What is worse than earthquake and a tsunami ?.

A Nuclear power plant meltdown.

Which may still be possible in Japan, subsequent to this catastrophic event.

Fuel rods were exposed to the air according to the official response from Japanese Gov't and Industry sources. This power plant, built in 1970, most probably doesn't comply with todays building regulations in Japan. Schools out on information regarding the upgrades over time this nuclear facility has received, but regardless my question is;

"whats worse, than an earthquake?.

Answer: a nuclear meltdown resulting in pollution that cannot be cleaned away like the mud and debris of a tsunami.

There has been an explosion at Fukushima No 1 nuclear power plant. There are reports that the roof has blown off.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/12/3162450.htm

Ten THOUSAND people have been ordered to leave area within 10k's of plant that exploded. Smoke and explosions in a nuclear plant is nothing BUT bad.

That sets back the "safe nuclear energy" debate back by the bucket load. No thanks, from me.

Why on earth would we want to use nuclear in Oz?

With everything we now about the non existence of CO2 induced global warming, why would we want to use anything but coal?

WHATS worse?
a dictator
using 50,000 isreaLIE RECRUTED
AFRICAN MERCENARIES ..TO MURDER HIS 'OWN' PEOPLE

the silence is deafening
he says he isnt any official capacity
that would require him to resign...thats funny..he was in the army
still runs an army..has gone rogue..yet other armies stand there useless

funny that

by the by
japan knew it was going to have a big one
thats nature

san francisco KNOWS the big one is comming
you cant stop nature [or fools]

but we can chose to takeout a dictator
but not if your under orders ..from an ubber sepperatist state
that swears god gave them the land[talk about farries in a garden]

anyhow there are worse things than death
like being ruled by fools who love to fight the next war

[you did ask what is worse]
[than ..fools doing foolish things?
[than ..loosing 1 trillion of infastructure?
than ...bringing on the collapse of globalist cabal industry?
than ..sending insurance underwriters broke?

media following the water
not the flood of arab blood?

It's not that nuclear power plants are dangerous by themselves. What makes them dangerous is their excessive sizes, too big to keep control of. Smaller plants would be a far more viable option for power than any other.
Says I who hasn't a clue about nuclear power but surely it's like all other excesses we have the bigger the facility the bigger the task of control.