Tsunami spare a thought

[Littlesparrow]

My relative is safe at the moment and working in Tokyo, fingers crossed they sort out the Fukushima nuclear plant, we keep watching the news.

[Paul mabbott]

It would be more useful if people thought before catastrophes strike. Building nuclear reactors and chemical plants on fault lines is pretty dumb. It's pretty dumb to build nuclear plants anywhere that they can be damaged to such an extent that radiation becomes uncontrollable.

Tsunami damage could be reduced if there were not so many people growing on flat, low-lying lands; indeed, obviously, loss of life would be reduced if there were fewer people!

Earthquakes are not the only source of disaster, like hurricanes, we know that they are going to happen but can't predict exactly how or when; therefore better not to build where there is a remote threat of catastrophe .... but that would require serious long-term planning ....

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

It would be more useful if people thought before catastrophes strike. Building nuclear reactors and chemical plants on fault lines is pretty dumb.

I understand that in San Fransisco they've built hospitals, emergency services and a nuclear power station slap-bang on the San Andreas fault. Also they've built extensively in an area that's potentially subject to liquefaction. There was a TV programme about it some years back.

Jim

[PMG]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

It would be more useful if people thought before catastrophes strike. Building nuclear reactors and chemical plants on fault lines is pretty dumb. It's pretty dumb to build nuclear plants anywhere that they can be damaged to such an extent that radiation becomes uncontrollable.

Tsunami damage could be reduced if there were not so many people growing on flat, low-lying lands; indeed, obviously, loss of life would be reduced if there were fewer people!

Earthquakes are not the only source of disaster, like hurricanes, we know that they are going to happen but can't predict exactly how or when; therefore better not to build where there is a remote threat of catastrophe .... but that would require serious long-term planning ....

Maybe this is the point where they rebuild elsewhere: I don't think much has gone back up at Phuket? But perhaps they will have to build in the same place again? I wonder what the population dynamics will be now - whether there will be a lot of widdowers - chaps who were away at work when the tsunami struck and took wives and children?

[Gill Catton]

I can't help but feel that as Japan has is it 55 reactors? and only one has gone 'Pete Tong' and it is 40 years old (isn't it?). That this actually bodes not too badly in a way....

Of course in another way it only takes 1 going very badly wrong to cause a hell of a lot of problems......

[loripo]

I hope that this will mean that all countries check their nuclear power stations and see that they have belt, braces and stickies in place ready for possible problems. Japan will be able to rebuild but not on a very large area of their Eastern coast if there is a serious radiation leak.
Someone above mentioned liquifaction - just imagine what a large quake would do to Dubai's posh man-made island which are built on sand - and there have been a few smallish ones in that area recently.