I never searched for ‘reactor 4 leaning’ so your embarrassment is needless. You know the video is television station Russia Today, right? A news agency? But I posted this in chat so I don’t know why you are objecting to the source anyway.
I don’t know if you watched the whole video - when I watch it I hear them talkign about ‘growing SPECULATION that the building is leaning’ and showing photos that seem to indicate that the maimed building slightly off vertical. Not too shocking for a heavily damaged building like that. And the story, had you watched the video, claims that Japan has confirmed that it is trying to shore up the building, particularly the 2nd floor, which I recall hearing a few weeks ago - look at the building - why wouldn’t they shore up the area around the spent fuel pond given the stakes. No - I never searched the way you did (and I don’t use Google) for ‘reactor 4 learning’ but that was what you had to claim to start the ad homenim attack rolling...
Ah well....you had to sneer at something so I guess this was the best you could do.
You missed the point. If you DID search for “reactor 4 leaning” in order to find out if the video you had found had any real merit, you’d have found that the ONLY places that mention the possibility are blogs, conspiracy sites, and far-left anti-nuclear web sites. Oh, and now Free Republic.
One way to figure out if what you found on a blog is the truth is to see if there are ANY reputable news orgnizations even willing to report the speculation.
You say the video tells you japan has confirmed something — if “japan” actually made a public statement about the building leaning, do you seriously believe that NO NEWS ORGANIZATION would report it? Wouldn’t they have CONFIRMED it to a news organization?
Or do you think that “Japan” is actually confirming things t o left-wing anti-nuclear sites, while keeping the media in the dark?
On a more scientific matter, the buildings are essentially solid concrete blocks up to the top of the reactor, with a containment building built on top of that.
So if you say they are “shoring up the 2nd floor”, it has no real meaning relative to the containment concrete base. And yes, it would make sense that if there were still some structure standing in the building area above the concrete base, they would want to “shore it up” so it didn’t fall into the spent fuel pool and cause more trouble. But that wouldn’t indicate that the building was “leaning”.
What I am saying is that if you look at the actual construction of each reactor facility, you’d see that “leaning” wouldn’t make sense as a serious concern. The building can’t “fall over”, it’s a solid concrete block. And since #4 doesn’t even have fuel in it’s reactor core, it wouldn’t even matter to operations if the building shifted and the connections broke — the only issue in #4 is keeping water in the spent fuel pool until it cools off enough that they can transfer the fuel to the auxilary pool.
And for the record, I would never decide something was leaning based on a video or a picture. There are a myriad of ways that video and pictures distort perception, making things look different (for example, see the outright hysteria when someone mistook a plane contrail for an offshore missile launch in California).