and currents will drag it over to the west coast of NA. What the West Coast should be terrified of … in terms of a potential nuclear catastrophe - has nothing to do with Japan. http://rt.com/usa/san-onofre-plant-california-129/ “The San Onofre facility was opened in the late 1960s and has been upgraded since then, although not without incident. Engineers at the Bechtel Group Inc. of San Francisco installed a 420-ton nuclear reactor vessel at the facility in 1977, only to be publically humiliated when it was realized that the plant was constructed backwards.” This facility has been refueled perhaps 10 times by now. How much spent fuel is really onsite? They claim 3500 spent fuel assemblies which usually weigh about 1000 pounds each. That would be more than Fukushima, no?
Re: [Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
Speaking of which, what would actually happen if they just dumped all the waste into the ocean? I mean what do the _numbers_ look like? The ocean is _very_ big. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:19 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Right, But they still need water. Good thing they had an ocean close by to hide their sins. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: So, if the reactors had not been running there would be no disaster Idle, loaded reactors, and spent fuel pools still require continuous cooling water. There was no disaster in the fourth reactor. Therefore, the cooling capacity was sufficient, even though it was greatly reduced. (Some of the emergency cooling systems survived the tsunami.) The cooling pool needs much less cooling capacity than a reactor core right after a SCRAM. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
We need to ask the Tuna On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:35 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking of which, what would actually happen if they just dumped all the waste into the ocean? I mean what do the _numbers_ look like? The ocean is _very_ big. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:19 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Right, But they still need water. Good thing they had an ocean close by to hide their sins. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: So, if the reactors had not been running there would be no disaster Idle, loaded reactors, and spent fuel pools still require continuous cooling water. There was no disaster in the fourth reactor. Therefore, the cooling capacity was sufficient, even though it was greatly reduced. (Some of the emergency cooling systems survived the tsunami.) The cooling pool needs much less cooling capacity than a reactor core right after a SCRAM. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
Bad advice. Tuna don't do numbers any better than chickenshttp://www.treehugger.com/green-food/chickens-out-perform-toddlers-math-tests.html . On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:39 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: We need to ask the Tuna On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:35 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking of which, what would actually happen if they just dumped all the waste into the ocean? I mean what do the _numbers_ look like? The ocean is _very_ big. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:19 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote: Right, But they still need water. Good thing they had an ocean close by to hide their sins. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: So, if the reactors had not been running there would be no disaster Idle, loaded reactors, and spent fuel pools still require continuous cooling water. There was no disaster in the fourth reactor. Therefore, the cooling capacity was sufficient, even though it was greatly reduced. (Some of the emergency cooling systems survived the tsunami.) The cooling pool needs much less cooling capacity than a reactor core right after a SCRAM. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: There was no disaster in the fourth reactor. You should update the Wikipedia with your knowledge here. They're working under a different set of assumptions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster On 15 March, an explosion damaged the fourth floor rooftop area of unit 4. Japan's nuclear safety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safety agency NISA reported two large holes in a wall of the outer building of unit 4 after the explosion. Huh. That must have been after TEPCO talked about restarting it. Or maybe the TEPCO bean counter who talked about that was not aware of the extent of the damage. Anyway, it caused a brouhaha when they talked about restarting #4. The Prime Minister responded, ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR EVER-LOVING MIND?!?? Only in Japanese. If the other three had been damaged only to that extent it would not be a disaster. It would be no worse than the earthquake damage to the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant by the earthquake in 2007, which was no big deal. It looks like they are hoping to restart Kashiwazaki-Kariwa next July. That's a good thing, from the point of view of global warming. It is the biggest nuke complex in the world. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
http://www.bikiniatoll.com/whatrad.html IMHO, LENR nanoparticle based reactions in the ocean neutralize radioactive isotopes. For example, the ocean around Bikini atoll is now clean and it has be clean for a long time now.. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:35 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking of which, what would actually happen if they just dumped all the waste into the ocean? I mean what do the _numbers_ look like? The ocean is _very_ big. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:19 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Right, But they still need water. Good thing they had an ocean close by to hide their sins. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: So, if the reactors had not been running there would be no disaster Idle, loaded reactors, and spent fuel pools still require continuous cooling water. There was no disaster in the fourth reactor. Therefore, the cooling capacity was sufficient, even though it was greatly reduced. (Some of the emergency cooling systems survived the tsunami.) The cooling pool needs much less cooling capacity than a reactor core right after a SCRAM. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
I agree, we are all immersed in weakly ionizing radiation all of the time, worse during storms or if you happen to live near a Doppler weather radar tower... You guys might want to check out my Google Earth maps of 10 months of increased fish kills, algae blooms, sinkholes and waterspouts, they are concentrated around Doppler Towers which pump out 0.25 - 1.25 MW of continuous low frequency, penetrating radiation, some of which I now believe is attenuated in the atmosphere and reflecting down through our heads, possibly driving up autism rates and making it so grandpa cannot remember your name... Stewart darkmattersalot.com On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.bikiniatoll.com/whatrad.html IMHO, LENR nanoparticle based reactions in the ocean neutralize radioactive isotopes. For example, the ocean around Bikini atoll is now clean and it has be clean for a long time now.. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:35 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking of which, what would actually happen if they just dumped all the waste into the ocean? I mean what do the _numbers_ look like? The ocean is _very_ big. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:19 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote: Right, But they still need water. Good thing they had an ocean close by to hide their sins. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: So, if the reactors had not been running there would be no disaster Idle, loaded reactors, and spent fuel pools still require continuous cooling water. There was no disaster in the fourth reactor. Therefore, the cooling capacity was sufficient, even though it was greatly reduced. (Some of the emergency cooling systems survived the tsunami.) The cooling pool needs much less cooling capacity than a reactor core right after a SCRAM. - Jed
[Vo]:Suzuki's ominous warning on Fukushima
David Suzuki issues ominous warning for damaged Fukushima plant http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-buzz/david-suzuki-issues-ominous-warning-damaged-fukushima-plant-195522191.html David Suzuki has issued an ominous warning about the state of Fukushima's nuclear power plant. Fukushima is the most terrifying situation I can imagine, the environmental activist and host of the Nature of Things said last week at the University of Alberta's symposium Letting in the Light: Science to Guide Public Water Policy in the 21st Century. Three out of the four plants were destroyed in the earthquake and in the tsunami. The fourth one has been so badly damaged that the fear is, if there's another earthquake of a seven or above that, that building will go and then all hell breaks loose. And the probably of a seven or above earthquake in the next three years is over 95 per cent, Suzuki said. He added that a recent study found another earthquake could require evacuation of the entire North American coast and as for Japan bye bye, Suzuki said.
