DVD Collectors Online

If you're interested: http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/beitrag/live/1056920/Schweres-Beben-TV-Bilder-aus-Japan#/beitrag/livevideo/1056920/Schweres-Beben-TV-Bilder-aus-Japan

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

Until the tsunami in Indonesia several years ago, I had never heard of a tsunami before and did not realize the devastation that they caused.

I heard that there has been an explosion in Japan's nuclear power plant. Supposedly it only affected the outside walls and not the reactor. If that goes...

Just read that the cooling in the second (of 6) reactors of Fukushima now failed too.

The clearing zone is currently at 20 kilometers around the power plant ... Does anybody still remember how far the nuclear fallout came when Chernobyl blew up ... 20 kilometers, my arse

The latest I heard was that the core wasn't exposed so Chernobyl levels are near impossible. More like Three Mile Island of anything. And thankfully the Japanese are writing off the plant, so they're looking at full containment, not repair.

Whichever way you slice it though, they are in a bloody mess right now.

It's horrible what has happened there.  But at least they are doing what they can to keep the nuclear plants from melting down.

Quote from: Silence_of_Lambs on March 13, 2011, 01:32:34 AM
Just read that the cooling in the second (of 6) reactors of Fukushima now failed too.

The clearing zone is currently at 20 kilometers around the power plant ... Does anybody still remember how far the nuclear fallout came when Chernobyl blew up ... 20 kilometers, my arse

That reminds me that I'm living very close to 3 quite old nuclear power plants.  

That would freak me out.  Those things just don't seem that safe to me.  Meltdowns may not happen that often, but they cause so much damage when they happen....seems like the risk out weighs the benefits.

Quote from: Dragonfire on March 13, 2011, 09:50:32 AM
That would freak me out.  Those things just don't seem that safe to me.  Meltdowns may not happen that often, but they cause so much damage when they happen....seems like the risk out weighs the benefits.

I agree. The problem is that our goverment evaluates shareholder value and energy company profits higher than security.

As they do everywhere... I won't start my ranting mode on this, but I'm sure Sebastien as a fellow "countryman" know exactly what I mean.

Quote from: Jimmy on March 13, 2011, 10:59:44 AM
As they do everywhere... I won't start my ranting mode on this, but I'm sure Sebastien as a fellow "countryman" know exactly what I mean.

Energy companies profit before our common benefit? Really? No, Really? You Serious? Our government giving our resources on a silver platter to the industry? You serious?

Ah well ...




[/sarcasm]

I wonder if that make my 85 years old grandfather nostalgic of the Duplessis years

I looks like a worse case scenario may become a reality.

Let's see...where is the best place to put 55 operating nuclear reactors?

How about in Japan...it has something like 1500 earthquakes a year and its located right on top of the deadliest section of "the ring of fire". 

Kathy your post bring me an interrogation... Is it the same situation in the California States? I talk of nuclear energy  production central of course.

I'm sure stupid decisions are universal. I really don't know anything about nuclear power but California is prime for a major earthquake at any time.

The little I know of Japan's nuclear reactors is from watching the situation unfold at work - the TV is on 24/7 and I've haven't been able to get away from it.

Quote from: Kathy on March 13, 2011, 07:23:58 PM
California is prime for a major earthquake at any time.

This is why I asked, but I don't have a clue about what type of source of energy the State use (I believe it's different from States to Sates in the US, contrary to here where most of the country use hydro electricity).