Sunday, March 20, 2011
Japanese Earthquakes ( March 11, 2011 )
Ever since tragic earthquake in Sumatra, Indonesia, another large earthquake was made in Japan on March 11, 2011. Many concerns were brought in as this resulted in breakdown of six nuclear plants near the sea. This will take so much time to recover and it will have impacts on world's economy. Would this be opportunity for us to have more economical power? Or would this worsen our economy as one of the world's largest economy collapses? Do we necessarily need to build them?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
On March 11, 9.0-magnitude earthquake occurred near the northeastern coast of Japan, creating extremely destructive tsunami waves which hit Japan just minutes after the earthquake. The earthquake and tsunami have caused extensive and severe damage in Northeastern Japan, leaving thousands of people confirmed dead, injured or missing, and millions more affected by lack of electricity, water and transportation. The main reason why Japan has been experiencing so many earthquakes is because the country is located where three big tectonic plates such as Eurasian Plate, Philippine Plate and Pacific Plate collide each other. This incidence also caused six nuclear plants have the water supply cut, which is used to cool down the fuel rods inside the chambers. High temperature caused the chambers to melt down after the explosion due to high concentration of hydrogen that were trapped inside. Radioactive cesium was spread out into the air and people are concerned about acute radiation syndrome (ARS). Although Nuclear plants will surely generate so much energy, but we must stop building them. Safety is the first priority before anything else.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3AdFjklR50
That’s a great overall explanation of the Japanese Disaster but I’m still having a problem with all the mass media focusing on the nuclear activities that HAVE NOT HAPPENED to an extreme yet. Compared to the EARTH QUAKE and TSUNAMI that has already happened that destroyed homes and killed thousands of people! Now after doing further research I found out that the Japanese are actually not in physical need of help but more in financial need. As North Americans we should all remember how amazing and caring the Japanese treated us with Hurricane Katrina no other country donated more money than the Japanese in times when we were in distress. Now more than ever we should be donating and doing everything we possibly can to help out the Japanese because we all need to scratch each other’s pack to survive in a world that’s getting smaller and smaller every day.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/86dfc390-54af-11e0-b1ed-00144feab49a.html#axzz1HONz7bCu
i agree on some of sungs opinions regarding the destruction that was caused by the earthquake in japan. however i disadree with shuting down all the nuclear power plants, its true when rare accidents occur they have the potential to cause new problems but under normal operating situations, they are much less dangerous than the fossil fuel burning plants. Not only do the nuclear power plants in Japan contribute to over 70% of the nations power supply, they also have much more advantages than regular power supply plants; these advantages include, but aren't limited to; no emissions, which means that it does not involve any burning of fossil fuels which causes pollution. Energy independance, the nuclear fuel that is used in the reactions is plentiful and it's byproducts can be used even further in the energy making process. Finally, the plants are actually alot safer than the standard power plants. When the standard plant has a malfunction, it creates a domino effect within the plant itself, creating massive explosions throughout the whole plant and surrounding area. Nuclear reactors on the other hand, are built so that once a malfunction is detected the reactor is build so that it shuts itself down immediatly.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ehow.com/about_4793305_advantages-nuclear-power-plants.html
I also disagree with the idea of shutting down the plants even though radiation is showing up in milk and tap water and other parts of the food chain in Tokyo, it is showing up only in trace amounts still. More than a week after the reactors at Fukushima became dangerous; nearly all the unwanted radiation they are producing is still being captured in the containment units in which they are housed. Japan relies on their nuclear plants as that’s where they get 35% of the power from. But as with you Peter, I don’t find your information correct because the Canadian reactors employ a different design. They use natural -rather than enriched -uranium and are cooled with heavy water. This makes our reactors more expensive at the beginning, but much safer in the long run because heavy water is about 80 times as efficient at absorbing reactor heat. I would say while they are rebuilding, they should use the north American concept which is more efficient. I think we do need to help them out and also as Tyler said help them in financial terms since Japan is one of North Americas largest trading partners and we rely on each so much.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sung when he says we should shut them down. The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce resource which they estimate the supply to only last for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand. I disagree with Jot when he says Japan should use North American’s concept when building their new nuclear reactors. The time that is needed for formalities, planning and building of a new nuclear power plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in the western democracies such as North America. In other words, it is an illusion to build new nuclear power plants in a short time. Plus considering how much the nuclear power plants cost and how much japan has to rebuild. It will be really tough for them to revitalize their economy without help. I definitely agree with Tyler they need our help in any way they can get it. Not only is help them beneficiary to them and to us. Because we are major trading powers and the sooner they revitalize their economy the sooner our economy will be boosted.
ReplyDeletehttp://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability
The disaster in Japan with the earthquake then followed by a 10 meter high tsunami is horrible. The biggest thing that scares me is the nuclear reactor leaking and still is. Japan always has earthquakes but they are magnitude 5.0 or less but these big ones do happen. They should keep on running the nuclear reactors there because it is a great source of energy but there are the draw backs as seen in Japan. Japan really has no natural resources like coal or oil so nuclear power is the best option for the amount of land that they have. They are saying that the radiation levels are decreasing slowly and they do have water going around the reactors again. That means that they will not explode but they still do have cracks in them that are releasing radiation. They will have to get rid of the reactor by covering it in sand and concrete and that somehow stops the leakage. Japan will have no problem in rebuilding in what they lost because they are developed nation. The thing with the 90 km exclusion zone is that it is a big part of Japan and people can’t step in the zone. People can’t farm or live with in the area for years until the levels decrease.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=japan_radiation_poses_no_si_230311
I agree with Sung, although nuclear power is cheap, is extremely dangerous to our environment and our health. Look at what happened in Chernobyl, when the reactor had failed it released thirty to forty times more radio activity in to the atmosphere then the atomic bombs that where dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Up until today there are still levels of radioactivity in some areas. Even though nuclear power has become safer over the years with new technologies it still has greater risk than alternatives. Like what Sung said, we should stop building nuclear plants and consider alternative such as water power, wind power, solar power, geothermal power, and the list goes on. Sure nuclear power is cheaper than these alternatives but do we really want to take such a gamble with our lives and the lives of our future generations?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/chernobyl.html
http://www.scienceclarified.com/Al-As/Alternative-Energy-Sources.html
According to the Japanese government on Wednesday, the estimated direct damage from the deadly earthquake and tsunami that struck the country's north-eastern part this month was estimated at $310 billion, making it the world's costliest natural disaster ever in history. The figure could go even higher, as the estimate does not include losses in economic activity from power outages or the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, which economists say pose the biggest risks to the economy. “The impact from the planned power outages is likely to be significant," said Fumihira Nishizaki, director of macroeconomic analysis at the Cabinet Office in Tokyo. The $308 billion (or 25 trillion yen) estimate is about 6 percent of Japan gross domestic product (GDP).
ReplyDeleteSource: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/japan-estimates-quake-damage-300-billion-report-20110322-204451-453.html
Nuclear plants would obviously produce so much energy with so little amount of nuclear substances. Although these nuclear plants will provide more job opportunities and energy surpluses to the country, they bring back so many negative effects when they break down. If you look at what is happening in Japan, they are facing with radioactive water, radioactive gas and the Government reported contaminated tap water in Tokyo. Three engineers that worked inside the nuclear plants have been exposed to radiation on March 24. The amount of radiation they got exposed was between 170 to 180 millisieverts, which is 17 times more radiation than Computed Tomography and 3 times more than those engineers are exposed to radiation annually. Based on these, all the Governments in the world including Canada should find other ways to replace these harmful nuclear plants while maintaining the amount of energy that each country requires. There have been significant developments on solar power and water power, like Tanveer said. Quoting from Common Dreams organization, nuclear power is the problem, not a solution.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.commondreams.org/views05/0415-23.htm