<object width="416" height="374" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=world/2011/03/11/natpkg.tsunami.wrap.cnn" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><embed src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=world/2011/03/11/natpkg.tsunami.wrap.cnn" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="416" wmode="transparent" height="374"></embed></object>
Hearing reports that they are having trouble with a nuclear power plant damaged by the earthquake. Read they were going to release radiation vapor on purpose to ease the pressure in the reactor.
You're acting like we have somewhere to relocate them to ( and yes, Japan is mostly mountains. A middle schooler knows this about us.) Not to mention you're acting like we can relocate one of the three great cities of the world. If Americans can't do that with a scrub town like New Orleans, why would Japanese do it with Tokyo?
Ummm.. I'm not quite sure you understand the size of the Ring of Fire zone. Spoiler It covers the whole country. Moving inland might protect themselves from the tsunamis but not earthquakes. Also since Japan is a trade based economy heavily dependent on aquatic food resources moving 5 miles inland not only would be economically prohibitive it would be economically unsustainable.
Is it that hard for people to understand what I said was to move the majority of populated area a couple of kilometers inland? I understand some cities been around for many years. All I'm saying if they are to rebuild what if they build the populated more inland. This will lessen the damage from the tsunami but wouldn't do much against an earthquake. I'm pretty sure some part of Japan are already building they cities away from the coastline. I never mention about building cities in the mountain and all these idiots are quoting me.
That's all good and well, but this isn't 2085. We're still INCREDIBLY far away from that being a reality. Relocating one of the most populous regions on Earth is not nearly as simply as you're making it out to be, and entire infrastructures don't just get rerouted away from coastlines. There's a reason why major cities are almost always located near the water, and that's because shipping (export/import) is one of the most basic necessities mankind needs to survive. It's the way we can get goods to where we need to get them, and distributing supplies inland can be VERY costly and inefficient if you don't have the right infrastructure in place to handle that kind of influx. Of course Japan (and the rest of the world) will take measures to increase the safety and structural integrity in and around coastlines, but relocating is simply not something that's going to happen. Rebuilding is the only feasible solution.
this little pissing war you guys got needs to stop. Its offtopic to this thread, you want to discuss why countries build on coastlines(like the entire habitable part of Cali) then start a damn thread.
Yeah I know that. Maybe not 5 miles in but a kilometer in. I'm just thinking about the continuous cost to rebuild. I'm not saying moving everything inland. The business part such as shipping and stuff could still be built on or near the coastlines. I'm just thinking the cost of human life and the cost to rebuild if the large densities are built right on the coastline. It will at least lessen the damage from the tsunami.
Wow, not intending to make an insensitive comment but that reminds me of the episode on the Simpsons. Hoping the damages are minimal as possible..
+1 Casualties have exceeded 1,000 and you're flexing your e-muscles over something that shouldn't be relevant in this thread. Grow the **** up.
