TIL! It does look almost exactly alike, and most of the keyboard shortcuts work in about the same way. I cannot judge the picture quality, but they both look very nice!
Some 14 thousand people have died due to the earthquake and tsunami directly. Zero confirmed deaths due to radiation. There very well may be deaths in the future, but I think it's astronomically unlikely they'll even approach two orders of magnitude of those caused by the quake. Of coure there are ramifications from the nuclear plant problems. Are they even remotely close to the scale of problems caused by the earthquake? Good lord, no.
The focus in the media on the reactor is criminally unethical in my opinion. It just adds to the populist echo chamber that nuclear is bad (no matter what) without any context or perspective at all and without any education.
Earthquakes happen. There is not much we can do- it is not economically feasible to equip every Japanese citizen with a 9.1-mag and flood-proof home and office.
Nuclear accidents on the other hand are something that we can prevent, either by more robust disaster planning, or by not having nuke plants in sensitive areas to begin with.
Don't get me wrong, the tens of thousands of deaths and missing persons in Japan is a tragedy of historic proportions. I have great sympathy, in fact I personally lost someone close to me in the tragedy and have many other friends over there who were affected. Just providing some insight into why the media does what it does.
There's a benefit to having nuclear power plants around that is worth the risk (in my opinion) even if we accept that there will be some nuclear safety issues over time. The positive benefits of nuclear power are so astronomically greater than the negatives that it borders on criminal to report in it like the media has.
When coal miners die in China, you don't hear the media clamoring to shutdown every coal mine. Or perhaps more apropos: when there's a coal slurry disaster no one calls for halting all coal mining everywhere.
The real reason is that nuclear is scary because people don't understand it.
I don't know if people think about it economically. If they did then you might say:
There is a nuclear reactor near here.
If there is a 9+ magnitude quake with a matching tsunami then the water surge will probably kill you. If you survive that you may have to evacuate for a couple of months while we get the nuclear plant back into a stable configuration. This has never happened in recorded history but it is possible.
Are you sure you want to buy/rent this house and live here?
Hammock your statement "Nuclear accidents on the other hand are something that we can prevent, either by more robust disaster planning, or by not having nuke plants in sensitive areas to begin with." implies that we haven't prevented them, when in fact we have. Japan has had very large earthquakes before and their nuclear facilities have come through unscathed. This particular event will, in all likelyhood, kill no one out right and probably not change the life expectancy in any measurable way for more than a handful of people. So while the statistically amazingingly unusual earthquake + tsunami got through the back up cooling system defenses, the 'worst possible' scenario you might imagine, and no one has been killed? I'm pretty sure most people would take that bet and decide to live there.
They would be even more likely if they realized that just flying on a commercial airliner once a year has a better chance of killing them.
I understand the fear that radiation induces in people, they can't see it, they feel like they can be 'dead' already and not know it, and there really isn't a good way to hide from it (unless perhaps you have a lead lined shelter). But it is more of a phobia than a rational fear. There are many places you can live where there is no risk of a nuclear accident and if a person's phobia is strong, they may choose to live there, just as people who fear of heights may choose to live in single story structures.
There is however an even bigger threat, for which we completely understand the threat and are not doing a damn thing about. Yup, the bad news is that pretty much anywhere on the planet you can be killed by an Asteroid impact [1] which, surprisingly, is about as likely than a 9+ quake and a tsunami [2].
And perhaps more telling, given the inverse square law, you can actually build a shelter that is impervious to any event at any reactor for any given distance, but you can't do that for a space rock.
I find that when the full extent of the costs, including the massive liability, are laid out, nuclear looks very unattractive. I don't find therefore that the conclusions being reached are wrong.
How long after the earthquake will rebuilding begin in those areas directly affected by the earthquake?
How long after the tsunami will rebuilding begin in those areas directly affected by the tsunami?
How long after the meltdown will rebuilding begin in those areas directly affected by the meltdown? And how long after the meltdown will rebuilding begin in those areas indirectly affected by the meltdown? (evacuation zone)
