Fukushima 10 years after the disaster

[Exnihiloest]

That's all ? Another stupidity to tell? No ?

We feel that in terms of cretinerie, the competition worries him, the GuyGadebois. What would he then have to argue?

If anyone can put within their grasp the idea that nature has always been dangerous for humans, that the tsunami is a natural phenomenon, and that the thousands of deaths due to the tsunami that hit Fukushima represent the bulk of the human catastrophe of this city, not the radioactivity, thank you in advance.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Except that the tsunami is NOT the subject. The subject is the plant and the radioactivity 10 years later. So your scandalous caricature "misleading nature, zentil the atom", you know what you can do with it.

[Janic]

exthing

If anyone can put within their grasp the idea that nature has always been dangerous for humans, that the tsunami is a natural phenomenon, and that the thousands of deaths due to the tsunami that hit Fukushima represent the bulk of the human catastrophe of this city, not the radioactivity, thank you in advance.

except that, the authorities knew that such a natural event could occur and that despite everything they installed this central battery where the risk was maximum. So if the tsunami caused victims (which would not have taken place if the populations had settled on the heights) [*] there would have been only a few victims and it would have stopped there. On the other hand, irradiation made victims in the long term as for Chernobyl or nuclear tests. When we want to play with fire, we end up burning ourselves

[*] others settle on faults, at the foot of volcanoes even in eruption, in flood zones, at the edge of cliffs and other seashores, etc ...

[Leo Maximus]

except that, the authorities knew that such a natural event could occur and that despite everything they installed this central battery where the risk was maximum ...

Except that, in living memory, we are not aware of a tsunami of such magnitude ...

So if the tsunami caused victims (which would not have taken place if the populations had settled on the heights) [*] there would have been only a few victims and it would have stopped there.

Well, of course, fishing ports and agricultural plains must be installed in the mountains, that's obvious!

Can we say the same thing about the inhabitants of the Roya Valley devastated last December? "They should have lived elsewhere ..."

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Can we say the same thing about the inhabitants of the Roya Valley devastated last December? "They should have lived elsewhere ..."

Wonderful ... compare two unrelated things. What purpose ? Tell us that building a nuclear power station by the sea is relevant? I would like to understand.

[Janic]

Except that, in living memory, we are not aware of a tsunami of such magnitude ...

from recent memory only!

Janic wrote:
So if the tsunami caused victims (which would not have taken place if the populations had settled on the heights) [*] there would have been only a few victims and it would have stopped there.

Well, of course, fishing ports and agricultural plains must be installed in the mountains, that's obvious!

a) with current cars, it only takes a few minutes to descend from a height (no mountain, there are not many on the slopes) and the same for agricultural plains, but naturally man goes the easiest, the most practical, with its risks.
so:
The San Andreas fault, located in California, is a geologic fault, in strike, at the junction of the Pacific and North American tectonic plates. This great fault which passes in particular by San Francisco and Los Angeles causes very important and devastating earthquakes in California. posting.php? mode = edit & f = 45 & p = 436678
it is not for the fishery or its agricultural plains and everyone knows it will blow up one day or another, but humans congregate in it despite the danger. This is the game of Russian roulette!

Can we say the same thing about the inhabitants of the Roya Valley devastated last December? "They should have lived elsewhere ..."

Exactly, they believed that this would never happen to them despite the obvious signs that things are changing like the weather. Affectively, it is indeed dramatic, but 'the unconsciousness of the danger leads one to believe that there will never be any ... and after that it will not be repeated!

[Ahmed]

"I would like to understand." wonders Guy.
But it's very simple Fukushima means etymologically "the lucky city *", so there was no risk to install this nuclear power station there; you shouldn't take the Japanese for fools, even if it ends up pretty much the same!

* Lucky or happy, the translation is not possible in a too rigorous way ...

[Exnihiloest]

Except that the tsunami is NOT the subject. The subject is the plant and the radioactivity 10 years later. So your scandalous caricature "misleading nature, zentil the atom", you know what you can do with it.

The limits you set for yourself do not concern me. The subject is: "Fukushima 10 years after the disaster".

[Exnihiloest]

"I would like to understand." wonders Guy.
But it's very simple Fukushima means etymologically "the lucky city *", so there was no risk to install this nuclear power station there;
...

We never dimension a society according to exceptional events that are as unpredictable as they are improbable because they never happened in the past or never happened at such intensity. No one is bound to the impossible, and zero risk does not exist.

[Leo Maximus]

Can we say the same thing about the inhabitants of the Roya Valley devastated last December? "They should have lived elsewhere ..."

Wonderful ... compare two unrelated things. What purpose ? Tell us that building a nuclear power station by the sea is relevant? I would like to understand.

Nothing to see ? In both cases it is a flood.

If there had been a nuclear power plant in the Roya valley, there would have been some problems.