David Suzuki's Fukushima Warning

[kurtis]

No one should even be living in Japan at this time.

[HTania]

How about housing price in Vacouver if that happens.

[Pouria]

Ya and so do we, and so does LA. When was the last you felt one though, or when was the last time it was big enough to do any sort of structural damage? 7.0 don't happen very often, so saying with 95% certainty that it will is a bit much.

I'm no geologist but after the few big ones they had over the past few years you might think they would be safe for the next few. I am sure you know why and how earthquakes happen so I won't go on about that, but you would think after a 9 or 8 or whatever they had, that would've realeased quite a bit of stress that had built up between those techtonic plates which you would think should allow them some room to move towards each other, before they reach that critical amount of stored energy to produce a 7.0. If that makes sense, I know I didn't write that too clearly, but that would be my guess

You sure aren't. Japan is located in an area of high seismicity (near major tectonic plate boundaries) along with the fact that they are also situated in a volcanic zone on the Pacific Ring of Fire. There is a reason why they have the most rigorous earthquake building standard in the world. You can't really compare the high seismic activity and the magnitude of earthquakes that happen there to cities like Vancouver and LA.

[Pouria]

How about housing price in Vacouver if that happens.

It would be similar to Pripyat, Ukraine.

[pdc]

You sure aren't. Japan is located in an area of high seismicity (near major tectonic plate boundaries) along with the fact that they are also situated in a volcanic zone on the Pacific Ring of Fire. There is a reason why they have the most rigorous earthquake building standard in the world. You can't really compare the high seismic activity and the magnitude of earthquakes that happen there to cities like Vancouver and LA.

I'm well aware that they experience more sesiemic activity compared to us or LA, that was not my point. My point was I beleive they are in area of converging plates, these plates only move so much a year and it takes time for that stress between them to build up and cause a major earthquake. So if they just had a major quake, the plates would've released alot of stored up energy, allowing them a bit more freedom to move before enough stress is built up to break off a piece of plate pushing it into the mantle and hence causing an earthquake. That is why earthquake usually only happen every so many years, and why we've been told since we were little kids that bunch of small quakes is a good thing. So I suppose there is a possibility but to come out and say that you are 95% certain another big one will hit 3 years after they just experienced a pretty big one, is ridiculous thing to say.

[Lancaster]

It's funny how much the exaggeration has been perpetuated.

Of course any leakage of radiation is bad, but just go onto Facebook or whatever and you see ocean maps with supposed high levels of radiation spreading across the Pacific.... like this one:

It's just a map about waves, not radiation levels. Yet man uneducated folks will just lap it up as fact. Totally feeding into the anti-nuclear, anti-globalization, anti-business, etc crowd.

Are there problems still? Of course, but not even remotely close to those doomsday scenario suggested out there. There's probably a higher chance of an asteroid smashing into the earth than the Fukushima situation affecting more than it does now.