Badmovies.org Forum

This MSN page features a slider to show the extent of the destruction:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42064847/ns/world_news-asiapacific (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42064847/ns/world_news-asiapacific)

Absolutely horrific.

No doubt, it looks positively apocalyptic. Several mainstream news articles are talking about how the quake actually shifted the Earth's axis by about 10 centimeters. So, that leads me to wonder, what will the next few years look like and how will such a shift affect our seasons, weather patterns, etc. This could affect a lot more than Japan.

All one can really do is keep one's eyes open and one's ear to the ground.

It was said that the Tsnuami that hit SE Asia 5 or 6 years back (the one that killed like 200,000 some people) also shifted Earth's axis as well., though to what degree, I can't remember at this time.  If I recall right, that one was in Indonesia.

Then there's the Japanese nuclear issue too. Despite being called "the safest and best built in the world" by some, apparently nature is showing us that nothing is above her wrath,  or invulnerable to the same.

This also is renewing fears about Amercan and European reactors, as France is mostly nuclear itself.  So much is happening right now...the Middle East, the oil prices,  Iraq, Afghanistan, and the economy and now this.  We're not even 3 full months into the second decade of the Millenium and there's so much on the world's plate...

Just a word . . . planting a nuclear reactor along a major faultline is probably not the best idea.  Japan is always having earthquakes, and huge ones like this are going to come along every couple of centuries or so.  No man made structure is proof against a planetary upheaval of this magnitude.

On the other hand, nuclear power plants in geologically stable areas are the cheapest and best source of power available with current technology.  I would say that I hope the anti-nuke crowd doesn't exploit this tragedy, but it appears they already are.

Things seem to be getting more dangerous with regards to the nuclear threat. Very disturbing and frightening.  :bluesad:

Very heartbreaking, one of the photos of a girl the other day on Fox news made me tear up.

Yes, it is VERY frightening about the nuclear threats, it grows everyday it seems.

I don't know very much about the Chernobyl reactor, but Im assuming this is worse?

Actually no.  At least not yet.  Chernobyl was a nightmare scenario.  This has the potential to become one, but has not as yet.

A salient point. I was thinking about that too, how this could be used as a supporting point by the ignorant to say that nuclear power is a bad idea. No it's not. The U.S. Navy is one of the best examples of how safe and effective an energy source nuke can be. It does make me wonder about the big nuclear plant north of San Diego. I wouldn't exactly call that an ideal location. It's all about calculated risk. Even stable areas can be subject to what Nature decides to do, but some areas are smarter choices than others.

Good point, Indy. No matter how sturdy or stable, no structure is invulnerable to nature's assaults.   That makes me look back at Three Mile Island, in Harrisburg, PA. which was not due to nature, but to a technological fault, which is also a bit unsettling.

T.M.I. was about 10 years before Chernobyl, and then in the early 2000's
we had the issue with the Kursk, the Russian nuclear sub that leaked into the Baltic when it sank.

The greater tragedy with the Kursk, IMO, is that a then-president Putin refused help from the international community, who were immediately in the area, and could get there quicker. Because of this, 100-150-some sailors drowned and that could have been prevented.

In any case, nuclear power needs to be handled with great care, and no telling what the future holds for this technology based on present events.

Of course, the state of repair of most Cold-War era Soviet stuff is also a contributing factor, no doubt.

Nuclear energy still seems a potentially viable alternative to fossil fuels although obviously some thought has to go into preventing possible problems (backups, etc.) although obviously in some cases, maybe a plant just shouldn't go in a certain location...

It's not as simple as you choose to see it.  There's at least two reactors in California located on fault lines!   :bluesad: :buggedout:

Despite the might-as-well-be-forever lifetime of nuclear waste, nuclear power is still much cleaner than many of the current options we are using. It's not the answer, but it helps. I was at a seminar where the presenter crunched the numbers. We could build a nuclear power plant every day, and it still wouldn't provide enough energy to make up for the loss once our fossil fuels dry up.

If you want something to do with your life, figure out a way to make solar power work. In its present state, there are some very, very significant technical problems to solve before it can become a viable option. But if you figure it out, you will be helping humanity and you will be richer than bejeezus.

That being said, watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpuLlIrUYsI&feature=related

That's the video that convinced me to donate money to the Red Cross. You're probably going to spend $10 on something stupid anyway. Put it towards where it can help.

Also, donate blood.

Um, I'm not entirely sure Indy was trying to suggest that California was a geologically stable area.

Indy said nothing about California particularly.  I was drawing a corollary between the usual remarks regarding California residents and the "anti-nuke" crowd... not very well, apparently.

 :cheers:

Fair enough. I know that you and Indy lock antlers on occasion and I got the impression you were giving him a hard time. You know, like he was ridiculing Japan and saying the U.S. didn't make mistakes like that. No worries.

Not that I have a problem with you locking antlers with Indy. I do it sometimes too.  :bouncegiggle:

Or go in certain countries.  The reason I say that is because it's a bit suprising, that Japan would go the way of nuclear power after the outcome of WW2.  Sure, it's somewhat cleaner, and more efficient, but now that these meltdowns are a possibility, there are probably survivors of WW2 bracing themselves for something that might be 10 times worse. That, and the psychological effects from the first time.  :bluesad: