swan_tower (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
swan_tower) wrote2011-03-15 11:38 am
swan_tower) wrote2011-03-15 11:38 am
Entry tags:
This is what preparedness looks like.
A really good post laying out the basics of Japan's response to the earthquake and tsunami.
The thing we need to bear in mind (other than the fact that Japan is a very long country, and most parts of it are hundreds of miles from the epicenter) is that there is no place in the world better-prepared for seismic trouble than Japan. Read through that post. Read about the checklists. Read about the architecture and the failsafes and the emergency warning systems. This is still a tragedy and a disaster, and no amount of human planning can completely mitigate that; ultimately, the planet is stronger than we are. But this would be a much larger tragedy and disaster if they hadn't been ready for it. (Even the situation at the Fukushima reactors isn't as bad as it could have been, though I can't confirm if the writer of that post is right about the scale of leakage there. I hope he is.)
Remember this, the next time some politician in your locality or nation proposes cutting funding for emergency preparedness, be it earthquake, tornado, hurricane, volcano, blizzard, or whatever. It's an easy cut to make in the short term, when you're trying to make a political point about "fiscal responsibility." But I put that inside sarcasm quotes because what you're really doing is gambling that nothing bad is really going to happen, and sooner or later, you lose that bet. Japan knows better than to gamble on that; they're home to some absurdly high percentage of the world's earthquakes. But other countries -- like the U.S. -- aren't so sensible, and places like New Orleans pay the bill.
I want to be more like Japan. I live in California, and I want to believe my state is equally ready for when the Hayward Fault blows. But I don't think we are.
The thing we need to bear in mind (other than the fact that Japan is a very long country, and most parts of it are hundreds of miles from the epicenter) is that there is no place in the world better-prepared for seismic trouble than Japan. Read through that post. Read about the checklists. Read about the architecture and the failsafes and the emergency warning systems. This is still a tragedy and a disaster, and no amount of human planning can completely mitigate that; ultimately, the planet is stronger than we are. But this would be a much larger tragedy and disaster if they hadn't been ready for it. (Even the situation at the Fukushima reactors isn't as bad as it could have been, though I can't confirm if the writer of that post is right about the scale of leakage there. I hope he is.)
Remember this, the next time some politician in your locality or nation proposes cutting funding for emergency preparedness, be it earthquake, tornado, hurricane, volcano, blizzard, or whatever. It's an easy cut to make in the short term, when you're trying to make a political point about "fiscal responsibility." But I put that inside sarcasm quotes because what you're really doing is gambling that nothing bad is really going to happen, and sooner or later, you lose that bet. Japan knows better than to gamble on that; they're home to some absurdly high percentage of the world's earthquakes. But other countries -- like the U.S. -- aren't so sensible, and places like New Orleans pay the bill.
I want to be more like Japan. I live in California, and I want to believe my state is equally ready for when the Hayward Fault blows. But I don't think we are.
no subject
As of now the radiation levels at the plant have risen well beyond the levels the writer quotes, but the rate isn't constant and the levels have been decreasing between bursts of venting the reactors. Outside the immediate area of the plant levels are still far below the level of the exposure gained on an international flight (as of this second on NHK, they're quoting 23.72 microSieverts in Iwaki city in Fukushima; the flight from Tokyo to New York carries an exposure of 190 microSieverts).
no subject
I have no doubt that the people at the Fukushima plant are taking a very bad hit, and like the emergency workers at Chernobyl, I'm awed to the point of tears by their courage. I hope it brings success, and they save the surrounding area from anything worse.
no subject
The thing about using Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as your range is that there's a very wide range in there. I don't think it's possible for Fukushima to get as bad as Chernobyl, and the longer Tepco can keep it together, the less likely that becomes.
no subject
I don't know if it can get as bad as Chernobyl -- it worries me that there are multiple reactors in trouble -- but I hope the various problems get under control soon.