×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Fukushima Photo Essay: a Drone's Eye View

samzenpus posted about 9 months ago | from the eye-in-the-sky dept.

Japan 66

Hallie Siegel (2973169) writes "Here's stunning photos and incredible interactive aerial maps of the devastation, cleanup and reconstruction effort in the region around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Adam Klaptocz of Drone Adventures in collaboration with Taichi Furuhashi, researcher at the Center for Spatial Information Science at the University of Tokyo show the current state of the region."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The Long Road Home (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46646891)

Imagine telling a child that he or she can never return home to Tomioka because it has been turned into a storage facility for radioactive soil from other regions. Imagine the psychological devastation. It is time that we close the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant in California, which sits above multiple faults capable of producing the type of quake that destroyed Fukushima Daichi. What do you do with a parking lot full of radioactive topsoil?

Re:The Long Road Home (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 9 months ago | (#46646965)

Well, park my Ford Nucleon [wikipedia.org] and enjoy a refreshing Nuka-Cola, obviously!

Re:The Long Road Home (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 9 months ago | (#46648011)

and enjoy a refreshing Nuka-Cola

Does it contain real sugar? If so, count me in! I also bet that due to the contents of radioisotopes, they don't need chemical preservatives.

Re:The Long Road Home (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 9 months ago | (#46658787)

You might be surprised. I can't find non-paywalled versions (fuck you, Elsevier); but don't [doi.org] underestimate [doi.org] what even eukaryotes can survive, and select extremophilic bacteria are even tougher.

Tingely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46648537)

I just drank some Nuka-Cola. Is it supposed to tingle in my mouth like that? Is that how I know its working? Will I get addicted to this tingling sensation?

Re:The Long Road Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46646971)

Bury some Indians in there, then build an asylum on top of it.

Re:The Long Road Home (1)

abednegoyulo (1797602) | about 9 months ago | (#46647001)

You barium!

Re:The Long Road Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46649281)

U ranium. FTFY

Re:The Long Road Home (4, Interesting)

Jack Griffin (3459907) | about 9 months ago | (#46647007)

Imagine telling a child that he or she can never return home to Tomioka because it has been turned into a storage facility for radioactive soil from other regions. Imagine the psychological devastation.

How is that different from any other of the numerous locations that no longer exist either due to economic collapse, or development? I lived in a few places as a kid, none of which exist today. One suburb is now a shopping centre, another demolished to make a forest, and yet another a derelict small town with no economy, soon to be wiped off the map.

What do you do with a parking lot full of radioactive topsoil?

Move it to secure long term storage with lots of signs warning of danger. None of your FUD is really any great concern. Since 7 million people died this year from air pollution mainly from coal power stations, we'll probably do the same thing we do about that, ie not much, but certainly not get all scared about it.

Re:The Long Road Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46652161)

Because I can still walk through those other areas you mentioned, and decide to settle there if I choose to do so without being exposed to radiological contamination.

"another demolished to make a forest" - You can now go hiking here and wildlife has a refuge from your pasty cheeto stained carcass as it waddles from your Ford Excursion to the nearest rascal scooter. Be sure to pick up the extra pack of Mtn. Dew!

The Long Road is Home for some (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 9 months ago | (#46657383)

There's a band called the Bee Gees - some of the older slashdotters may have heard of them, but if not they were mostly responsible for the music in "Grease".
Anyway, they flew into Brisbane where a couple of them grew up. "How's it feel to be home" asked a journalist. "Home is this airport - home is buried under the end of that runway" answered one of the band. The entire suburb where he grew up was demolished for the airport.
As the saying goes, the past is a foreign country.

BTW - the "parking lot" bit above is sadly understating the problem. What do you do with something like enough radioactive topsoil to cover Manhatten may be more like it. At the scale being considered there's no point thinking about moving it (it becomes a large scale shallow mining operation) and instead in-situ solutions should be considered.

Re:The Long Road Home (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46647109)

Imagine telling a child that he or she can never return home to Tomioka because it has been turned into a storage facility for radioactive soil from other regions. Imagine the psychological devastation.

This is a great example of a knee-jerk reaction and "think of the children".

The child generally has less attachment to the old home than the adult. That kind of attachment comes with nostalgia.
Compare the psychological devastation between "There was a disaster so we are going to move and you and your friends are going to school in another part of town." compared to "I have a new job in another town so we have to move and leave all your friends behind."

Yep, that just happened, you brought up an example where a parent getting a new job is worse than a nuclear disaster.

Re:The Long Road Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46652191)

Tell that to the children I volunteered to teach right after this happened. You're a piece of shit. These kids have psychological and emotional issues as a result of having their entire lives tossed into turmoil. It is nothing like a parent moving into a new home for a new job you fucking moron.

Whoever modded you insightful is a fucking worthless human being.

I hope you and your children never have to experience watching classmates get washed away while your familial home where your family has lived for 10+ generations gets turned into a nuclear waste site.

They got put up in tiny cramped apartments in Tokyo and were given 150,000yen a month. Can you live in Tokyo on 150 bucks a month for a family of 4?

GTFO with this bullshit and and suck on your SUV exhaust pipe until your eyes roll back into your worthless empty skull you slimy cretin.

Re:The Long Road Home (3, Interesting)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 9 months ago | (#46647393)

Imagine telling a child that he or she can never return home to Tomioka because

Because what? It's one of:
* A nucler storage facility
* A windfarm
* A biomass farm
* Over a massive underground coal fire
* Astonishingly contaminated from mine tailings
* Buried under a massive slide of mine tailings which killed the child
* Overrun by an ash mudslide
* Dug up to get at tar sands
* etc

Energy usage is big, really big. This means that large areas of land will get put completely out of use. The end.

Magic nukular doesn't make it any more scary, but please WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN????!11!111omg!11onelevenONE11! OMG!!!

Nuclear is basically no worse than anything else for putting land out of action.

If you really want to think of the children, think how bad it will be for them to lose a parent. If you atually cared for the children rather than pushing your own agenda, you'd choose the power generation method least likely to render them parentless. That's nuclear which is better than all others in this regard by about an order of magnitude.

Re:The Long Road Home (3, Informative)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 9 months ago | (#46647647)

Imagine telling a child that he or she can never return home to Tomioka because it has been turned into a storage facility for radioactive soil from other regions. Imagine the psychological devastation.

Kids are a lot more resilient than that. My house burned down when I was a kid. We were left with nothing. Yeah, it sucked, but it was a life lesson. I can look back and see that life goes on.

It is time that we close the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant in California, which sits above multiple faults capable of producing the type of quake that destroyed Fukushima Daichi.

Wrong. The Tsunami caused the plant to fail, not the quake. In the case of Diablo, if there is no credible chance of a Tsunami inundating the plant, then it is fine. I can assure you it can well withstand a major quake.

Re:The Long Road Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46652213)

Did some of your friends die in front of your eyes, were your close relatives missing, their bodies never found? Seriously the ignorance on this site is astounding. IT janitors with autistic minds who think they're robotic brains can equate one situation to the other.

Fuck you, fuck BETA and fuck slashdot...we audi quattro bitches

I wonder what Godzooki and Godzilla think????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46651459)

Isnt it kinda strange that the said were the creation of some radioactive kerfuffle????

Pacific Seafood (-1, Troll)

issicus (2031176) | about 9 months ago | (#46646937)

I have one question, would you eat sushi in Hawaii?

Re:Pacific Seafood (2)

oobayly (1056050) | about 9 months ago | (#46646967)

Are you implying that cooking "kills" radionuclides?

Re:Pacific Seafood (1)

issicus (2031176) | about 9 months ago | (#46647003)

I live in hawaii , I fish here. I eat the fukin sushi. i'm implying would you eat it?

Re:Pacific Seafood (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46647101)

Yes. The ocean is big. There is a damn sight more radioactivity in the ocean from the rocks on the sea bed than from all of mankind's activity (pun intended). Unless you are fishing within sight of the reactor and then going back to Hawaii worry about something else.

Re:Pacific Seafood (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 9 months ago | (#46647411)

I have one question, would you eat sushi in Hawaii?

You mean with all that mercury contamination from coal burning? Well, cooking doesn't destroy mercury, so I guess sushi is no worse than a nice cooked fish.

The 1970s called (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 9 months ago | (#46657423)

The 1970s called and said they got that mercury thing under control with scrubbers.
There's not that many places where mercury is found at all and even fewer where it's with coal - the USA and those countries they exported coal to (eg. Japan in the 1960s) are lucky I guess :)

Re:Pacific Seafood (2)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 9 months ago | (#46647699)

I have one question, would you eat sushi in Hawaii?

Absolutely not. I hate sushi. I would not eat it on a plane, I would not eat it on a train.

But I'd eat most other kinds of seafood. I'd eat it in Hawaii and, I'd even it in Japan.

C Montgomery Burns for govenor! (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 9 months ago | (#46648361)

Would you eat shrimp in New Orleans?

Re:C Montgomery Burns for govenor! (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 9 months ago | (#46648593)

Mmmm...shrimp po-boys. Dressed, of course.

Well, now I know what I'm having for lunch.

Re:C Montgomery Burns for govenor! (1)

CreatureComfort (741652) | about 9 months ago | (#46650043)

If you live anywhere you can get a decent shrimp po-boy, you're a lucky bastard.

\\crying silently to myself over what Dallasites think a po-boy is.

Stunning? (5, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | about 9 months ago | (#46646997)

Perhaps you'd care to mention which photos you believe are stunning? They all look distinctly average to me.

Re:Stunning? (3, Funny)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 9 months ago | (#46647721)

Perhaps you'd care to mention which photos you believe are stunning? They all look distinctly average to me.

The ones where you see all that radiation.

Re:Stunning? (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 9 months ago | (#46647941)

Personally I was trying to find pictures taken from the drone. From what I can tell the pictures were taken on the ground of the drone and a bit of the countryside.

Re:Stunning? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46649939)

I thought the same. They used a $10000 drone to do aerial mapping, but a $50 point-and-shoot for the ground stills?

Katerina Tomara (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46647013)

And people want to make drones illegal because they're afraid of their "privacy" in a public place if photographers use drones to do street photography... sigh

Just to be clear (5, Insightful)

JanneM (7445) | about 9 months ago | (#46647021)

Just to be clear here: the devastation is all due to the tsunami, not to the reactor failure. Foreign media seem to often forget or ignore that the disaster was the earthquake and tsunami. That's what killed almost 20k people dead and destroyed the homes of many hundreds of thousands of people.

Re:Just to be clear (4, Interesting)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 9 months ago | (#46647081)

Just to be clear here: the devastation is all due to the tsunami, not to the reactor failure. Foreign media seem to often forget or ignore that the disaster was the earthquake and tsunami. That's what killed almost 20k people dead and destroyed the homes of many hundreds of thousands of people.

It seems to me that the root of the Fukushima disaster was the decision to build a nuclear power plant in a place where there was even the remotest chance of Tsunami damage. The government of a country whose history is littered with Tsunami disasters [wikipedia.org] should have known better. The design basis for tsunamis at Fukushima was 5.7 meters, it should have been: "Don't build a nuclear plant within 20-30km of the coast and even then put it on high ground" and keep in mind that this restriction does not account for earthquakes although the Fukushima plant survived a magnitude 7.7 quake rather well so at least in that regard it was better designed..

Re:Just to be clear (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46647167)

It seems to me that the root of the Fukushima disaster was the decision to build a nuclear power plant in a place where there was even the remotest chance of Tsunami damage.

No, the tsunami would have happened anyway and killed just as many people and caused complete devastation.
The big difference is that it wouldn't have gotten any media attention then. Just another tsunami in a country far far away.

Re:Just to be clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46647801)

It seems to me that the root of the Fukushima disaster was the decision to build a nuclear power plant in a place where there was even the remotest chance of Tsunami damage.

No, the tsunami would have happened anyway and killed just as many people and caused complete devastation.
The big difference is that it wouldn't have gotten any media attention then. Just another tsunami in a country far far away.

Yes, they would have gotten less media attention but at least if the plant had been built well inland the survivors would not have been irradiated on top of losing their houses and half of their family. The last two tragedies are bad enough without an entirely preventable radiation exposure being thrown on top of it. If I was a tsunami survivor in Japan Fukushima is what I'd be most pissed off about. It is hard to change the entire settlement pattern of Japan, laid down over centuries upon centuries, because of the tsunami threat but Fukushima was entirely, and easily preventable.

Re:Just to be clear (2)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 9 months ago | (#46647629)

It seems to me that the root of the Fukushima disaster was the decision to build a nuclear power plant in a place where there was even the remotest chance of Tsunami damage.

Yes, this is the fundamental mistake. Alternatively, it might better be described as, 'don't put a nuclear plant where a tsunami can affect it unless it is designed to handle it." In the case of Fukushima, you have a plant that was essentially under water, but not designed to operate under water. The result is quite easy to predict.

Re:Just to be clear (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 9 months ago | (#46649337)

Actually it has now emerged that the fatal damage was due to the earthquake, not the tsunami. They had equipment to cool the reactors and prevent a meltdown / hydrogen explosions, but it didn't work because the plumbing and monitoring systems were broken buy the quake.

Fukushima, like all Japanese nuclear plants, was only designed to withstand a magnitude 7.5 earthquake. It appears that no current or proposed design could cope with a magnitude 9 quake. This is why there is so much concern over newly discovered fault lines under other Japanese plants.

Re:Just to be clear (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 9 months ago | (#46649515)

Actually it has now emerged that the fatal damage was due to the earthquake, not the tsunami.

Sorry but this is completely fabricated. The safety systems in place were operable after the quake. The tsunami took out all backup power, leaving those safety systems useless.

There is a lot of margin in the seismic design. In reality, plants can handle a much higher seismic even than they are "rated for".

Re:Just to be clear (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 9 months ago | (#46650631)

NHK produced some good documentaries on this subject, you should watch them. The earthquake caused damage to some of the plumbing and the monitoring systems for some of the valves. Crucially a valve that water pumped in by fire engine pumps to cool the reactors was in the wrong position and they later discovered most of the water in a run-off tank. Had that valve been in the right position disaster could have been averted.

Re:Just to be clear (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 9 months ago | (#46650835)

Don't believe everything you see, or at least don't assume it gives you the whole picture. Safety systems have multiple backups. Simple failures as you described are not enough to disable the plants' ability to shutdown safely. Fire pumps are a last resort, they are not credited safety systems for shutting down a plant under any design accident scenarios, and therefore not necessarily designed to meet seismic requirements. They are their for fires. If you are down to your fire pumps for cooling, you've already lost the battle.

There were other nuclear units that got hit hard by the earthquake, all functioned as design and had no problems. Only the Fukushima units inundated by the tsunami had shutdown problems.

At Fukushima, the shutdown was occurring properly following the earthquake. Soon after that, the tsunami hit, taking out the emergency diesel generators and rendering the battery backup systems inoperable ( as they were flooded.) This lack of power left no working safety systems for heat removal even though they were otherwise physically intact and able to perform their function after the quake. What happened after the tsunami is exactly what you would expect to happen with all those systems unavailable.

Re:Just to be clear (1)

tp1024 (2409684) | about 9 months ago | (#46648833)

It seems to me that the root of the Tohoku Tsunami disaster was the decision to build cities in a places where there was even the remotest chance of Tsunami damage. The government of a country whose history is littered with Tsunami disasters [wikipedia.org] should have known better. The design basis for tsunamis at cities along the Tohoku coast was about 5.7 meters, it should have been: "Don't build a city plant within 20-30km of the coast and even then put it on high ground"

You know, it's just people. People can die. Tens of thousands can die. Nobody cares. They're just dead man.

But radioactivity. Now that is something different. That is terrible!

Re:Just to be clear (1)

nojayuk (567177) | about 9 months ago | (#46650487)

Actually the tsunami defences along the Tohoku coast were a lot lower than the 5-metre high seawalls at Fukushima Daiichi, where defences existed at all of course. Lots of towns still don't have that much in the way of sea walls in place, Itami for instance.

Onomichi, a little seaside town in Japan I visit regularly has tsunami defence walls about a metre high with access gates through them to the piers and quays oceanside. The only change I've seen there since the 2011 tsunami are notices telling people not to park blocking the seagates so they can be closed in an emergency. Life goes on, Nihon.

Re:Just to be clear (1)

tp1024 (2409684) | about 9 months ago | (#46656653)

Why is it that everytime I think I'm being unfair to the Japanese I find out that I'm actually not?

Seriously, why do the Japanese put up with that shit? Whole cities are being destroyed left and right, thousands die - not just in the Tohoku earthquake, but also the Kanto, the Great Hanshin and the dozen or so large earthquakes in the last century? If they are so serious about their fear for the lives as they seem to be regarding radiation, then why not about earthquakes, which isn't a risk, but merely the next catastrophe waiting to happen in a place like Japan?

Can I write a sentence that isn't a question? Yes.

Re:Just to be clear (1)

nojayuk (567177) | about 9 months ago | (#46659243)

How well would, say, California today cope with a large tsunami with peak heights of up to 15 metres? What are its sea defences like, are folks willing to pay billions or trillions of dollars to pay for installing and upgrading precautions against a once-in-a-millenium event?

Japan gets earthquakes like the Mississippi valley gets tornadoes, they plan for them, their building codes are written around them and as a result few people die even in a large earthquake. Tokyo experienced the equivalent of a Richter 7.1 during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake, I think one person was killed when a section of interior roof fell on top of her. That's not bad for earth movements greater than, say, the 1994 Northridge earthquake in California which killed more than 50 people.

Re:Just to be clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46650727)

It seems to me that the root of the Tohoku Tsunami disaster was the decision to build cities in a places where there was even the remotest chance of Tsunami damage. The government of a country whose history is littered with Tsunami disasters [wikipedia.org] should have known better. The design basis for tsunamis at cities along the Tohoku coast was about 5.7 meters, it should have been: "Don't build a city plant within 20-30km of the coast and even then put it on high ground"

You know, it's just people. People can die. Tens of thousands can die. Nobody cares. They're just dead man.

But radioactivity. Now that is something different. That is terrible!

Some disasters can't be prevented but they can be minimized. It's pretty hard to move thousands of towns, villages and cities or harden them all against tsunamis. It is rather easy by comparison to shut down a vulnerable power-plant and build a new one in a safer place thus preventing thousands of people from getting irradiated in the event of a tsunami on top of losing their homes and family. It's just common sense.

Re:Just to be clear (1)

Solandri (704621) | about 9 months ago | (#46652831)

It seems to me that the root of the Fukushima disaster was the decision to build a nuclear power plant in a place where there was even the remotest chance of Tsunami damage.

Actually, the nuclear plant survived the earthquake and tsunami with relatively little damage. The root of the disaster was failure to design the backup power sources for the cooling systems to also survive such events. They put the generators and fuel source for backup power in a location where they could all be wiped out by a single event (a tsunami). If the reactor had had a way to shunt power it was generating back to the pumps driving its cooling system, there would have been no disaster. The reactor probably would have had to be written off anyway because it sounds like some of the concrete containment was cracked by the quake. But they would have scrammed the reactor followed by a controlled shutdown, defueling, and decommissioning. There would have been no meltdown and no leakage of radionuclides.

Re:Just to be clear (4, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 9 months ago | (#46647483)

Much of the damage is due to the fact that no-one has been living there to maintain the environment for a few years and nature has started to take over again. Plant roots and branches, blocked drains, storm damage etc.

Re:Just to be clear (1)

severn2j (209810) | about 9 months ago | (#46649137)

Just to be clear here: the devastation is all due to the tsunami, not to the reactor failure. Foreign media seem to often forget or ignore that the disaster was the earthquake and tsunami. That's what killed almost 20k people dead and destroyed the homes of many hundreds of thousands of people.

Seems like TFA forgot that too.

Quote - "Tomioka is the closest thing we have ever seen to a nuclear wasteland."

Except it isnt, its an earthquake and tsunami wasteland..

To be clearer - don't take us all as idiots (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 9 months ago | (#46657467)

Foreign media seem to often forget or ignore that the disaster was the earthquake and tsunami

Please be serious - EVERYONE knows about the tsunami and it was in ALL of the media. The only difference here is the nuclear aspect is a new story that the press is talking about for a lot longer than than this tsunami or any of the others.
I really do not get why you are pretending the tsunami was not big news that everyone heard about. Pretending we are all idiots to push some "don't pick on the nukes" barrow is unpleasant.
It's real, people are talking about it, get used to it. If you want to push the "nuclear is not so dangerous as this makes it look" perhaps focus on the bad choices made in this place that made it worse than it could have been. The entire tsunami damage to nuclear plant incident could have been a non-event or a dodged bullet. However it wasn't, so that is why it is still news.

Haiti... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46647163)

It's funny how the Japanese were able to clear up their own country after the tsunami, but Haitians couldn't clean up THEIR own country after the earthquake.

Can anybody explain?

Re:Haiti... (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about 9 months ago | (#46647419)

Yen.

Next question.

Re:Haiti... (1)

QuantumPion (805098) | about 9 months ago | (#46647811)

Tragedy of the commons [wikipedia.org] . In Japan, people own their land and property. In Haiti, there is no private property rights. No one bothers to care and maintain things that belong to someone else or could be taken away from them at any time.

Who's going to cash in on this? (1)

pinzvidz (3520933) | about 9 months ago | (#46647247)

Run bus tours in the Fukushima district like they do through Pripyat.

Re:Who's going to cash in on this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46648581)

Turn the aerial views into a video game. Make sure to include some zombies.

Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46647651)

Does anybody have a link to these "stunning" and "incredible" images?

Anti-nuclear power hype (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46647817)

"Tomioka is the closest thing we have ever seen to a nuclear wasteland. The town is on the coast, only 10 km south of Fukushima Daiichi, and it has yet to be cleared of damage caused by both the Tohoku earthquake and the subsequent tsunami."

Why nuclear wasteland, when there is no sign of any damage caused by anything nuclear?

Re:Anti-nuclear power hype (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46648159)

Because it sounds scary and people will spend time gasping at how horrible the devastation is, without stopping to even remember the earthquake and huge wall of water that swept across the town.

Re:Anti-nuclear power hype (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 9 months ago | (#46648535)

The first one was knocked down by an earthquake.
But we built it again!
That one was knocked down by an earthquake and was washed away by a tsunami.
But we built it again! That one was knocked down by an earthquake and was washed away by a tsunami and the remains irradiated by several nuclear reactor meltdowns!
But we built it again!
And that's what you're getting Alex, the strongest vault in all the land!

Re:Anti-nuclear power hype (1)

sysrammer (446839) | about 9 months ago | (#46650607)

Yeah. It reminds me of...

"...and the wolf came along and blew the house of straw away. So the second little pig built his house of wood, and..." etc.

One moral of the story is "Learn from your mistakes and build it better", and not "Oh no, there was a mistake, we must quit building."

Re:Anti-nuclear power hype (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46652279)

Because it's in a radioactive exclusion zone fuck head!
If it was "just" a tsunami and earthquake it would have been rebuilt mostly by now and fortified seawalls would have been erected in low lying areas.
Japan has a hard-on for construction and infrastructure the likes of you will never, ever see in america where the best you can get is a shitty home depot shack built by the finest illegal mexicans slave wages can procure.

Fuck you. Fuck Beta. Fuck Slashdot.

Kidd of Speed - Japan edition! (1)

ricomputers (2482256) | about 9 months ago | (#46649521)

I can't help but think of the old Kidd of Speed hoax. The long awaited season 2 brings you......Japan!

Not a drone (2)

Oceanplexian (807998) | about 9 months ago | (#46649941)

That's not a drone.

It's a small EPP foam toy flying wing. You can build one for about $150 in parts. I'm astounded that people put the same label to these things and small multicopters that they do to a Predator Drone, for example.

Re:Not a drone (1)

sysrammer (446839) | about 9 months ago | (#46650613)

"These are not the drones you're looking for"

Re:Not a drone (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 9 months ago | (#46657517)

Any RC control model plane is a "drone" these days just as fine powder in your toothpaste or sunscreen is "nanotechnology".
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?