Pictures of Haz-Mat garbed officials checking civilians for radiation.
The crisis intensified as officials reported that three of the six reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 plant were in trouble, and emergency measures were being taken to cool them.
The country’s chief Cabinet secretary, Yukio Edano, was quoted by a news agency as saying that a meltdown may have occurred in at least one nuclear power reactor and that authorities are concerned about the possibility of a meltdown at a second reactor.
With so many things being said that video helped clear a few things up.
“Japan’s meteorological agency said there was a 70% chance of a magnitude 7 aftershock striking in the next three days.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/13/japan-earthquake-and-tsunami-japan
I wonder if this would tip the balance towards a worse state of affairs concerning the possible leak at Fukushima power station 1.
It’s strange how much speculation and hearsay there is without much official word on the matters. I understand that they themselves are uncertain about the power plants, but there has only been a very brief official explanation as to the status of the reactors within the plants — http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12726628
I’m sure that if there is a massive nuclear meltdown they will have control over it. Well, I hope so…
Peter,
I am a longtime fan of your excellent work on climate change. However, I am disappointed in your posts on the situation in Japan with regard to the nuclear facilities. Re-posts of the semi-hysterical hyp from “news” services do not do justice to the situation, or to your followers.
I would recommend you post prominently a link to the following sane and sober assessment at BNC:
Fukushima Nuclear Accident – a simple and accurate explanation which provides an excellent explanation for the layman.
Sorry to disappoint, and I will post portions of, and a link to, the analysis you recommend. That’s the kind of feedback I need and expect from my readers, so thanks.
My posts, have, I believe, been measured, and relying on mainstream media sources, including Scientific American and others – and an honest attempt to find out myself what is going on, and sort out for readers what the best information is. I believe that my picture has been as accurate as anything available.
All this is an attempt to remedy what I consider to be an abysmal performance on the part of Tokyo Electric to keep us informed, so that we are left with the best puzzle pieces that outside observers can piece together.
Assuming your analysis is correct, there are several questions that arise, not the least of which is the cost factor involved for the “4 or 5 year process’ of checking for damage, the very costly upgrading of Japan’s entire nuclear fleet – analogous to what happened after the Three Mile accident necessitated upgrades to reactors around the world. It is unsettling that incidents like this uncover weaknesses that for decades, we have been assured had already been anticipated and designed for.
If we are going to solve climate change, the question of how much nuclear will be a part is a critical one, and deserving of close and critical examination during this extreme test.