its getting worse with the nuclear reactors, I hope nothing happens in that regard

welcome to:

===== http://www.clothes6.org  ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30

Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $15

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $15

New era cap $12

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $20

accept paypal and free shipping

====== http://www.clothes6.org ====

====== http://www.clothes6.org ====

====== http://www.clothes6.org ====

====== http://www.clothes6.org ====

http://www.clothes6.org

====== http://www.clothes6.org ====

Are you serious? Have you even read the OP?

I swear these guys just post blindly.

How bad is the damage? Is all of Japan like those pictures?

No the damage is mostly due to the tsunami which reached inland in a couple of places. Most of the earthquake damage is near the epicenter. Friends of ours do have a lot of mess to clean up inside but the building is fine. The news just shows the worst over and over again.

The rest of the country has plenty of problems though, all harbors on the east coast are likely wiped out, electricity is falling out and food and fuel supplies are getting low.

One thing I don't get is why would a country that has a very painful experience with nucleair fallout and a long history of massive earthquakes build a nucleair reactor near a populated area?

Why would any country anyway, Canada has one near Toronto. Why not put those things somewhere where nobody lives.

Support, maintenance, and energy transferance are going to be a lot easier when the reactor is closer to where people live - at least, I imagine that's the case.

Yup that's my guess too, in the end money is more important. Hydro-electric dams can be build in remote areas, just as geothermal power plants. But it's cheaper to be closer to exisiting infrastructure when you have a choice. Although if it was in a remote area it might have been a lot more difficult to send in emergency cooling equipment. (yet those should be on site if money was not a factor)

I found this an interesting read of the subject, it takes a long time to 'turn off' a reactor. http://theenergycollective.com/nathantemple/53384/how-shutdown-and-core-cooling-japanese-reactors-likely-functions

Earthquakes in Japan

1923: 7.9-magnitude, 143000 deaths

1927: 7.6-magnitude, 3000 deaths

1933: 8.4-magnitude, 3000 deaths

1943: 7.4 magnitude, 1200 deaths

1944: 8.1-magnitude, 1000 deaths

1945: 7.1-magnitude, 2000 deaths

1946: 8.1-magnitude, 1400 deaths

1948: 7.3-magnitude, 3800 deaths

1995: 6.9-magnitude, 5500 deaths

2011: 8.9-magnitude, 700 deaths so far.

So for having it's biggest earthquake in the last 100 years the death toll is amazingly good.

No, just the northeast coast of Honshu.

It seems like the meltdown is happening, but at a rate slow enough to not be catastrophic

Seconded.

Oh, and there's an estimated 10,000 killed now, it's been upped t a 9.0 in magnitude and Dale from Destructoid is also fine.

A lot of these big companies are based around the Tokyo/Kyoto area, and that wasn't hit too hard...

Thankfully. I hope everyone's OK though...