Have you seen the reports here:

http://www.meti.go.jp/english/

I think we should keep in mind the example of the Titanic not having enough life boats because it was unsinkable.

Maybe there is no sufficient level of safety. How safe was the three mile island plant or the Chernobyl plant?

It was not my intent to suggest that any reactor is spewing out radiation.

I stated:
“Is the plant spewing out dangerous radiation right now? This would seem to be not the case. Is that because of careful planning? No, more like dumb luck.”

This can be read the following way.

Was there a serious leakage of radiation? Is there one now?
No to both questions. (As far as I know …)
Was that because of careful planning on the part of TEPCO?
No, it was not.
Then why wasn’t there a serious leak?
Dumb luck. The plant held together despite not being prepared for such a strong quake, and because the quake wasn’t even stronger than it could have been.

I was attempting to be a bit caustic in my phrasing, but it was not my intent to suggest that radiation was currently spewing from the facility.

I’m sincerely sorry if that’s the way you took it.

I’m no apologist for the nuclear power industry and this latest accident brings Japan’s energy industry into serious question. Japan can’t hope to generate a good potion of its power via nuclear means unless is stops with the cover ups and comes clean with the public.

The media reported that the plant was designed to withstand a 6.5 earthquake. Wouldn’t that be the maximum then?

The plant did withhold a 6.8 earthquake, but that was just good fortune, right? Would the result have been the same if the quake had been 6.9 or 7.0? I don’t know. I’m assuming that if the plant was designed to withstand a 6.5 quake, no one knows. This is what I regard as the problem.

Is there any information out there that says the plant would be able to withstand something greater than a 6.5 earthquake?

Whether I am hysterical or not is not relevant to the issue. I’ve quoted newspaper articles that make the following claims:

1. The plant was made to withstand a 6.5 quake.
2. The quake that struck was 6.8.
3. A lawsuit seeking to revoke TEPCO’s permit formed its basis on the claim there was an active fault near by. The Tokyo High Court rejected this claim.
4. We are now being told that this claim or one like is actually true.

Rather than concern yourself over my psychological state, please give me a link to some information that contradicts any of the above.

Does it not stand to reason that if the plant was built to endure a 6.5 quake and the quake had been a 7, we might now be facing a more serious problem?