in the places that they have looked at so far (which was difficult because of all the moister i.e. "steam"). They also confirmed that there was no water where they had been claiming the water level was, so they just say "oh, the water level must just be a couple more meters down . . ."

This, plus your comment, supports the notion that this is not a scientific endeavor that we are observing but a propaganda one . . . The most optimistic view that cannot be unproven at the moment becomes the assumed truth up until the point reality slams into it, and then they retreat to the next most optimistic view. This is all "Baghdad Bob," and those who are buying into it do so because they are either extremely naive or are part of the propaganda machine.

You do realize that at 3M they sealed things for 7 and a half years before investigating (claiming no fuel had melted the whole time). In contrast, the Japanese government is already drilling holes in reactors less than a year later in desperation. Nothing to see here folks, no cause for alarm . . . RIGHT. . .

There are examples of people who have been very absusive to their bodies and yet lived long, healthy lives (Ossy, anyone?). There are other people who seem to be cautious enough, yet deal with various health issues. Having better information up front about one's own genetic risks allows for better decisions based on reality, not "professional" opinions founded on years of "experience" of observing the outputs of a very complicated black box by your doctor.

Bottom line, DNA is the source code of how our bodies work. Some may think it is pretty useless at this point, but we will only truly understand its value once we understand it. Most of science works like this . . .

Japan is extremely efficient and wastes little. That makes contamination containment a lot more difficult. I doubt any comprehensive high level mapping of the interactive supply chains exist, but that is what will need to be created to really contain anything. Concrete is a nice dead-end, at least for however long the structure will last. However, how will they dispose of these structures without reintroducing radioactive dust into the atmosphere again?

I think the Fukushima accident will show that the NRC and all other similar regulators have grossly, grossly underestimated the amount of intricate planning and updating of plans is required to prepare for such accidents. Costs of maintaining such plans will be the enormous but insignificant to the costs of not having a viable plan when an accident does occurs.

When there are still questions regarding how much radioactive material is still being spewed out and contaminated debris is being incinerated (and reintroduced into the atmosphere) through-out the country, I would have to say that concrete is a safer place to have radioactive contamination. At least it is better than the lungs, kidneys, and other vital organs . . . which is much harder to measure and remains one of the great unknowns of this crisis.

Using an API with an established service and creating your own solution with open source are two very different things that are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Rather than open API vs Open Source, I think it would more be about using someone else's system vs creating your own. There will always be situations why picking one over the other will be advantageous. However, this has more to do with the goals of the project than one method being superior to the other.

A couple of schools next to my house have sent invoices for millions of dollars in "decontamination" fees (which usually consists of washing the radioactive contamination down the drain to the water treatment plant with high power hoses . . . with minimal results). Guess how much they have received so far? I think the schools would get paid before I would, and personally, I do not feel comfortable trying to compete for money that could help reduce the exposure to the kids in my neighborhood. Irregardless, the money is just not there and probably will not be fore decades, if that.

Even YOUR link says 250 Billion. Plus, that is back in June. Everything about this disaster gets bigger as time goes by and more reality slowly seeps out. Besides, I think a professor at the most prestigous university in Japan carries more weight than "some private think tank." Finally the 20km radius buy-up is complete BS. The contamination is way higher in many areas outside of that arbitrary circle around the plant. There are non-contiguous hot spots all over Kanto. But, by all means, keep up your claims of this all being "nuclear hysteria" on the victims' part. I am sure the industry is depending on your ilk to keep costs down by blaming the victims. After all my family and I have been through, go ahead and continue your hard work to minimize the situation to fuck us over some more. I am sure your Duke Energy investment is certainly worth it . . .

Funny, but I would expect most Japanese citizens at this point no longer look at those as big assets but as big ticking bombs. Fukushima Dai-ichi will inevitably cost astronomically more than its book value was at the time of the accident. But here we are talking all about Japan, while your precouis US nuke industry is facing significant hardship. How are you going to convince Japan to stay with nukes, when your own country's nuclear industry is floundering?

So you are saying we need . . . some one from the nuke industry, right? This is not an engineering failure report, this is a governance failure report. The engineers do what management tells them or they get walking. This is an investigation of management's decisions.

Again, see the above. The engineering aspect of this accident is actually quite simple and what could be modeled by the engineers already has been (though, the accuracy of those models will take, at least, decades to confirm). The decisions by management, however, have just started to become scrutinized. This a governance issue, as the crisis had already reached the limits of engineering within days after the earthquake.

How is having to give up a 450K USD house and 160K USD/ year job NOT slaughter!? I am sure the turkey is most confident of its arrangement the day before it is slaughtered for Thanksgiving. You just don't know when Thanksgiving is coming, turkey.

Very cryptic . . . are you saying that "harm your society" is the closing down of nuclear plants, the very thing that is causing these people to suffer in the first place!? I am afraid this is another ass-hat comment from you. One more, and I will have to start referring to you as "ass-hat turkey."

Seriously, are you even debating at this point? Why do I feel like I am watching a monkey fling his own feces at a zoo's observation window? This is seizure invoking juvenility. Again . . . we go down the long rabbit hole of a thread, and towards the end you forget to take your medication or something. Come on!

What error? You are the one trying to state that unsophisticated ("poorly developed") arguments can be accurate and correct. Would one not measure the sophistication of an argument using criteria including accuracy and correctness? You love taking the indefensible positions, don't you?

Overall Japan land prices have not only been crashing since the accident (see ORIX), land in Fukushima and the surrounding prefectures appears to no longer be marketable (even the liquid "mansion" apartments. My friend has one 10 minutes from my house, and even though he was offered 30% above the price he paid before the accident, he cannot even sell it now with a 15% discount from what he paid . . . after 8 months being on the market).

If you think land prices are overpriced post-accident, you must be admitting that the reaction to the fallout so far is too optimistic and is not "nuclear hysteria". So you have had a change of heart?

Fines for what damages? According to you and your ilk there are no damages from Fukushima and everyone is just caught up in "nuclear hysteria." Besides, did you not see the estimate of proper compensation of the victims would at least be 10 Trillion USD!? Japan would cease to exist if it actually took proper responsibility for the accident. This is the uncoverable risk of nuclear power, destroyer of nations.

Chinese blockades, eh? Seriously? You might be aware of this, but the U.S. has purposedly placed enough troops in both South Korea and Japan so that if China were ever to even build up its navy in a threatening way (much less form a blockade . . .), there would be domestic political support for WWIII. At which point, you get your foundest wish, and the entire world goes nuclear (though, for just a short amount of time).

Besides, China is not stupid. The proper way to form a blockade these days is to monopolize something (like rare earths, or even Uranium), and then at some point say you are not going to sell anymore. Nukes made market power the weapon of choice for trade disputes.

I would think a pro-nukie like yourself would be aware of this fact. There are already lawsuits and local government demands to start immediate decomissions of at least a dozen reactors. And all that was BEFORE this damning report came out. Strange how reality works, isn't it? Perhaps perceptions can be swayed in the short-term, but eventually everyone is going to have to deal with it. Even those intent on denial until the bitter end.

Who said anything about oil being "bad?" On the contrary, I attribute our technological progress up until recent times primarily due to cheap, easy to reach fossil fuel based energy. Must you create such a weak straw-man to discuss this topic?

Fossil fuel is finite and creates pollution when used. Both these characteristics do have measurable, scientifically observable costs (specifically speaking, "externalities") that the vast majority for which producers have never had to bear. This is, undeniably, a form of a subsidy. Therefore, (assuming all else equal) NOT subsidizing alternatives that do not have the same externalities would simply not be rational economic policy.

Assuming you are now referring to a national "energy independence" policy, the economics for doing so by fossil fuels just are not there unless you are talking about countries like Saudi Arabia. This is simply a comparative advantage and international trade economics exercise and has nothing to do with "oil is bad" straw-man arguments.