Japan crisis - the worlds economic outlook?

Element47

purch wrote: »

If Japan did follow that course of action, then the effect on economic stability, and currency stability would be huge.

But they won't.

Interesting you said that Purch then they just added another trillion or so units of fiat currency to the worlds supply.

The outlook is still pretty grim about the impact on the so called worldwide 'recovery' or I prefer to use the word cover -up.

Purch are you still so sure they wont follow Americas lead in adding trillions more units of fiat currency?

vivatifosi

ninky wrote: »

it's not an overreaction it's an rational reaction. the engineering and science behind the plants in japan is pretty much the best it gets. and as it happens the best it gets has not been good enough.

The issue is with a 40 year old nuclear plant, part of which was due to be decomissioned anyway. The more modern plants have borne up well to all accounts, to the extent that people used them as shelters. If people wanted to develop a plant here to 40 year old standards I'd be worried, if they wanted to build them to the same as current Japanese reactors, when we don't have the same earthquake issues, I'd be pretty happy.

StevieJ wrote: »

Reminds me of a tale relating to the laying of a pipeline from Scotland to the North West, when they were doing the consultations someone in Lockerbie (which was on the route) asked what would happen if a plane were to crash onto it, the suggestion was obviously dismissed out of hand.

I lived 1 mile away from Buncefield when it blew up (have moved since) and we were always worried that the pipeline would cause wider explosions under the town. The cut-offs worked really well, even though houses suffered blast damage from the tank explosions. Personally I'm not very happy at the plant being reopened before the enquiry was finished and without reparations being made to the town by big oil, but I was very reassured by how well the pipelines worked.

DervProf

ninky wrote: »

it's not an overreaction it's an rational reaction. the engineering and science behind the plants in japan is pretty much the best it gets. and as it happens the best it gets has not been good enough.

we've been told by the nuclear industry that nuclear power plants can withstand earthquakes and every conceivable event. but what about the inconceivable (or barely conceivable) events such as this one?

We are told that modern airplanes are safe.

Cars have lots of safety features.

Trains never crash, do they ?

The point is that there are risks to our lives in lots of the things we do. We do not stop doing those things, as the rewards far outweigh the risks. I'd say that the rewards from nuclear power are enough to make us want to continue using it, especially as oil reserves are going to run out in the not too distant future.

Generali

Perhaps the trouble with nuclear vs gas or coal is that mining and drilling tends to claim people regularly in their ones and twos, perhaps a dozen or so at the worst: in the US alone there were apparently 100,000 deaths from coal mining in the C20th (link), 5,000 miners died in China in 2006 (link)

Nuclear very rarely kills but when it does hundreds or thousands die.

So is the spectacular death of thousands a decade worse than the mundane deaths of thousands a year?

Element47

bo_drinker wrote: »

The dust has almost settled there I suppose............... !!!!!!, Now how will this affect me mentality has kicked in.

One of the many reasons I don't come on this site.

And as somebody already said here the average person(you and me) cannot hope to grasp the full sclae horror this is causing for the Japanese people I will pray for them and hope this gets resolved in not too long a time, and this disaster has promted me to look at my own life a bit more carefully and i am preparing a bug out bag in case of emergencey now. We 'may' not have Earthquakes in the UK but terrorists or anything else could happen.

To see those stores stripped in such a short time with panic buying. I always want to have emergancy provisions on hand at all times.

Also has anyone else noticed the paper price of gold and silver falling while the price of real bullion is shooting up?

Is this it, the long predicted rush out of paper promises of bullion and into real?

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

Perhaps the trouble with nuclear vs gas or coal is that mining and drilling tends to claim people regularly in their ones and twos, perhaps a dozen or so at the worst: in the US alone there were apparently 100,000 deaths from coal mining in the C20th (link), 5,000 miners died in China in 2006 (link)

Nuclear very rarely kills but when it does hundreds or thousands die.

So is the spectacular death of thousands a decade worse than the mundane deaths of thousands a year?

it's not just the human deaths it's the deformities and land and environmental damage.

of course fossil fuels are not the alternative to nuclear. i wonder how many deaths there have been from solar panels.....

ninky_2

new zealand uses 70 percent renewable sources of power. then of course they have a sensible population density that the rest of us would be wise to emulate.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

i wonder how many deaths there have been from solar panels.....

I wouldn't like my life support machine to be hooked up to one at night!

There has been a serious study apparently of using only solar in Aus. The energy would be stored in molten salt at night in the model used. It would cost about AU$350,000,000,000 over 10 years for Australia to produce all of the energy she needs AIUI.

Element47

Back on topic, isnt Japan one of the biggest buyers of US bonds? Dont think they will be buying many more in the short to mid term. Looking more likely they start selling !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What impact on the 'recovery'?

Its ok though the US will soon start QE3 and add trillions more units of fiat currency and start buying up its bonds

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

I wouldn't like my life support machine to be hooked up to one at night!

What a scary thought! Please don't flatline on us Gen!

The problem with an alternative to fossil fuels whether nuclear, wind, biomass, solar, whatever is that in and of themselves they can never be the solution.

What we do need is a more broad view where we use the most appropriate source of energy available. So more solar, more wind, more nuclear, more ground source, a bit of everything. The problem is because fossil fuels have until now been the solution we look too often at one alternative. Realistically we'll need to use all of the alternatives to some extent or the other. It's more like doing a puzzle.