Japan's Quake Could Have Irradiated the Entire US

The Creeping Fascism of American Politics

FOCUS: States Unite Against Citizens United

Dimon's Deja Vu Debacle

This Is What Tyranny Looks Like

Cut It Out: An Open Letter to Black Bloc Anarchists

Harvey Wasserman writes, "Had the massive 8.9 Richter-scale earthquake that has just savaged Japan hit off the California coast, it could have ripped apart at least four coastal reactors and sent a lethal cloud of radiation across the entire United States. The two huge reactors each at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon are not designed to withstand such powerful shocks. All four are extremely close to major faults."

The Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant at Avila Beach, along the central California coastline, 05/20/04. (photo: Michael A. Mariant/SIPA Press)

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

-3 # LizR 2011-03-12 01:58

Nuclear isn't sustainable - if everyone was using it, supplies of fuel would run out fairly fast. But certainly in the medium term (a few decades) nuclear could be quite handy as a carbon-free stopgap, particularly if we're talking about sub-critical thorium reactors...

See http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/499 for details. Cynics say that no one wants them because they can't be used to make nuclear bombs.

-1 # watchingthecircus 2011-03-12 05:42

My state is downwind of coal fired plants which constantly put out mercury, sulfur dioxide and hydrogen cyanide to name a few. I'll trade them for being downwind of a nuclear facility any day. Not the ultimate solution but from where I sit much better than today. I also work a few hundred yards from a research reactor and a few hundred yards from a central coal plant. Guess which one worries me more.

+1 # Glen 2011-03-12 16:13

The choice is nothing more than the ole catch 22. I understand your trade, though, but too bad any of us have to make that choice.

If states are not more careful in their choice of energy sources, we'll all be sacrificing health for energy - or even possible major disaster.

+2 # Anarchist 23 2011-03-12 10:58

Having just watched the Japanese nuclear plant explode, releasing a huge pyroclastic cloud of dust-quite reminiscent of 911 BTW-which has also been proposed as a demonstration of the use of a mini-nuke-the human species needs to seriously contemplate what its conveniences are worth and to try to think outside the box of nuclear energy and hydrocarbons. There are other technologies.

0 # Planitcitizen 2011-03-12 12:58

It is folly to place nuclear reactors in earthquake zones, and/or susceptible to tsunamis without a full spectrum of safeguards. Reactors should be integrated into long term human industrial and settlements complex cadastral macrodesigns, and not be chosen for temporary humanity warehousing half measures. So more design consideration (including any better options) internal and in the broader found context and development goal.

+1 # aikidokurt 2011-03-14 15:18

the nuclear power industry is neither compatible with life or reality...shut em down!

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

rsn

Name:	*
Username:	*
E-mail:	*
Password:	*
Confirm password:	*
Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.