Why all the failures to natural disasters?

Bhopal's

ust horribly

12 ft?)

So, they/we should not have built nuclear bomb^H^H^H^Hreactor below

100-ft above sea level.

that it

anism,

oo stupid to

issues of

safe and

ponse

it seems

are in

rashing down

uild the

ate right to

e and there

post and

d civilized

r a while

e of the

tors,

e

to

l.

n o

The government has the equipments to do it. They are debating where to move them for decades.

Fukushima says so.

In emergency, sea water is dangerous to fight reactor problems. =A0

In normal time, they can always pump sea water up 100 ft for heat exchanger.

So, they/we should not have built nuclear bomb^H^H^H^Hreactor below

100-ft above sea level. ================== Exactly. But then, the Americans shouldn't have built New Orleans below the Mississippi levy in the path of Katrina and they certainly shouldn't have built Los Angeles and San Francisco on the San Andreas fault. And the Thames Barrier won't save London with a spring tide, a deep depression in the North Sea and a storm all at the same time.

2

Cities can be and will be rebuild after 7.0 or 8.0. But radiation will be around for thousands of years. I am willing to take the risk of 8.0, but not with the radiation aftermath.

Well, there was that little core meltdown hydrogen explosion thing.

John

Makes no sense. A projectile fired from the surface at escape velocity will vaporize before it gets far. Who wants vaporized fuel rods? And rail guns are pitiful at accelerating mass.

The record altitude for a ballistic launch from the surface of Earth is 180 km, from a cannon, by Charles "Spuds" Murphy in 1966.

Rail guns are like fuel cells, always tomorrow's technology.

John

that it

mechanism,

stupid to

issues of

safe and

response

seems

are in

crashing down

build the

right to

and there

post and

civilized

while

of the

reactors,

Please provide a link to a government proposal to move hot fuel rods to a remote location immediately after a reactor is refueled.

Moving rods that have been sitting in the pool for a year is a very different proposition from moving rods that came out of the reactor yesterday.

How so? Is it your contention that any of the problem at Fukushima were due to flooding of the storage pools? If so please provide evidence to support your contention.

Please provide a demonstration of this "danger".

Huh? What, at San Onofre, is at a height of 100 feet?

Cities can be and will be rebuild after 7.0 or 8.0. But radiation will be around for thousands of years. I am willing to take the risk of 8.0, but not with the radiation aftermath. ================================ Energy good, keep people warm and moving. Oil bad, coal bad, nuclear bad. Not In My Back Yard! Lots of nimbys, no solutions. Hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunamis aren't a risk, they are a certainty. Build the reactors off-shore on a floating raft, same as houses in an earthquake zone. When broken, tow the reactor to a deep ocean trench and scuttle. Nimby happy!

The wind breaks the tree but the grass bends.

I was always a fan of *deep* sea dumping (not shallow sea dumping as sometimes used in the past). The problem with radiological waste is concentration (that's fixed) and proximity (that's fixed too).

Yes, it is greed, IMPOSSIBLY poor governmental regulation, and inertia. Any IMBECILE would know that you don't want a reactor at sea level where there are tsunamis. The Japanese have known about this phenomenon for literally thousands of years!

At the Fukushima Dai Ichi plant, they actually REMOVED the damn hillside to lower the plant, rather than have to spend a little energy pumping water up the damn hill, and have to use an extra crane to swing large parts off a barge.

Well, that plant is mostly over 40 years old, and once they built the damn thing at such a poor site, it would be hell to protect it. They COULD have moved the Diesel generators up the hill behind the plant, that would have been an easy mod to do over a couple years.

All the switchgear was in the basement, too, but they could have moved safety-critical circuits only to a higher location, provided seismic-secure water storage, etc. as needed to mitigate a tsunami event.

So, the arrogance was built in 40 years ago, and DAMN hard and expensive to mitigate after the thing is built.

Jon

think that it

y mechanism,

and too stupid to

to be issues of

ld be safe and

he response

others it seems

t that are in

omes crashing down

d we build the

me innate right to

unsafe and there

o this post and

ent and civilized

und for a while

be some of the

r reactors,

res are

gain

rods to

well.

quered

h

fuel

-

ssed in

m, so

ate

and

f-

ver.

rs with

d=3D28&...

.

Who knows? Nut cases do odd things.

In a container, as regular freight ...

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Well I think that it was a failed opportunity to educate the public thus far, and as far as motivating people to deal with the spent fuel pool problems all over the globe, which was brought to everyone's attention in the special and series, 'Life After People', it hasn't motivated anything more than idle talk.

So in the vent of a major catastrophe, like 2012, you would have Fukushima times about 400.

So then what is the recommendation? 50 mile no go zones around any plant? Eat canned goods, and try to find spring water in caves, or filter it with carbon filters?

I think all you can do is get some personal radiation detection equipment and realize that you will be on your own in any disaster.

So what are the safe levels well I guess you will have to go with what your dosimeter and detection equipment tell you.

Since the subject has been muddied beyond belief with all manner of confusing new terms.

uSv per hour, immediate dosage, mSv, per year, immediate dosage, per hour, etc and then of course you have the food contamination levels and these new adjustments of the safe levels, and basically it all seems designed to just confuse people.

hink that it

mechanism,

nd too stupid to

be issues of

be safe and

response

hers it seems

that are in

es crashing down

we build the

innate right to

nsafe and there

this post and

t and civilized

d for a while

some of the

reactors,

s are

n

rods to

well.

can

=A0then

ars

000

at do

OK, keep one year old rods on site. Why keeping 20 to 30 years old rods still cooling on site.

ials

e

Flooding cause damages and power lost to the cooling pools of spent fuel rods. What? Were you living under the rock for the past month?

Watch the news, please.

ant

The hill side in Camp Pendleton is more than 100 feet high. It is far more secure and suitable for the nuclear reactors.

Read "The Sum of all Fears". Terrible movie, but a frighteningly factual book.

Clifford Heath.

Actually, New Orleans wasn't built below the levee, it was built above the levee. And then the land began to subside because it relied on periodic flooding by the Mississippi.

--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

Wouldn't that fill the oceans with radiation the way whatshername's magic salt shaker filled them with salt?

Leaking water? Kinda silly to put the stuff anywhere near water, no?

Bikini, perhaps, but it's not a good place to store this stuff at all.

In sci.math snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ...

...

You have to select your saltmine carefully. It's kinda notorious you put any kind of hole in a salt deposit and groundwater will flow in.

See anyway wikipedia Schacht_Asse_II for details of der problem.

--
[Non-performance.  BONZO posted a dozen quotes before "discovering" 
Freeman Dyson accepted man-made climate change as real]
>Dyson accepts AGW.
Huh?
  -- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], Mar 1 16:00 EST 2011

I see so may people talking about "100 year floods", occaisionally "500 year floods", as if there is no need to design for floods worse than these.

Of course, this folly is worsened by land use changes and a few river bank changes that make rivers and streams flood worse than they used to.

I thought expectations were that LA and SF would take turns getting a quake about as bad as SF's 1906 quake in a roughly 150-200 year cycle. The SF 1906 quake magnitude was 7.9. If the next LA one comes in late, it could easily be correspondingly worse, maybe 8 or 8.1.

There is also the New Madrid fault in NE Arkansas, SE Missouri, into a tiny piece of NW Tennessee, and approaching SW Kentucky. That one had a series of 4 strong earthquakes from 12/15 1811 to 2/7/1812. Magnitude estimates range from 7 to 8.1 for these.

And, Earth's crust is more acoustically transparent in south/central/east USA than in the western USA, especially up the Mississippi and Ohio valleys from the fault. The 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes were felt over about 160 times as much land area as the 1906 SF quake was. One of the 1811-1812 New Madrid quakes rang church bells in Boston and in what is now Toronto. There were reports of chimneys toppling in Maine and sidewalks cracking in Washington DC.

A severe earthquake possibly as much as 8.3 in magnitude though more likely mid or upper 7's is expected to occur at the New Madrid fault every few centuries. Are the South and Midwest going to be able to handle it when it hits?

There is a comparison map for damage zones of the New Madrid Fault's

1895 quake (magnitude 6.8) and LA's 1994 quake (magnitue 6.7):

Are Memphis, St. Louis, Cairo IL, Indianapolis, Louisville, and Cincinatti able to handle a major New Madrid fault quake?

--
 - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)