Japanese Nuclear Crisis

  Quickbeam 08:36 17 Apr 2011

From an unexpected delay time in shutting down after the tsunami, they now think it will be 9 months before the site is reasonably safe Fukushima meltdown Whilst I am generally in favour that we need to develop the nuclear power option, the cost of worst possible scenario protection being built in has just gone through the roof.

  sunnystaines 08:47 17 Apr 2011

Why do they not concrete it in like ukraine did.

  morddwyd 09:36 17 Apr 2011

Nine months isn't long, and will be a brilliant result if they can bring it off, although the fact that the contaminants involved have relatively short half lives does make a significant difference.

It will be hundreds of years before Chernobyl is "relatively safe".

  spuds 11:59 17 Apr 2011

Reading some of the latest reports, it doesn't look to good (health-wise) for some of the people involved with 'making safe' the areas in question.

  morddwyd 15:07 17 Apr 2011

Many of these people would have gone in knowing from the start that their lives would be shortened, in some cases down to a few months or years..

One hopes that their families will be well provided for by the government.

  Forum Editor 15:28 17 Apr 2011

I sorted out the link for you.

  Quickbeam 00:24 18 Apr 2011


  oresome 19:40 18 Apr 2011

The nuclear industry will always have to be underwritten by governments as a last resort............not unlike the banks!

There is already talk of the Japanese power company being nationalised, as the final cost after litigation will be crippling for any commercial company.

As for envisaging the worst case scenario before the event and having safety measures in place to overcome it, I don't think we are capable of overcoming the forces nature can throw at us or the errors of human nature.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Alienware 17 R4 2017 review

Is this the future of VR and AR?

Best iPad buying guide 2017

Comment regarder le Bureau des L├ęgendes en ligne ?