Nuclear Disaster 'Will Have Political Impact as Great as 9/11'

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,750810,00.html

[Wild Cobra]

That's right...

Don't waste a chance for political agenda gain on a disaster...

[DarrinS]

I doubt it.

[Blake]

Marcus, you did realize this is a german piece on german politics?

[Cry Havoc]

Marcus, you did realize this is a german piece on german politics?

[Cry Havoc]

Also, what he said has the potential to be true, especially if it radically alters energy generation plans moving forward.

[Marcus Bryant]

Marcus, you did realize this is a german piece on german politics?

Yes.

[RandomGuy]

That's right...

Don't waste a chance for political agenda gain on a disaster...

... says the guy who wouldn't hestitate to do so, if the advantage went to something he supported. :rolleyes


Hip
Pock.
Crazy.

[boutons_deux]

Buy coal stocks (and don't worry about dead miners and polluted environment).

Nuclear wasn't a serious option for UCA anyway, for financial reasons. "We're broke"

[Blake]

Yes.

K.

I was expecting to read about the US or even japan.

I'm thinking I'm not the only one.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,750810,00.html


Center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"The events in Japan, which geographically couldn't be much further from Germany, will influence politics in this country. They could soon start changing majorities and make governing even harder for the center-right coalition. The decision it made on nuclear power in September 2010 could be its undoing."

"There are few issues that can fire up people's emotions and mobilize them politically as much as nuclear power can. That's not good news for a government that supports nuclear power. Especially ahead of important regional elections, which won't affect the balance of power in national politics but which could well influence the morale of party workers to preserve that power."

"It's not good news because in the end, for example in Baden-Württemberg, it will only take a few percentage points more or less to determine the election outcome. Doubts among the supporters of the conservatives or the FDP could keep a few thousand voters from the ballot boxes -- or drive them into the arms of the center-left parties."

"For Merkel, it is hard to imagine a greater accident at present than the loss of a CDU governor in Baden-Württemberg."

"The safety precautions (at the Japanese nuclear plant) weren't just insufficient; the operating company TEPCO systematically breached them, as the government ascertained in 2002. TEPCO falsified security reports in more than 200 cases."

"Japan is a democracy, but so far the control of the government by the voters has hardly worked. Things only got a little better after the Democratic Party came to power two years ago. Before that, the often incompetent and corrupt governments were never voted out of office. The perestroika that Japan so urgently needs has scarcely begun."

Personally this whole thing pretty much sealed nuclear power for me.

[RandomGuy]

I doubt it.

... he says, probably not really reading the linked article about German politics.

Are you an expert on German politics now to be able to say that?

:lmao

[boutons_deux]

Deutschland has had a strong Nein Danke anti-nuclear faction for decades. Japan will certainly swell the ND ranks.

[Cry Havoc]

:depressed

Such a sad situation for a power that WOULD be safe if people wouldn't flake on safety protocols.

[RandomGuy]

:depressed

Such a sad situation for a power that WOULD be safe if people wouldn't flake on safety protocols.

You can't design a reactor that would be proof against a 9.0 quake and still make it economical. If that is even possible, I don't know, but the experts I have heard say it is not.

I don't feel sorry for finally being given a rather obvious argument why nuclear was probably a bad idea from the get-go.

If the Japanese of all people can't design and build something that could withstand this, then who can?

That uncomfortable question will never be honestly answered by any nuclear proponent.

[Cry Havoc]

You can't design a reactor that would be proof against a 9.0 quake and still make it economical. If that is even possible, I don't know, but the experts I have heard say it is not.

I don't feel sorry for finally being given a rather obvious argument why nuclear was probably a bad idea from the get-go.

If the Japanese of all people can't design and build something that could withstand this, then who can?

That uncomfortable question will never be honestly answered by any nuclear proponent.

The quake didn't cause this. The tsunami did.

[DarrinS]

The quake didn't cause this. The tsunami did.


Don't bother RG with details.

[Wild Cobra]

... says the guy who wouldn't hestitate to do so, if the advantage went to something he supported. :rolleyes


Hip
Pock.
Crazy.
I was just paraphrasing Rahm Emanual.

[lefty]

Fuckin HAARP

[RandomGuy]

Don't bother RG with details.

:lmao

[Agloco]

You can't design a reactor that would be proof against a 9.0 quake and still make it economical. If that is even possible, I don't know, but the experts I have heard say it is not.

I don't feel sorry for finally being given a rather obvious argument why nuclear was probably a bad idea from the get-go.

If the Japanese of all people can't design and build something that could withstand this, then who can?

That uncomfortable question will never be honestly answered by any nuclear proponent.


The quake didn't cause this. The tsunami did.

Good catch, and a rather important detail that continuously gets lost in the weeds. The reactors held up just as they were supposed to. The tsunami scrambled everything.

[MannyIsGod]

Saying the Earthquake didn't cause it but the tsunami did to me is like saying that the fire didn't cause it the match did.

There's a reason the word tsunami is associated with both earthquakes and Japan.

[Agloco]

Saying the Earthquake didn't cause it but the tsunami did to me is like saying that the fire didn't cause it the match did.

There's a reason the word tsunami is associated with both earthquakes and Japan.

I see where you're going Manny, but it's a bad analogy.

An earthquake doesn't necessarily give rise to a tsunami. That's right, even a quake as powerful as this one doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a tsunami. As a matter of fact, tsunamis are quite rare when compared to the frequency of earthquakes. How many tsunamis have we seen in the 100+ aftershocks of 6.0 of higher?

Even if one does occur, you can't accurately gauge (hypothetically) how large the tsunami will be (from the Richter readings or even the GPAs). These things are multi-variate .... we have to be cautious when when applying the goings on in Japan with a hypothetical scenario.

This is why you design nuclear plants with the primary goal of withstanding earthquake of magnitude "X". Tidal rises are far too hard to predict. In Japans case, they actually caught a break as it was low tide when this thing struck. Could have been a lot worse........a lot.

My previous statement was just meant to clarify things when people say: "Earthquakes and nuclear power plants don't mix......" I'm sure Oak Ridge would be just fine if an 8.0 happened to hit TN.

[4>0rings]

Reminds me of the family guy episode where Peter and Louis run for mayor. Peter would just say 9/11 to get approval from the audience. :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Tsunamis are not dependent on the intensity of the quake. They are dependent on the direction and amount of sea floor movement.

[Agloco]

Tsunamis are not dependent on the intensity of the quake. They are dependent on the direction and amount of sea floor movement.

Correct..........mostly. The intensity of the quake does play a part, but it's not the only variable. In my previous post I hinted that this. The bottom line is that we can take away very little relating to nuclear safety in the US from this event, and we certainly should not be so quick to base our views of the safety of nuclear power here on it.