Mega Earthquake San Francisco - 2011
CalTech Labs
2011-1703
Experts are predicting the next mega earthquake will be the
Pacific coast of the United States possibly within days, weeks
or months. Placing the Ring of fire at the source for the
rumblings starting in Chile in 2010, New Zeland last month and
now Japan just last week.
Unfortunately, the credibility of this prediction comes with a
substantial amount of weight. Berkland believes that's about to
change. He told as much to Cavuto: "The month of October, March,
and April are the three most devastating earthquakes in terms of
damage in the San Francisco Bay Area in history. And we are
having on the 19th of this month not only the full moon, but
within an hour the closest approach of the moon to the earth
until the year 2016. The next day is the equinoctial tides. So
you're bringing together three of the maximum tide raising
forces. We know about the ocean tides. But there is also an
Earth tide. And there is a tide in the ground water. All of
these help to release sudden, built up strain, and cause
earthquakes."
肘n South America the Nazca plate is colliding with the South
American plate. This has created the Andes and volcanoes such as
Cotopaxi and Azul.
肘n Central America, the tiny Cocos plate is crashing into the
North American plate and is therefore responsible for the
Mexican volcanoes of Popocatepetl and Paricutun (which rose up
from a cornfield in 1943 and became a instant mountains).
稗etween Northern California and British Columbia, the Pacific,
Juan de Fuca, and Gorda plates have built the Cascades and the
infamous Mount Saint Helens, which erupted in 1980.
柊laska's Aleutian Islands are growing as the Pacific plate hits
the North American plate. The deep Aleutian Trench has been
created at the subduction zone with a maximum depth of 25,194
feet (7679 meters).
彦rom Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula to Japan, the subduction of
the Pacific plate under the Eurasian plate is responsible for
Japanese islands and volcanoes (such as Mt. Fuji).
謬he final section of the Ring of Fire exists where the Indo-
Australian plate subducts under the Pacific plate and has
created volcanoes in the New Guinea and Micronesian areas. Near
New Zealand, the Pacific Plate slides under the Indo-Australian
plate.
Phlip
> And we are
> having on the 19th of this month not only the full moon, but
> within an hour the closest approach of the moon to the earth
> until the year 2016.
Bzzzt.
This month was merely the first simultaneous full moon and perigee
moon in a while.
Perigee can't shift; it merely happens once a month, not always at
full moon. Asking the fullness of the moon to create earthquakes
requires its position opposite the Sun to somehow pull on the earth's
crust, with the tides. This also happens once a month.
Robert Carnegie
Scotland.
Quadibloc
> This month was merely the first simultaneous full moon and perigee
> moon in a while.
>
> Perigee can't shift; it merely happens once a month, not always at
> full moon. Asking the fullness of the moon to create earthquakes
> requires its position opposite the Sun to somehow pull on the earth's
> crust, with the tides. This also happens once a month.
I will agree that the current "supermoon" is hardly likely to make
very much difference, one way or another, to the danger of an
earthquake in Southern California.
I do think that with all the other earthquakes relieving strain
elsewhere around the Pacific plate, though, that definitely does leave
room for displacement creating additional strain at the San Andreas
fault. That there could be an earthquake there sometime in the next
year seems all too plausible to me as a result of this - but it's by
no means certain.
After all, there _was_ a Los Angeles earthquake a couple decades ago.
I don't know how much strain that relieved - it might be that area is
ahead of the game, and there'll have to be another cycle (or two) of
earthquakes in Chile, New Zealand, and Japan before the Pacific plate
starts pulling on the San Andreas fault.
Or maybe the pull there has increased - but it's stuck pretty hard,
and so again another few cycles of earthquakes elsewhere is needed...
and then there will be a particularly big and devastating Southern
California earthquake, sometime fifty years from now.
All I can say is that it seems to me, in my ignorance, that the risk
probably does have to be regarded as somewhat elevated in the next
year or so. By how much, I have no idea.
John Savard
(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This month was merely the first simultaneous full moon and peri-
> gee moon in a while.
>
> Perigee can't shift; it merely happens once a month, not always at
> full moon. Asking the fullness of the moon to create earthquakes
> requires its position opposite the Sun to somehow pull on the earth's
> crust, with the tides. This also happens once a month.
True. And while THIS perigee was the closest one in 19 years
(and that happens every 19 years), the difference in the distance
between the earth and the moon at a perigee such as this, and
that of an average perigee, is not enough to add enough gravi-
tational pull on the earth's crust to induce quakes. The ONLY pos-
sible way that it could trigger one is if a plate/fault slippage were
already within a hair's breadth of occurring, and needled just the
SLIGHTEST extra boost.
Actually, the gravitational forces of a NEW moon at perigee are
the greatest ones, whenever it happens, because then the pulls of
BOTH the sun AND the moon are being exerted upon the SAME side
of the earth, simultaneously.
Anyone wanting to roll the dice on the moon's having enough
influence to possibly push an impending quake over the tipping
point might want to home in on May 26, 2017, plus-or-minus 72
hours or so... the next time a "supermoon" perigee will occur as a
NEW moon. And that's not likely to be mentioned by the media any-
where, because unlike the "supermoon" phenomenon we just had,
we won't be able to visibly SEE that one.
Distance* on 3-19-11: 356,577 km.
Distance on 6-26-17: 357,209 km.
* from center of the moon to center of the earth.
In miles, this works out to the distance from earth to moon
that we just saw was merely 365 miles closer this time than the
one in 2017 will be. For dice-rollers, that's negligible. The
summed pulls on one side of the earth that'll happen in 2017
would be of more importance, making the 2017 one stronger,
gravitationally, than the 2011 one just was.
To see these data for yourself, go to:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html
Since there are FAR greater forces at work in the earth's
crust than lunar and solar gravitational pulls, I wouldn't want
to BASE a quake prediction on them. But if a quake WERE to
occur very close to 5-26-17, I wouldn't rule out the possibility
that an imminent one could have been pushed over the edge
by the additional force imparted by those.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
••• Rest in Peace •••
••• George Richard Tiller, MD •••
••• A True American HERO! •••
••• August 8, 1941 – May 31, 2009 •••
••• Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com •••
"He saved the lives of thousands of women who would've
died otherwise, thousands who would've been made sterile
or gravely injured by childbirth. He knew his life was at grave
risk. Dr. Tiller was a true Saint."
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans : Democrats :: Heartless : Spineless
Teabaggers = Clueless
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-- (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) E-Mail me if you wish, from sites below:
http://www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution! If you're
earning less than $200 a day, you are UNDER-employed. This site can
SOLVE that problem for you, and wondrously improve your life! (Start
by taking the FREE Aptitude Test!)
http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the hateful RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Cult Bigotry
http://www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
http://www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
5922 Dead, 1065 since 1/20/09
I doubt the combined lunar and equinoctal factors increase the odds of
a quake by as much as 1/10th of 1 percent, but it is clear that the
Rim of Fire is going through an active phrase, and the West Coast is
due for a major quake.
But I doubt we'll see it in the next few days.
Dorothy J Heydt
5922 Dead, 1065 since 1/20/09 <de...@dead.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:15:23 +0100, "CalTech Labs"
><rumble...@caltech.edu> wrote:
[yadda yadda yadda]
>
>I doubt the combined lunar and equinoctal factors increase the odds of
>a quake by as much as 1/10th of 1 percent,
Yes.
>but it is clear that the
>Rim of Fire is going through an active phrase
It always is.
>and the West Coast is
>due for a major quake.
We always have been.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
Dorothy J Heydt
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>I'm going to be really offended if this is right. And I live in
>Scotland.
I read off a phrase or two to Hal, who is not only an earthquake
maven but an engineer. He replied, "Bull****."
And the 19th is over anyway.
I don't know who this Berkland character is, but you can safely
ignore him.
Yes, the next earthquake in the Bay Area could happen within
hours. Or days. Or months. Or decades. We do not yet have the
technology to predict it. And the "Caltech" person who posted
it, IF he's at Cal Tech at all, is probably an EECS major or
something and doesn't know enough about earthquakes to make an
intelligent remark.
The latter parts of the post, about plate tectonics, appeared
more-or-less accurate ... I didn't read them critically. The
Pacific Plate is being subducted around its rim, because the
Atlantic Plate is growing and pushing all the major plates away
from it. None of which gives anybody any material to predict
location, date, or time, for the next one.
Wayne Throop
: Perigee can't shift; it merely happens once a month, not always at
: full moon. Asking the fullness of the moon to create earthquakes
: requires its position opposite the Sun to somehow pull on the earth's
: crust, with the tides.
You mean like... the solar and lunar tides being aligned when the lunar
tides are at their maximum? Hm. And if it could be arranged that
the earth be at perihelion at about that time...
"Well, it was about that time that I notice that girl scout was about
eight stories tall and was a crustacean from the protozoic era.
"The Loch Ness monster."
"I said, "Dammit monster! Get off my lawn!""
--- South Park
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Howard Brazee
Heydt) wrote:
>>and the West Coast is
>>due for a major quake.
>
>We always have been.
>
>--
>Dorothy J. Heydt
>Vallejo, California
But a 9 level quake will be north - in Seattle country.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Greg Goss
>http://coupmedia.org/earthquakes/mega-earthquake-san-francisco-2011-1703
>
>Experts are predicting the next mega earthquake will be the
>Pacific coast of the United States possibly within days, weeks
>or months.
> we are
>having on the 19th of this month not only the full moon, but
>within an hour the closest approach of the moon to the earth
>until the year 2016. The next day is the equinoctial tides. So
>you're bringing together three of the maximum tide raising
>forces. We know about the ocean tides. But there is also an
>Earth tide. And there is a tide in the ground water. All of
>these help to release sudden, built up strain, and cause
>earthquakes."
Thank you for predicting the great San Francisco quake of the 19th or
the 20th.
On the 21st. You do see the problem here, don't you?
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Phlip
> : Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com>
> : Perigee can't shift; it merely happens once a month, not always at
> : full moon. Asking the fullness of the moon to create earthquakes
> : requires its position opposite the Sun to somehow pull on the earth's
> : crust, with the tides.
>
> You mean like... the solar and lunar tides being aligned when the lunar
> tides are at their maximum? Hm. And if it could be arranged that
> the earth be at perihelion at about that time...
Maybe. But...
We know the exact times of millions of earthquakes of all sizes...
...and we know the exact orbit of the Moon.
If there were a correlation, a trivial sift of the data would reveal
it.
(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
INTERESTING food for thought!
Wayne Throop
::: full moon. Asking the fullness of the moon to create earthquakes
::: requires its position opposite the Sun to somehow pull on the
::: earth's crust, with the tides.
:: You mean like... the solar and lunar tides being aligned when the
:: lunar tides are at their maximum? Hm. And if it could be
:: arranged that the earth be at perihelion at about that time...
: Phlip <phli...@gmail.com>
: Maybe. But...
: We know the exact times of millions of earthquakes of all sizes...
: ....and we know the exact orbit of the Moon.
: If there were a correlation, a trivial sift of the data would reveal it.
True. Has anybody bothered to look (as opposed to just
asserting it is so amid many cracking pots)?
I suspect somebody has, and found no correlation.
And even if nobody has, it's most likely there's nothing to it.
But anybody have cites or sites to hand, demonstrating such a sift?
Quadibloc
> You mean like... the solar and lunar tides being aligned when the lunar
> tides are at their maximum? Hm. And if it could be arranged that
> the earth be at perihelion at about that time...
When the Moon is in the seventh house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars...
Some people believe that even now, there soon may be Earth Changes
inaugurating the New Age.
John Savard
Edward A. Falk
CalTech Labs <rumble...@caltech.edu> wrote:
> [buncha crap]
I checked the headers of your post. It didn't come from Cal Tech.
So you were lying before you even go to the content of your post.
I won't bother commenting on the "super moon" junk, since others
have already done so.
--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
Dorothy J Heydt
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:36:12 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>>and the West Coast is
>>>due for a major quake.
>>
>>We always have been.
>>
Maybe. The Hayward is estimated to pull of a 7.5 or so, when it
gets around to it. Not as big as a 9, but 'twill serve.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
Wayne Throop
: The Hayward is estimated to pull of a 7.5 or so, when it
: gets around to it. Not as big as a 9, but 'twill serve.
As in, "we got served".
Tell me what's making you jump like that
S-I-M-P, Squirrels in my pants!
[...]
"Wow. She had actual squirrels in her pants."
"We just got served."
--- Phineas and Ferb, "Comet Kermillian"
"He just ran off like a dog who saw a squirrel!"
"I'm sorry, did I do something wrong?"
--- Justin Tolkiberry and Grace Sciuridae
Dorothy J Heydt
>: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>: The Hayward is estimated to pull of a 7.5 or so, when it
>: gets around to it. Not as big as a 9, but 'twill serve.
>
>As in, "we got served".
Uh ... I'm not sure of what that usage means. I was quoting
Mercutio.
Hookem Robbem Killem
>
> Experts are predicting the next mega earthquake will be the
> Pacific coast of the United States possibly within days, weeks
> or months.
>
According to the National Geographic show I just watched ..
Seattle and N. Calif ... dudes -- YOU SO SOO FUCKED.
The entire 600 mile coast will shift 38 -- *38* feet *East* ..
THAT IS CORRECT : THIRTY EIGHT FEET !
in
> Guess when <
XX Days !
COMING SOON !
You dope heads are sooooo FUCKED.
Ocean front propriety is opening up in Nevada shortly !
Call me for 1st come, 1st serve -- Deal of the DAY !
Palpay me early for 1st selections !
Wayne Throop
::: to it. Not as big as a 9, but 'twill serve.
:: As in, "we got served".
: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
: Uh ... I'm not sure of what that usage means.
The slang phrase "you got served" is a synonym for "pwned!". Sort of.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=you+got+served
Or, "you've been put in your place", or "nyeah, so there!",
or "you have been notified that I am better than you, bwahaha!",
or "all your base are belong to us", or "would that thou wert
clean enough to spit upon". You know, that sort of thing.
Quite possibly derived from the notion of process server coming up to you,
handing you an official document, and saying "you've been served".
Summons, divorce decree, cease-and-decist order, notice of lawsuit.
That sort of thing.
Phlip
> According to the National Geographic show I just watched ..
> Seattle and N. Calif ... dudes -- YOU SO SOO FUCKED.
Props for watching educational television!
> The entire 600 mile coast will shift 38 -- *38* feet *East* ..
>
> THAT IS CORRECT : THIRTY EIGHT FEET !
Up and down, or sideways?
>
> in
>
> > Guess when <
>
> XX Days !
>
> COMING SOON !
National Geographic knows better than to predict an earthquake in
days.
But their TV shows will be careful to mention that it "COULD BE
tomorrow".
You understand odds and probabilities, right?
Dorothy J Heydt
>::: to it. Not as big as a 9, but 'twill serve.
>
>:: As in, "we got served".
>
>: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>: Uh ... I'm not sure of what that usage means.
>
>The slang phrase "you got served" is a synonym for "pwned!". Sort of.
>http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=you+got+served
Oh, ok, I know "pwned."
David DeLaney
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>>and the West Coast is
>>>due for a major quake.
>>
>>We always have been.
>
we have always been
awarded Westquakia
Dave "we can't stop here, this is moonbat country" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Dimensional Traveler
NatGeo has it wrong. When the Really Really Big One hits its gonna be
all you easterns who are bleeped 'cause everything east of the San
Andreas fault is gonna fall into the Atlantic! *MWAHAHAHAHA*
--
"There's something that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a
stick."
Dorothy J Heydt
into the Pacific. It will just move a little further northwest.
Within a mile of where I used to live in Albany, there's a
peculiar-looking chunk of land called Albany Hill. It rises like
a lump out of bayside flatlands, as if it had gotten there by
accident. Which is more or less what happened. It's a "suspect
terrane," and once it was a small island. The North American
Plate picked it up while moving westward and now it sits on dry
(mostly) land, a few hundred meters from San Francisco Bay.
Paul Howard
Well, I think DT was "channeling" Isaac Asimov.
IIRC Isaac Asimov had a short story where a scientist's research had
predicted that the "Big One" was going to happened and everything west
of the fault would fall into the Pacific.
In the story, he wasn't that sure that the research was correct and
everybody else said that it wouldn't happen.
When the story ends, everybody who said it wouldn't happened had fled
east and the scientist was about the only person west of the fault.
He looks eastward after the "Big One" to see ocean and said "I guess I
was wrong". [Very Big Grin]
--
*
Paul Howard (Alias Drak Bibliophile)
*
Sometimes The Dragon Wins!
*
--------
*
Dimensional Traveler
was one). And Dorothy is forgetting that I'm across the Bay from her
over in Marin. I've been out to Point Reyes many times where one can
still see where separate halves of fields shifted during the 1906 quake
taking fences with them.
Now shush, both of you, before you ruin all my fun. :-P
Hookem Robbem Killem
>
>> The entire 600 mile coast will shift 38 -- *38* feet *East* ..
>>
>> THAT IS CORRECT : THIRTY EIGHT FEET !
>
> Up and down, or sideways?
>
EAST. Son.
Your sense of direction matches your dull intelligence.
Cryptoengineer
> ::: Perigee can't shift; it merely happens once a month, not always at
> ::: full moon. Asking the fullness of the moon to create earthquakes
> ::: requires its position opposite the Sun to somehow pull on the
> ::: earth's crust, with the tides.
>
> :: You mean like... the solar and lunar tides being aligned when the
> :: lunar tides are at their maximum? Hm. And if it could be
> :: arranged that the earth be at perihelion at about that time...
>
> : Maybe. But...
> : We know the exact times of millions of earthquakes of all sizes...
> : ....and we know the exact orbit of the Moon.
> : If there were a correlation, a trivial sift of the data would reveal it.
>
> True. Has anybody bothered to look (as opposed to just
> asserting it is so amid many cracking pots)?
>
> I suspect somebody has, and found no correlation.
> And even if nobody has, it's most likely there's nothing to it.
> But anybody have cites or sites to hand, demonstrating such a sift?
Back a week or so ago, when the popular press started running with the
idea that this was a special event, I did see an interview with an
appropriately Authoritative Geophysicist. The gist was, there *was* a
correlation, but it was almost lost in the noise. The AG commented
that the effect was actually lower than he expected.
pt
Joseph Nebus
>Well, I think DT was "channeling" Isaac Asimov.
>IIRC Isaac Asimov had a short story where a scientist's research had
>predicted that the "Big One" was going to happened and everything west
>of the fault would fall into the Pacific.
>In the story, he wasn't that sure that the research was correct and
>everybody else said that it wouldn't happen.
>When the story ends, everybody who said it wouldn't happened had fled
>east and the scientist was about the only person west of the fault.
>He looks eastward after the "Big One" to see ocean and said "I guess I
>was wrong". [Very Big Grin]
Ben Bova, ``A Slight Miscalculation''. But the story,
besides having a certain Asimovian flair, was reprinted in the
Asimov-edited _Laughing Space_, which is a good way to get his name
attached to it.
(ObBookerTWashington: Asimov says, ``I wish I'd written that
story!'' Clarke says, ``Ah, you will, Ike, you will.'')
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Carnegie
> In article <cb9eb313-b9eb-4b06-993a-406111bb9...@f2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm going to be really offended if this is right. And I live in
> >Scotland.
>
> I read off a phrase or two to Hal, who is not only an earthquake
> maven but an engineer. He replied, "Bull****."
>
> And the 19th is over anyway.
>
> I don't know who this Berkland character is, but you can safely
> ignore him.
>
> Yes, the next earthquake in the Bay Area could happen within
> hours. Or days. Or months. Or decades. We do not yet have the
> technology to predict it. And the "Caltech" person who posted
> it, IF he's at Cal Tech at all, is probably an EECS major or
> something and doesn't know enough about earthquakes to make an
> intelligent remark.
>
> The latter parts of the post, about plate tectonics, appeared
> more-or-less accurate ... I didn't read them critically. The
> Pacific Plate is being subducted around its rim, because the
> Atlantic Plate is growing and pushing all the major plates away
> from it. None of which gives anybody any material to predict
> location, date, or time, for the next one.
I'm hazily aware of most of that. And that's why if it had actually
happened, I would have been offended. Intellectually. It's like
having your horoscope turn out right.
British comedian Dave Gorman (I think it was he) made a TV series
around a project of obeying every newspaper or magazine horoscope he
came across and calculating whether it made him happier or less
happy. I think he finished up visiting the Middle East, betting on a
golf match, and winning a moderately large amount of money - which,
converted to happiness, obliged him to conclude that astrology works.
But I don't think he's living by this.
Quadibloc
> Don't be silly. Even what's west of the San Andreas won't fall
> into the Pacific. It will just move a little further northwest.
Yes, that is true, even in the case of a truly disastrous earthquake.
The bit about falling into the Pacific, of course, came from the
ramblings of Edgar Cayce, which some people still take seriously these
days.
John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>Actually I was repeating a very old joke among geophysicists (my father
>was one). And Dorothy is forgetting that I'm across the Bay from her
>over in Marin.
No, I didn't forget that, I didn't know it.
> I've been out to Point Reyes many times where one can
>still see where separate halves of fields shifted during the 1906 quake
>taking fences with them.
I haven't been there, but I've seen lots of pictures.
Dimensional Traveler
> In article<4d884eea$0$10566$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Dimensional Traveler<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>> Actually I was repeating a very old joke among geophysicists (my father
>> was one). And Dorothy is forgetting that I'm across the Bay from her
>> over in Marin.
>
> No, I didn't forget that, I didn't know it.
>
>> I've been out to Point Reyes many times where one can
>> still see where separate halves of fields shifted during the 1906 quake
>> taking fences with them.
>
> I haven't been there, but I've seen lots of pictures.
>
Unfortunately the tail of the cow that was swallowed up by a giant crack
in the earth is not there anymore but they do have a nice plaque telling
its tale. :)
Derek Lyons
>On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:36:12 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>>and the West Coast is due for a major quake.
>>
>>We always have been.
>
>But a 9 level quake will be north - in Seattle country.
There's two different quakes they're afraid of in these parts - the
Really Big One and the Really Scary one.
The Really Feckin' Big One they're afraid of here is the Pacific
Plate, specifically where it grinds into the Juan De Fuca plate and
where the latter subducts under the North American plate. Both of
these are off the coast and hundreds of miles from Seattle. (The area
north of here, along the BC and Alaskan coasts and the Aleutian chain
are also at considerable risk from the Pacific Plate.) The concerns
here are coastal Tsunamis and that much of the Puget Sound area is
built up on rather dodgy ground and that a 9.0 could produce enough
shaking could be a real problem across the entire region. The Sound
itself, south of Admiralty Inlet, is believed to safe from major
Tsunami activity in such a quake.
The Really Feckin' Scary One is the Seattle Fault - which runs under
Seattle and the Sound. Even modest displacement could produce not
only significant local shaking, but a Tsunami within the Sound itself.
Not only could this Tsunami be Really Really Big, but it is believed
that it will slosh back and forth for hours *and* the areas bordering
the Sound have lots of narrow bays, inlets, and passages to
concentrate the energy in inconvient spots.
Derek "and we have volcanoes here too!" Lyons.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Robert Bannister
"to give someone a serve" in Australia is to reprimand someone sharply.
--
Rob Bannister
Michael A. Terrell
Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>
> NatGeo has it wrong. When the Really Really Big One hits its gonna be
> all you easterns who are bleeped 'cause everything east of the San
> Andreas fault is gonna fall into the Atlantic! *MWAHAHAHAHA*
And the resulting wave will wipe out what didn't sink.
--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid� on it, because it's
Teflon coated.
Dimensional Traveler
>
> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>
>> NatGeo has it wrong. When the Really Really Big One hits its gonna be
>> all you easterns who are bleeped 'cause everything east of the San
>> Andreas fault is gonna fall into the Atlantic! *MWAHAHAHAHA*
>
>
> And the resulting wave will wipe out what didn't sink.
>
away from what's left towards Europe. I think the Atlantic should be
big enough to dampen away any sloshing.
:-P
Dorothy J Heydt
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 3/23/2011 1:57 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>
>>> NatGeo has it wrong. When the Really Really Big One hits its gonna be
>>> all you easterns who are bleeped 'cause everything east of the San
>>> Andreas fault is gonna fall into the Atlantic! *MWAHAHAHAHA*
>>
>>
>> And the resulting wave will wipe out what didn't sink.
>>
>Nah. The sinking land will slide slightly eastward pushing the water
>away from what's left towards Europe. I think the Atlantic should be
>big enough to dampen away any sloshing.
>
Scott Lurndal
>In article <4d8a6f74$0$10531$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>On 3/23/2011 1:57 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>
>>>> NatGeo has it wrong. When the Really Really Big One hits its gonna be
>>>> all you easterns who are bleeped 'cause everything east of the San
>>>> Andreas fault is gonna fall into the Atlantic! *MWAHAHAHAHA*
>>>
>>>
>>> And the resulting wave will wipe out what didn't sink.
>>>
>>Nah. The sinking land will slide slightly eastward pushing the water
>>away from what's left towards Europe. I think the Atlantic should be
>>big enough to dampen away any sloshing.
>>
>When the Pacific isn't?
I believe that DT's point is that the resulting tsunami, whilst particularly
bad for the BI and Europe, won't bounce off europe and travel back to the
western US.
I'm not sure that the resulting T would be that directional, myself, but
a quick glance at the NOAA maps for the Sendai T shows a deep falloff on
the edges of the wave front.
scott
Suzanne Blom
(All we get where I live is tornados and blizzards. {so far})
Brad Guth
> http://coupmedia.org/earthquakes/mega-earthquake-san-francisco-
> 2011-1703
>
> Experts are predicting the next mega earthquake will be the
> Pacific coast of the United States possibly within days, weeks
> rumblings starting in Chile in 2010, New Zeland last month and
> now Japan just last week.
>
> Unfortunately, the credibility of this prediction comes with a
> substantial amount of weight. Berkland believes that's about to
> change. He told as much to Cavuto: "The month of October, March,
> and April are the three most devastating earthquakes in terms of
> damage in the San Francisco Bay Area in history. And we are
> having on the 19th of this month not only the full moon, but
> within an hour the closest approach of the moon to the earth
> until the year 2016. The next day is the equinoctial tides. So
> you're bringing together three of the maximum tide raising
> forces. We know about the ocean tides. But there is also an
> Earth tide. And there is a tide in the ground water. All of
> these help to release sudden, built up strain, and cause
> earthquakes."
>
> In South America the Nazca plate is colliding with the South
> American plate. This has created the Andes and volcanoes such as
> Cotopaxi and Azul.
>
> In Central America, the tiny Cocos plate is crashing into the
> North American plate and is therefore responsible for the
> Mexican volcanoes of Popocatepetl and Paricutun (which rose up
> from a cornfield in 1943 and became a instant mountains).
>
> Between Northern California and British Columbia, the Pacific,
> Juan de Fuca, and Gorda plates have built the Cascades and the
> infamous Mount Saint Helens, which erupted in 1980.
>
> Alaska's Aleutian Islands are growing as the Pacific plate hits
> the North American plate. The deep Aleutian Trench has been
> created at the subduction zone with a maximum depth of 25,194
> feet (7679 meters).
>
> From Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula to Japan, the subduction of
> the Pacific plate under the Eurasian plate is responsible for
> Japanese islands and volcanoes (such as Mt. Fuji).
>
> The final section of the Ring of Fire exists where the Indo-
> Australian plate subducts under the Pacific plate and has
> created volcanoes in the New Guinea and Micronesian areas. Near
> New Zealand, the Pacific Plate slides under the Indo-Australian
> plate.
Now Japan has liquefied land to contend with, and two tectonic plates
sinking at the same time can’t be a good sign, because it’s like
winding up a spring or overloading a monstrous teratonne diving board
that’s called the Pacific plate.
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Robert Carnegie
I assume on the scale we're talking about,
<http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/flowers/wa_rhododendron.htm>
Is it bad to feel that Microsoft kind of has it coming to them?
> (All we get where I live is tornados and blizzards. {so far})
We, uh, had some heavy snow last December. (Glasgow, Scotland.) They
stopped the buses. I had to walk home. I'm not really ready to talk
about it. :-)
Suzanne Blom
> On Mar 23, 8:43 pm, Suzanne Blom<bo...@sueblom.net> wrote:
>> On 3/22/2011 12:46 PM, Derek Lyons wrote:
>>> Derek "and we have volcanoes here too!" Lyons.
>>
>> So what kind of flowers do you want for your funeral again? ;-)
>
> I assume on the scale we're talking about,
> <http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/flowers/wa_rhododendron.htm>
>
> Is it bad to feel that Microsoft kind of has it coming to them?
>
Not at all. In fact, it may be a virtue. (Right now, Word is refusing
to let me change the formatting.)
>> (All we get where I live is tornados and blizzards. {so far})
>
> We, uh, had some heavy snow last December. (Glasgow, Scotland.) They
> stopped the buses. I had to walk home. I'm not really ready to talk
> about it. :-)
And two days ago, I voluntarily went out into 36Fahrenheit rain, tho I
didn't know it was going to hail, honest. Sometimes I think I must be mad.
Dorothy J Heydt
Suzanne Blom <bo...@sueblom.net> wrote:
>
>And two days ago, I voluntarily went out into 36Fahrenheit rain, tho I
>didn't know it was going to hail, honest. Sometimes I think I must be mad.
Interesting. When we get hail in the SF Bay Area, which we
occasionally do, it comes down as the *first* precipitation when
a storm blows in. After a few minutes it turns to rain and stays
that way. Not even particularly cold rain. Go figure.
John F. Eldredge
Of course, the New Madrid Fault hasn't had a major quake since the series
in late 1811/early 1812, but that one is considered to have been the
largest in North America for the last several hundred years. Sooner or
later, the New Madrid Fault will have another big quake, and it is is
located in the center of North America.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Robert Bannister
And you have to laugh when the pro-"nucular" people say we should build
more nuclear power stations in "tectonically safe" areas. Some areas
like the Pacific rim are very prone to earthquakes, others have had no
recorded earthquakes in a thousand years, but nowhere is totally safe.
--
Robert Bannister
Dorothy J Heydt
Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>....Some areas
>recorded earthquakes in a thousand years, but nowhere is totally safe.
I've been saying that for years. There are places where
earthquakes large enough to do any noticeable damage are rare as
hens' teeth. They get hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, blizzards,
what not.
Remember "The Merry Minuet" from the fifties?
"They're rioting in Africa;
There's strife in Iran;
What nature doesn't do to us
Will be done by our fellow man."
"The sluggard believes | he shall live forever,
If the fight he faces not;
But age shall not grant him | the gift of peace,
Though spears may spare his life."
That's Havamal...
Brian M. Scott
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in
<news:90f0pf...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> And you have to laugh when the pro-"nucular" people say we
> should build more nuclear power stations in
> "tectonically safe" areas. Some areas like the Pacific
> rim are very prone to earthquakes, others have had no
> recorded earthquakes in a thousand years, but nowhere is
> totally safe.
Of course. So what? No one in his right mind would
interpret 'tectonically safe' as 'will never experience an
earthquake'.
Brian
Howard Brazee
>And you have to laugh when the pro-"nucular" people say we should build
>more nuclear power stations in "tectonically safe" areas. Some areas
>like the Pacific rim are very prone to earthquakes, others have had no
>recorded earthquakes in a thousand years, but nowhere is totally safe.
True. Which applies to hydroelectric power as well - which has had
failures that have killed more people than nuclear has.
Burning coal doesn't kill everybody all at once. It's slower process
doesn't seem to bother people as much.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Wayne Throop
: Remember "The Merry Minuet" from the fifties?
:
: "They're rioting in Africa;
: There's strife in Iran;
: What nature doesn't do to us
: Will be done by our fellow man."
"Warning lights are flashing down in quality control..."
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> And you have to laugh when the pro-"nucular" people say we should build
> more nuclear power stations in "tectonically safe" areas.
Given what's happened in Japan, I have even LESS concern about the
safety of nuclear power than I did before. The thing was hit with a
quake several times more powerful than its design, THEN smashed with a
tsunami that wiped out virtually all support around it, and while there
have been some issues, it does not look like we're going to end up with
anything on the level of an actual disaster. And this was just about the
Worst Case Scenario level.
Build LOTS more nukes. They're safer and cleaner than any other power
source we've got.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Derek Lyons
>True. Which applies to hydroelectric power as well - which has had
>failures that have killed more people than nuclear has.
So far.
Mike Schilling
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:e4p4q698tnsmtn95i...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:37:00 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>And you have to laugh when the pro-"nucular" people say we should build
>>more nuclear power stations in "tectonically safe" areas. Some areas
>>like the Pacific rim are very prone to earthquakes, others have had no
>>recorded earthquakes in a thousand years, but nowhere is totally safe.
>
> True. Which applies to hydroelectric power as well - which has had
> failures that have killed more people than nuclear has.
>
> Burning coal doesn't kill everybody all at once.
Though mining it can.
Thomas Womack
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:37:00 +0800, Robert Bannister
><rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>And you have to laugh when the pro-"nucular" people say we should build
>>more nuclear power stations in "tectonically safe" areas. Some areas
>>like the Pacific rim are very prone to earthquakes, others have had no
>>recorded earthquakes in a thousand years, but nowhere is totally safe.
>
>True. Which applies to hydroelectric power as well - which has had
>failures that have killed more people than nuclear has.
Note that that is 'single failures that have killed more people than
nuclear has, counting Hiroshima and Nagasaki' - Chinese river valleys
are very densely populated and there was a cascading dam failure
during a particularly nasty 1975 typhoon.
Tom
Norm D. Plumber
>On 4/10/11 8:37 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>> And you have to laugh when the pro-"nucular" people say we should build
>> more nuclear power stations in "tectonically safe" areas.
>
> Given what's happened in Japan, I have even LESS concern about the
>safety of nuclear power than I did before. The thing was hit with a
>quake several times more powerful than its design, THEN smashed with a
>tsunami that wiped out virtually all support around it, and while there
>have been some issues, it does not look like we're going to end up with
>anything on the level of an actual disaster. And this was just about the
>Worst Case Scenario level.
>
> Build LOTS more nukes. They're safer and cleaner than any other power
>source we've got.
I won't argue that coal or refined petroleum are cleaner.
Safer is a whole different ballgame---safety of power sources isn't
just about immediate damage, it's about total damage, and those are
basically impossible to determine. If the power grid on the eastern
seaboard goes down for a week, what do you count, just the guys at the
power facilities who are injured, or the people killed in car wrecks
when traffic lights quit, or the people killed in riots because sewage
pumps stop pumping and the toilets back up? It's too complex to be
able to say "A is safer than B".
I don't think nuclear is the answer. I think solar is closer but no
cigar. I think more research is warranted. There's no shortage of
energy on this planet, just a shortage of harvesting techniques.
Anyway I saw in the news that there was another quake in N.E. Japan
this morning, 7.1 with warnings for a 3-foot tsunami. No post-quake
changes in radiation levels from the previously-damaged plant have
been noted yet. Doubtful that it'll change the situation
significantly but guessing hardly counts.
Most everyplace on the planet is tectonically safe most of the time...
it's those few minutes here and there that cause problems.
--
"Far overhead an eagle circled, looking for anything that wasn't a tortoise."
Quadibloc
> I don't think nuclear is the answer. I think solar is closer but no
> cigar. I think more research is warranted. There's no shortage of
> energy on this planet, just a shortage of harvesting techniques.
Nuclear is the answer we have now.
We can develop somewhat more hydroelectricity than has already been
developed. Because of the large areas flooded to form reservoirs,
hydroelectricity does have an environmental impact, but once you
accept the initial loss of wilderness areas, it's relatively non-
polluting. In Canada, unlike China, hydroelectric projects are usually
situated in remote areas, and so a catastrophic flood would not
necessarily kill even a single person - although it's certainly
possible that people working on the dam, or hunters or lumberjacks in
the area might be affected.
But the potential sites for additional hydroelectric development are
limited.
Solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal can produce some electricity, but I
don't consider it credible that these would fill the gap even in our
electrical power requirements if nuclear and fossil fuels were left
completely out of the equation. If we're to get rid of burning fossil
fuels, unless something new comes along, nuclear is what we've got.
Research is good, but it's always a speculative investment; there are
no guarantees on how much it will deliver. So while we should invest
in research - it pays off well - we must not make the mistake of
depending on the results we need coming up in time.
While hydroelectric power is usually cheap, however, nuclear power
tends to be expensive. So, in order to get the desired result: a big
fraction of the Earth's existing oil reserves _stay in the ground_,
rather than being burned by _anyone_ as fuel, so as to make a dent in
global warming, intervention in the free market will be required.
Basically, this means that we build lots and lots of nuclear power
plants, subsidize their operation, and use some of their power to
produce synthetic motor vehicle fuels, which, because we made them
from water and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, will be carbon-
neutral when burned again. Not just for our own use - we also sell
them to everyone else at subsidized prices that make it preferable for
them to buy from us than to buy oil from the Sa'udis. Even _after_
they lower their price back to $2 a barrel.
That's how you stop global warming. Not with half measures.
John Savard
Robert Carnegie
Just to jump on this, I think traffic lights could be solar powered.
Around here, there are appliances on posts, apparently solar powered,
that flash an advisory sign at vehicles to say "You are / are not
going too fast", for instance outside schools. If they can do that,
they can do traffic lights. (But maybe not if you want to remote-
control them.)
Norm D. Plumber
>On Apr 11, 4:04 am, "Norm D. Plumber" <nom-de-pl...@non.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't think nuclear is the answer. I think solar is closer but no
>> cigar. I think more research is warranted. There's no shortage of
>> energy on this planet, just a shortage of harvesting techniques.
>
>Nuclear is the answer we have now.
It isn't good enough so we need to look harder.
>We can develop somewhat more hydroelectricity than has already been
>developed. Because of the large areas flooded to form reservoirs,
>hydroelectricity does have an environmental impact, but once you
>accept the initial loss of wilderness areas, it's relatively non-
>polluting. In Canada, unlike China, hydroelectric projects are usually
>situated in remote areas, and so a catastrophic flood would not
>necessarily kill even a single person - although it's certainly
>possible that people working on the dam, or hunters or lumberjacks in
>the area might be affected.
>
>But the potential sites for additional hydroelectric development are
>limited.
>
>Solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal can produce some electricity, but I
>don't consider it credible that these would fill the gap even in our
>electrical power requirements if nuclear and fossil fuels were left
>completely out of the equation. If we're to get rid of burning fossil
>fuels, unless something new comes along, nuclear is what we've got.
>
>Research is good, but it's always a speculative investment; there are
>no guarantees on how much it will deliver. So while we should invest
>in research - it pays off well - we must not make the mistake of
>depending on the results we need coming up in time.
There is also the issue that whenever investment in alternative energy
begins to increase, the price of petroleum-based energy drops, and
stays down, until alternative energy investment dries up, and then the
price of petroleum-based energy rises again.
>While hydroelectric power is usually cheap, however, nuclear power
>tends to be expensive. So, in order to get the desired result: a big
>fraction of the Earth's existing oil reserves _stay in the ground_,
>rather than being burned by _anyone_ as fuel, so as to make a dent in
>global warming, intervention in the free market will be required.
>
>Basically, this means that we build lots and lots of nuclear power
>plants, subsidize their operation, and use some of their power to
>produce synthetic motor vehicle fuels, which, because we made them
>from water and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, will be carbon-
>neutral when burned again. Not just for our own use - we also sell
>them to everyone else at subsidized prices that make it preferable for
>them to buy from us than to buy oil from the Sa'udis. Even _after_
>they lower their price back to $2 a barrel.
>
>That's how you stop global warming. Not with half measures.
>
>John Savard
You, and most everyone else, think of energy production in terms of
mass quantities, centralized production. If you choose that approach
then go nuclear and maximize the vulnerabilities. Earthquake,
terrorist bombing, whatever, knock out the central power facilities
and people suffer.
Centralized power generation is not the way to go.
Leif Roar Moldskred
>
> Given what's happened in Japan, I have even LESS concern about the
> safety of nuclear power than I did before. The thing was hit with a
> quake several times more powerful than its design,
To play the Devil's advocate for a minute.
While on one side of the coin, that the power plants withstood a
greater-than-dimensioned-for earthquake is reassuring as to the
engineering and construction work of the plants.
On the other side, that the power plants withstood a _greater-than-
dimensioned-for_ earthquake is less reassuring when it comes to the
underlying risk assessments and dimensioning targets.
If nuclear power plants aren't even dimensioned correctly for earth-
quake risk in _Japan_ just how much trust can we put in the risk
assessments of nuclear power plants in general?
(And on more specific issues, the way the emergency generators were
placed and protected from flooding doesn't, at least at first glance,
speak too highly of the plants' risk engineering.)
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
Robert Carnegie
> And you have to laugh when the pro-"nucular" people say we should build
> more nuclear power stations in "tectonically safe" areas. Some areas
> like the Pacific rim are very prone to earthquakes, others have had no
> recorded earthquakes in a thousand years, but nowhere is totally safe.
I think an insurer would not agree that it doesn't matter. It does.
But it's certainly more to the point to build 'em tough. And
"terrorist" proof.
Norm D. Plumber
I'm not sure what levels of remote control, synchronization, and so
forth are currently in use.
Solar isn't the answer for everything, especially after a few fully
overcast days, but remote signals being remote-controlled by some
central source doesn't imply that they must have a common power
source, only that they have to comminicate.
Howard Brazee
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>I think an insurer would not agree that it doesn't matter. It does.
>But it's certainly more to the point to build 'em tough. And
>"terrorist" proof.
How hard would it be for a terrorist to blow up dams?
In the U.S., we were attacked by foreign terrorists using airplanes.
So we spend a lot of money making air travel miserable. Other
countries had rail attacks - but we don't have that kind of
anti-terrorist effort spent on U.S. rails, because they haven't been
attacked here.
Of course, our biggest domestic terrorist attack used a truck with
fertilizer.
James Nicoll
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 05:36:36 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
><rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>I think an insurer would not agree that it doesn't matter. It does.
>>But it's certainly more to the point to build 'em tough. And
>>"terrorist" proof.
>
>How hard would it be for a terrorist to blow up dams?
>
>In the U.S., we were attacked by foreign terrorists using airplanes.
>So we spend a lot of money making air travel miserable. Other
>countries had rail attacks - but we don't have that kind of
>anti-terrorist effort spent on U.S. rails, because they haven't been
>attacked here.
>
Actually, they have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Palo_Verde,_Arizona_derailment
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Howard Brazee
Nicoll) wrote:
>>In the U.S., we were attacked by foreign terrorists using airplanes.
>>So we spend a lot of money making air travel miserable. Other
>>countries had rail attacks - but we don't have that kind of
>>anti-terrorist effort spent on U.S. rails, because they haven't been
>>attacked here.
>>
>
>Actually, they have.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Palo_Verde,_Arizona_derailment
Ahh, maybe because the politicians aren't train riders.
Derek Lyons
>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:50:35 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>Nicoll) wrote:
>
>>>In the U.S., we were attacked by foreign terrorists using airplanes.
>>>So we spend a lot of money making air travel miserable. Other
>>>countries had rail attacks - but we don't have that kind of
>>>anti-terrorist effort spent on U.S. rails, because they haven't been
>>>attacked here.
>>>
>>
>>Actually, they have.
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Palo_Verde,_Arizona_derailment
>
>Ahh, maybe because the politicians aren't train riders.
More likely because one disaster scenario that everyone spends a great
deal of time not thinking about is a derailment of a chemical train in
a metropolitan area.
Derek Lyons
>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> Given what's happened in Japan, I have even LESS concern about the
>> safety of nuclear power than I did before. The thing was hit with a
>> quake several times more powerful than its design,
>
>To play the Devil's advocate for a minute.
>
>While on one side of the coin, that the power plants withstood a
>greater-than-dimensioned-for earthquake is reassuring as to the
>engineering and construction work of the plants.
They didn't withstand a greater-than-expected quake, not for any
useful value of withstanding - the plants are virtually destroyed and
contamination widespread.
James Nicoll
Derek Lyons <fair...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:50:35 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>>Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>>>>In the U.S., we were attacked by foreign terrorists using airplanes.
>>>>So we spend a lot of money making air travel miserable. Other
>>>>countries had rail attacks - but we don't have that kind of
>>>>anti-terrorist effort spent on U.S. rails, because they haven't been
>>>>attacked here.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, they have.
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Palo_Verde,_Arizona_derailment
>>
>>Ahh, maybe because the politicians aren't train riders.
>
>More likely because one disaster scenario that everyone spends a great
>deal of time not thinking about is a derailment of a chemical train in
>a metropolitan area.
Been there, done that; it's what gave Hazel her lifetime lock on Mayor
of Missisauga:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Mississauga_train_derailment
Note that Missisauga was perhaps the easiest major community in
Canada to evacuate at the time: there are major roads out of the
city and most of the people had relatives outside the evacuation
zone but close enough to put them up. Also, the worst case scenario
re leaks was avoided.
David Dyer-Bennet
> Burning coal doesn't kill everybody all at once. It's slower process
> doesn't seem to bother people as much.
The actual damage from nuclear power, to date, has also been nearly
entirely of the slow sort, and that doesn't seem to stop people
from being scared of it.
David Dyer-Bennet
> Just to jump on this, I think traffic lights could be solar powered.
> Around here, there are appliances on posts, apparently solar powered,
> that flash an advisory sign at vehicles to say "You are / are not
> going too fast", for instance outside schools. If they can do that,
> they can do traffic lights. (But maybe not if you want to remote-
> control them.)
Are they still working at 4am? In Minnesota? In the winter? (Very
long time since the last sunshine). The ones I've noticed around here
have a generator on them. They're not safety-critical the same way
traffic lights are.
At least in Minneapolis, they could participate in the city-wide
wireless network (city granted a company the right to install one so
long as the city got to use it for free); that should suffice for
changing programming remotely. In any case, I'm pretty sure those
signals don't now go over the power lines, so it would be independent
of how the lights are powered.
I suspect the conversion of traffic signals to use LEDs is a major
factor in making this feasible.
David DeLaney
>Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>On Apr 11, 4:04 am, "Norm D. Plumber" <nom-de-pl...@non.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think nuclear is the answer. I think solar is closer but no
>>> cigar. I think more research is warranted. There's no shortage of
>>> energy on this planet, just a shortage of harvesting techniques.
>>
>>Nuclear is the answer we have now.
>
>It isn't good enough so we need to look harder.
Only according to whatever axioms you're pretending to believe at the moment
to try to stir up more argument. Give it a REST, Norm. Read a book.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Howard Brazee
<illeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Burning coal doesn't kill everybody all at once. It's slower process
>> doesn't seem to bother people as much.
>
>The actual damage from nuclear power, to date, has also been nearly
>entirely of the slow sort, and that doesn't seem to stop people
>from being scared of it.
Good point. So a lot of it is a type of conservativism. What we
are used to killing us is better than what we aren't used to killing
us. There have been quite a few studies about what we're afraid of.
For instance, a swimming pool next door is a far bigger risk
statistically for our children than a loaded rifle next door is.
And part of it is because of the association people see between
nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
Scott Lurndal
>Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@dimnakorr.com> wrote:
>
>>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Given what's happened in Japan, I have even LESS concern about the
>>> safety of nuclear power than I did before. The thing was hit with a
>>> quake several times more powerful than its design,
>>
>>To play the Devil's advocate for a minute.
>>
>>While on one side of the coin, that the power plants withstood a
>>greater-than-dimensioned-for earthquake is reassuring as to the
>>engineering and construction work of the plants.
>
>They didn't withstand a greater-than-expected quake, not for any
>useful value of withstanding - the plants are virtually destroyed and
>contamination widespread.
They withstood the immediate effects of the quake quite well.
The problem was the Tsunami - it wiped out the backup power systems[*]
for the cooling loops (which led to hydrogen buildup, H2 explosions,
and the core overheating).
scott
[*] if the backup generators had been able to run for more than an
hour after the reactors scrammed, they'd probably have been restarted
by now (residual seismicity notwithstanding).
Norm D. Plumber
Note that there were not leaks.
There are some chemicals that would make a truly nasty mess.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>They didn't withstand a greater-than-expected quake, not for any
>>useful value of withstanding - the plants are virtually destroyed and
>>contamination widespread.
>
>They withstood the immediate effects of the quake quite well.
>
>The problem was the Tsunami - it wiped out the backup power systems[*]
>for the cooling loops (which led to hydrogen buildup, H2 explosions,
>and the core overheating).
It's better to have systems that shut down when everything goes wrong.
There are nuclear reactor designs that do this, but they are newer
designs.
Howard Brazee
<illeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Are they still working at 4am? In Minnesota? In the winter? (Very
>long time since the last sunshine). The ones I've noticed around here
>have a generator on them. They're not safety-critical the same way
>traffic lights are.
>
>At least in Minneapolis, they could participate in the city-wide
>wireless network (city granted a company the right to install one so
>long as the city got to use it for free); that should suffice for
>changing programming remotely. In any case, I'm pretty sure those
>signals don't now go over the power lines, so it would be independent
>of how the lights are powered.
>
>I suspect the conversion of traffic signals to use LEDs is a major
>factor in making this feasible.
There's a new problem with these - snow doesn't melt on them.
Dimensional Traveler
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> Given what's happened in Japan, I have even LESS concern about the
>> safety of nuclear power than I did before. The thing was hit with a
>> quake several times more powerful than its design,
>
> To play the Devil's advocate for a minute.
>
> While on one side of the coin, that the power plants withstood a
> greater-than-dimensioned-for earthquake is reassuring as to the
> engineering and construction work of the plants.
>
> On the other side, that the power plants withstood a _greater-than-
> dimensioned-for_ earthquake is less reassuring when it comes to the
> underlying risk assessments and dimensioning targets.
>
assessment. I seriously doubt that the engineers and managers thought
an earthquake of that size was impossible. Its just that with the
available technology and techniques building _anything_ to withstand an
earthquake above X on the scale is cost prohibitive.
--
"There's something that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a
stick."
Dimensional Traveler
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 09:59:30 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
> <illeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Are they still working at 4am? In Minnesota? In the winter? (Very
>> long time since the last sunshine). The ones I've noticed around here
>> have a generator on them. They're not safety-critical the same way
>> traffic lights are.
>>
>> At least in Minneapolis, they could participate in the city-wide
>> wireless network (city granted a company the right to install one so
>> long as the city got to use it for free); that should suffice for
>> changing programming remotely. In any case, I'm pretty sure those
>> signals don't now go over the power lines, so it would be independent
>> of how the lights are powered.
>>
>> I suspect the conversion of traffic signals to use LEDs is a major
>> factor in making this feasible.
>
> There's a new problem with these - snow doesn't melt on them.
>
Norm D. Plumber
>Norm D. Plumber <nom-de...@non.com> wrote:
>>Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>On Apr 11, 4:04 am, "Norm D. Plumber" <nom-de-pl...@non.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think nuclear is the answer. I think solar is closer but no
>>>> cigar. I think more research is warranted. There's no shortage of
>>>> energy on this planet, just a shortage of harvesting techniques.
>>>
>>>Nuclear is the answer we have now.
>>
>>It isn't good enough so we need to look harder.
>
>Only according to whatever axioms you're pretending to believe at the moment
>to try to stir up more argument. Give it a REST, Norm. Read a book.
>
>Dave
Go be someone else's daddy for a while ya fuckin' cunt.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:slrniq6dt...@gatekeeper.vic.com:
> Norm D. Plumber <nom-de...@non.com> wrote:
>>Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>On Apr 11, 4:04 am, "Norm D. Plumber" <nom-de-pl...@non.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think nuclear is the answer. I think solar is closer
>>>> but no cigar. I think more research is warranted. There's
>>>> no shortage of energy on this planet, just a shortage of
>>>> harvesting techniques.
>>>
>>>Nuclear is the answer we have now.
>>
>>It isn't good enough so we need to look harder.
>
> Only according to whatever axioms you're pretending to believe
> at the moment to try to stir up more argument. Give it a REST,
> Norm. Read a book.
>
Heh. Normie, read. Hah! Hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!
You're funny.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:ojm6q6d7pnu9qudja...@4ax.com:
> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>
>>Norm D. Plumber <nom-de...@non.com> wrote:
>>>Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>On Apr 11, 4:04 am, "Norm D. Plumber" <nom-de-pl...@non.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think nuclear is the answer. I think solar is
>>>>> closer but no cigar. I think more research is warranted.
>>>>> There's no shortage of energy on this planet, just a
>>>>> shortage of harvesting techniques.
>>>>
>>>>Nuclear is the answer we have now.
>>>
>>>It isn't good enough so we need to look harder.
>>
>>Only according to whatever axioms you're pretending to believe
>>at the moment to try to stir up more argument. Give it a REST,
>>Norm. Read a book.
>>
>>Dave
>
> Go be someone else's daddy for a while ya fuckin' cunt.
>
Yet another open admission that you don't believe, or even care,
what you say, as your _only_ purpose is to troll, out of a
desperate need for attention.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:v3g6q6lvddtrjd9l3...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 09:59:30 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
> <illeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Are they still working at 4am? In Minnesota? In the winter?
>>(Very long time since the last sunshine). The ones I've noticed
>>around here have a generator on them. They're not
>>safety-critical the same way traffic lights are.
>>
>>At least in Minneapolis, they could participate in the city-wide
>>wireless network (city granted a company the right to install
>>one so long as the city got to use it for free); that should
>>suffice for changing programming remotely. In any case, I'm
>>pretty sure those signals don't now go over the power lines, so
>>it would be independent of how the lights are powered.
>>
>>I suspect the conversion of traffic signals to use LEDs is a
>>major factor in making this feasible.
>
> There's a new problem with these - snow doesn't melt on them.
>
And there are confirmed casualties caused by this.
Wayne Throop
::: factor in making [solar powered traffic lights] feasible.
:: There's a new problem with these - snow doesn't melt on them.
: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
: And there are confirmed casualties caused by this.
Are there confirmed casualties due to traffic lights being burnt out
(as opposed to failing one-out-or-several-LEDs at a time?
Lynn McGuire
Don't forget hurricanes. After Ike we had quite a few of
our traffic lights out for over a week. Most people would
then treat them as a four way stop but a few people would
blast through them at 55 mph (since they were not blinking
the idiots assumed that meant GO). Made for a very
exciting time when they did.
Lynn
Lynn McGuire
> On 4/10/11 8:37 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>> And you have to laugh when the pro-"nucular" people say we should build
>> more nuclear power stations in "tectonically safe" areas.
>
> while there have been some issues, it does not look like we're going to end up with anything on the level of an actual disaster. And
> this was just about the Worst Case Scenario level.
>
> Build LOTS more nukes. They're safer and cleaner than any other power source we've got.
I would like to see us build these pocket nukes everywhere:
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/product.html
I think that I should be able to buy a skid mounted nuclear
power system and sell power to my neighbors.
Lynn
Derek Lyons
>fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) writes:
>>Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@dimnakorr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Given what's happened in Japan, I have even LESS concern about the
>>>> safety of nuclear power than I did before. The thing was hit with a
>>>> quake several times more powerful than its design,
>>>
>>>To play the Devil's advocate for a minute.
>>>
>>>While on one side of the coin, that the power plants withstood a
>>>greater-than-dimensioned-for earthquake is reassuring as to the
>>>engineering and construction work of the plants.
>>
>>They didn't withstand a greater-than-expected quake, not for any
>>useful value of withstanding - the plants are virtually destroyed and
>>contamination widespread.
>
>They withstood the immediate effects of the quake quite well.
So? What condition are they in now as a result of the quake?
>The problem was the Tsunami - it wiped out the backup power systems[*]
>for the cooling loops (which led to hydrogen buildup, H2 explosions,
>and the core overheating).
The problem was, there was an earthquake. As a result of that
earthquake, the plants are virtually destroyed and contamination is
widespread. You can't both claim they withstood the earthquake while
at the same time claiming the problems are the result of the
earthquake.
>[*] if the backup generators had been able to run for more than an
>hour after the reactors scrammed, they'd probably have been restarted
>by now (residual seismicity notwithstanding).
And if pigs had wings, we'd all wear hats.
Derek Lyons
>I would like to see us build these pocket nukes everywhere:
> http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/product.html
Paper nuclear power plants are *always* cheap, easy to build, safe,
etc... etc...
The real world has the unforunate tendency to be rather messier.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:13025...@sheol.org:
The one I recall was an accident caused by a driving not being able
to see a red light because it had filled up with snow.
http://www.newser.com/story/76251/led-traffic-lights-efficient-but-
cant-melt-away-snow.html
has an excellent photograph of the effect.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:4da37e34....@news.supernews.com:
> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>>fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) writes:
>>>Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@dimnakorr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Given what's happened in Japan, I have even LESS concern
>>>>> about the
>>>>> safety of nuclear power than I did before. The thing was hit
>>>>> with a quake several times more powerful than its design,
>>>>
>>>>To play the Devil's advocate for a minute.
>>>>
>>>>While on one side of the coin, that the power plants withstood
>>>>a greater-than-dimensioned-for earthquake is reassuring as to
>>>>the engineering and construction work of the plants.
>>>
>>>They didn't withstand a greater-than-expected quake, not for
>>>any useful value of withstanding - the plants are virtually
>>>destroyed and contamination widespread.
>>
>>They withstood the immediate effects of the quake quite well.
>
> So? What condition are they in now as a result of the quake?
A sea wall sufficient to protect it from the tsunami would have
produced entirely different results. The problem wasn't the quake,
it was the tsunami.
Do you understand the difference?
>
>>The problem was the Tsunami - it wiped out the backup power
>>systems[*] for the cooling loops (which led to hydrogen buildup,
>>H2 explosions, and the core overheating).
>
> The problem was, there was an earthquake. As a result of that
> earthquake, the plants are virtually destroyed and contamination
> is widespread. You can't both claim they withstood the
> earthquake while at the same time claiming the problems are the
> result of the earthquake.
Which he is not claiming, you illiterate retard. Or perhaps lair,
but hey, this is usenet.
>
>>[*] if the backup generators had been able to run for more than
>>an hour after the reactors scrammed, they'd probably have been
>>restarted by now (residual seismicity notwithstanding).
>
> And if pigs had wings, we'd all wear hats.
>
I suspect you would be too stupid to manage that, too.
Lynn McGuire
> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in
> news:13025...@sheol.org:
>
>> ::: I suspect the conversion of traffic signals to use LEDs is a
>> ::: major factor in making [solar powered traffic lights]
>> ::: feasible.
>>
>> :: There's a new problem with these - snow doesn't melt on them.
>>
>> : Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy<taus...@gmail.com>
>> : And there are confirmed casualties caused by this.
>>
>> Are there confirmed casualties due to traffic lights being burnt
>> out (as opposed to failing one-out-or-several-LEDs at a time?
>>
> The one I recall was an accident caused by a driving not being able
> to see a red light because it had filled up with snow.
>
> http://www.newser.com/story/76251/led-traffic-lights-efficient-but-
> cant-melt-away-snow.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y8obl5k
>
> has an excellent photograph of the effect.
Wow! Not cool. Not a big problem in Sugar Land, Texas though.
Lynn
Lynn McGuire
> On 11 Apr 2011 17:39:39 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>
>>> They didn't withstand a greater-than-expected quake, not for any
>>> useful value of withstanding - the plants are virtually destroyed and
>>> contamination widespread.
>>
>> They withstood the immediate effects of the quake quite well.
>>
>> The problem was the Tsunami - it wiped out the backup power systems[*]
>> for the cooling loops (which led to hydrogen buildup, H2 explosions,
>> and the core overheating).
>
> It's better to have systems that shut down when everything goes wrong.
> There are nuclear reactor designs that do this, but they are newer
> designs.
Have any of these auto-shutdown systems been tested ? I am
100% pro-nuke (and fairly sure that is where we are heading)
but my 30 years of engineering experience tells me that
nothing works exactly as designed. There is a reason why we
have the design drawings and the as-built drawings - and they
don't match.
Lynn
Robert Bannister
That's why firms like Bhopal operate in India.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
If you lose your spouse or child now, there's a chance of getting some
sort of compensation. If they die from cancer in thirty or forty years'
time, you've got no hope.
--
Robert Bannister
Ala
"Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4da345be$0$10534$742e...@news.sonic.net...
They probably had to do a COOP plan. As many times as I see volcanoes and
such on the list, I tend to roll my eyes. Unfortunately management never
accepts "we are all dead" as the answer for the contingency in question.
Maybe their COOP figured nothing would survive an earthquake of this
magnitude and so didn't plan for it
John F. Eldredge
Actually, it was the Union Carbide India Limited company, in the city of
Bhopal, India.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
David DeLaney
>Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>I would like to see us build these pocket nukes everywhere:
>> http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/product.html
>
>Paper nuclear power plants are *always* cheap, easy to build, safe,
>etc... etc...
...Hieronymus machines! THAT'S what we need!
>The real world has the unforunate tendency to be rather messier.
Dave "and have more interesting by-products. And a good deal better resolution
on the items involved" DeLaney
William December Starr
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>
>> Remember "The Merry Minuet" from the fifties?
>>
>> "They're rioting in Africa;
>> There's strife in Iran;
>> What nature doesn't do to us
>> Will be done by our fellow man."
>
> "Warning lights are flashing down in quality control..."
Car 54, where are you?
-- wds
William December Starr
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
> Given what's happened in Japan, I have even LESS concern about the
> safety of nuclear power than I did before. The thing was hit with
> a quake several times more powerful than its design, THEN smashed
> with a tsunami that wiped out virtually all support around it, and
> while there have been some issues, it does not look like we're
> going to end up with anything on the level of an actual
> disaster. And this was just about the Worst Case Scenario level.
Worst Case No-Godzilla Scenario, you mean.
-- wds (y'always gotta give props to Godzilla)
William December Starr
"Ala" <alac...@comcast.net> said:
> They probably had to do a COOP plan. As many times as I see
> volcanoes and such on the list, I tend to roll my eyes.
> Unfortunately management never accepts "we are all dead" as the
> answer for the contingency in question.
Ah, but would they accept "everybody except management is dead"?
-- wds