It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Japan nuclear plant atop likely active quake fault

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:44 PM

An earthquake fault under a nuclear plant in western Japan is "highly likely" active, meaning the two-reactor facility will probably be closed permanently, a panel of experts reported Monday. The draft report on the Tsuruga generating station, in Fukui prefecture, was commissioned by the country's Nuclear Regulation Authority. The panel discovered in December that Unit 2 sits atop a "crush zone" of small rocks and sediment that could move with a major fault, the Urazoko, which lies just 600 to 1,000 feet from the reactors. "If new knowledge is obtained, the judgment could be reviewed. However, at least at this point, the fault at the plant site is highly likely an active fault that needs to be considered in terms of seismic design," the report said, according toThe Japan Times. A fault is defined as being active if it has moved within the past 120,000 to 130,000 years, though regulators are planning to extend that back to 400,000 years. Last week, the NRA tightened a safety "guideline" by expressly forbidding the industry from putting reactors or cooling equipment on active faults.

Isn't the whole country on a fault line? But seriously, let's get that one closed

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:00 PM
the are are many nuke plants in the US like this.. some in California
Apparently, Geologists were no where to be found when they were looking for sites..
Or just paid to keep their mouths shut

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:06 PM
S&F what can i say?
People are greedier than they are stupid i think.......

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:27 PM
maybe they use the movement to shake up the nuclear fuel.

posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 01:05 AM
Actually the Oi or Ohi, nuke plant depending on how you want to spell it, which is right next door to Monju and Tusuruga, has 9 earthquake faults under it, but they Think, [Famous last words] that only one might wake up.

I'm sure we all feel safer now!

posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 12:13 PM
What kind of moron builds a nuke over a fault line?
The older I get, the more I don't think there are TPTB, only the who pocketed the bribe.
If there are TPTB, then there are groups of them and not one faction is in control yet.
Kind of like a corporate mafia turf war.

posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:15 PM
reply to post by winterkill

With this mega disaster in play, a lot of noboby's [like us] have been digging into the insanity that has brought us to this point. With the web, we meet all kinds of others who are doing the same. Now everyone comes from a different work background, different life experience so they all have different skills to add to the pot. Because of this and everybody talking, kicking ideas around, we've all learned so much more than our "leaders" [That's a good one eh?] would ever want us to learn. There is nothing more dangerous than a sharp public. I've seen the work of crackpots who are genius's, and genius experts who are crackpots at best, lying criminals at worst.
Now to your question.
What kind of idiot would put a nuclear bomb that is constantly detonating, 24/7 just to boil water, on an EQ fault?
Are they all built on EQ faults intensionally?
This artical says no.
I've seen information to the contrary, so I'm not convinced.
What if in the design specks, they had to be placed in areas where the vibration harmonics could dissapate, or else they would shake themselves into meltdown? What if old EQ faults were the only place they could run?
You couldn't tell the public.
Are there any nuke plants that aren't on EQ faults? They say there are but maybe they don't count old sleeping faults?
The one in my area is on an active eq fault line [The Ottawa river], and guess what? The Chalk River nuke plant is not shown on the EQ map for my area. Either is the town of Deep River beside the nuke plant. [Must be a simple oversite, eh?] I've seen a 3.2 hit right under the plant, but if you didn't know the geography, you'd think the episcenter was in the forest.

Shouldn't my EQ map show the three EQ faults in my area and the nuke plant, right on this map?
There is so much deliberate deception by our own watchdogs, all I can say is google up your own area geology. Find out where the faults are. Check it against the location of your local nuke plants.
It's the only way you'll know for sure. Most folks won't make the effort.
My area has much higher cancer and autism rates than the average.
I know why.
Fukushima raining down from the jet stream will just add to it in years to come.

posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 08:27 PM
thanks for that research, it adds some good fodder to the conversation.

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:27 AM

Originally posted by winterkill
What kind of moron builds a nuke over a fault line?

As already mentioned, the whole of Japan is seismically active. Where would you have them build reactors?

posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 01:12 PM

Originally posted by winterkill
Isn't the whole country on a fault line? But seriously, let's get that one closed
The whole country is in the red shaded area on this map, which is identified as the Pacific Ring of Fire:

The Pacific Ring of Fire, or just Ring of Fire for short, is an area where a large number of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions occur in the basin of the Pacific Ocean. In a 40,000 km (25,000 mi) horseshoe shape, it is associated with a nearly continuous series of oceanic trenches, volcanic arcs, and volcanic belts and/or plate movements. The Ring of Fire has 452 volcanoes and is home to over 75% of the world's active and dormant volcanoes...

About 90% of the world's earthquakes and 81% of the world's largest earthquakes occur along the Ring of Fire.
So, regarding your "but seriously..." statement, it's not that far off. Japan has so many fault lines that it's probably hard to find locations that are not within some distance of a fault line.

Originally posted by Alekto
As already mentioned, the whole of Japan is seismically active. Where would you have them build reactors?
I suppose if there's no safe place to build reactors, then perhaps don't build any? Burn coal instead perhaps? I'm not saying that's definitely the case...there may be some places in Japan that are relatively safe, but it's probably a challenge to find such sites.
edit on 14-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: added reply to Alekto

new topics

top topics


log in