edkwon
Forum Addict
My friend from Tokyo wrote that situation there isn't that bad. There isn't much damage. Sadly northeast of Japan seems to be severely damaged, but we can see that on the news.
Currently it looks the coastal areas of Tokyo Bay are hit harder, there is some building damage but not terrible, and I don't know if public transportation and the rail system has resumed service yet. There's a question wether many of the overhead motorways have been structurally compromised and it's safe to allow cars and trucks back on.
The epicenter is a terrible disaster, theres a great link (one among many) capturing many stunning and horrible photos some as the tsunami struck. How some of these photographers captured, I can only assume from news copters, others, I have no idea.
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/03/massive_earthquake_hits_japan.html
If the fucking windmills collapse, you just erect them again. Job done. The area won't be contaminated by radioactivity for decades.
I don't want to abuse this thread for a discussion about the pros and cons of nuclear power but I dare saying, that we wouldn't have the same headlines, if some traditional coal-powered power plants had been effected by the quake and the tsunami...
Agreed, this is not the appropriate forum to discuss the pros/cons of nuclear power and safety in general.
Back on topic, I hope the reactor situation in Fukushima is resolved with a minimum of collateral damage.
Last edited: