ScribbleLive

@edano I agree that noise=explosion. And ==> that the noise that damaged 4 was an explosion from 2 that damaged 4. Bobby1 suggests it's from 3. It's plausible.

@jt : how should #2 damage #4 ?

@jt do you have a confirmation that #2 and 4 are connected ?

@ edano Do you have any confirmation that they are not connected? In these days of 24/7 satellite coverage, I would be surprised if they weren't connected.

@jt so why don't you preovide this link: www.gengikyo.jp ?

@elainekirk Would you please correct my earlier post ?
I said 'NISA' when I should have said 'IAEA' in two places.
Thank you.

Nuclear skeptics, advocates debate safety issues
seattletimes.nwsource.com
G20 Energy debate...
"PARIS —
Energy officials at talks on preventing nuclear disasters were divided Tuesday over how much atomic plants should be open to neighborly scrutiny, and if the world should shun or embrace nuclear power.
Countries abandoning nuclear energy, such as Germany, defended their choice in front of host country France - a strong nuclear power proponent, while India - eager to build new nuclear reactors to keep up with growing energy demand - argued that "there is no alternative." "

s

Ministry failed to publish some radiation data

The Japanese government says it failed to publish some radiation data from the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

The science and technology ministry says it did not release radiation monitoring data from March 16th through April 4th and radiation measurements for soil on March 16th and 17th. The data was taken by the Fukushima prefectural government outside a 20-kilometer radius of the plant.

The ministry apologized for not disclosing the data.
It says it thought the Fukushima government had already released it.

The data was collected as a reference for deciding on evacuation measures and restrictions on food and water consumption. The ministry says the unpublished information does not affect the steps that are now in place.

The ministry says it will publish the data on its website.

Wednesday, June 08, 2011 06:13 +0900 (JST)
www3.nhk.or.jp

@elainekirk I guess the neighbours not buying their goods and not visiting is the only thing they will listen too.

it is still incredible that a small company with limited experience (and very limited money) is about to manage the biggest nuclear disaster in history, letting out the radiation into international oceans and international air. the time has long come to force them to cooperate with international knowledge, hardware and control personnel. this is too big and too important (and too expensive) for a simple energy producing and vending company.

If the nuclear industry was forced to carry private insurance (with its safety standard oversights), then imagine what changes pressures from companies like these could create...

" Insurer Losses :
Munich Re, the world’s biggest reinsurer, said last month it had a quarterly loss of 947 million euros ($1.4 billion) on claims related to the disasters. Berkshire Hathaway Inc., run by billionaire Warren Buffett, said the Japan disaster alone may lead to costs of about $1.1 billion for its insurance segment. American International Group Inc. (AIG)’s first-quarter profit slumped 85 percent in part on costs tied to earthquakes."
From: Japan Quake Reinsurance Rates Rise as Much as 60% www.bloomberg.com

@Edano That, Sir, is exactly my point. :)

tepco has to pay - in other words - the japanese taxpayers.

@elainekirk @Edano If there was binding legislation requiring private insurance, then the power companies would be forced to explore other alternatives.

@Dean Hi Dean. Good to see you. :)

@Reed : i think i read that there is no insurance willing to cover the risk. they would simply go bancrupt.