OT: Nuclear Crisis in Japan
Jeff Thies
used in type II) that are currently running rampant:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/reactors-japan-crisis-raised-concerns-1972_n_836227.html
Designs:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf
Jeff
Jeff Thies
A bit better explanation of the drywell/wetwell in GE Mark I, as well
the "blowout" panels and the spent fuel reservoir which has been running
dry and burning particularly in the offline reactor #4.
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/home/2011/3/12/fukushima-dai-ichi-unit-1-reactor-schematic.html
Jeff
>
> Jeff
>
tra...@optonline.net
> On 3/15/2011 6:07 PM, Jeff Thies wrote:
>
> > Here's an interesting bit about the reactor design (GE Mark I, also
> > used in type II) that are currently running rampant:
>
>
> > Designs:
> >http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf
>
> A bit better explanation of the drywell/wetwell in GE Mark I, as well
> the "blowout" panels and the spent fuel reservoir which has been running
> dry and burning particularly in the offline reactor #4.
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jeff- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
About what I'd expect from the Huffington Post. A smear of the
design of
the GE reactors containment vessel design without ever mentioning that
from everything I've heard so far, the vessel itself has NOT been
compromised.
Seems to me it would be better to wait for a full investigation to
understand
exactly what happened and learn from it. In the end, I would not be
surprised to find out that after an earthquake
and sunami ranking in the top 5 of the last century, while the plants
were
wrecked the total radiation released beyond the plant boundaries could
turn out to be minimal and not a serious threat.
The Daring Dufas
I don't think those reactors were designed for submarines.
TDD
Han
news:ilqhpo$7du$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
From what I have gathered is that a) there may have been operator error
(failure to fill up the diesel tanks of the emergency power generators)
and/or failure of the electrical equipment needed for the emergency
cooling because of flooding with seawater.
Both would seem to be factors that should have been evaluated during the
design process. Whether that was GE's responsibility or not will be
established upon investigation. The IMPORTANT LESSON is how this may or
may not apply to other nuclear power plants.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
The Daring Dufas
It's my understanding from the report I heard via radio news that the
fuel tanks were washed away by the big wave. There was no fuel for the
emergency generators.
TDD
Jeff Thies
> On Mar 16, 8:09 am, Jeff Thies<jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
>> On 3/15/2011 6:07 PM, Jeff Thies wrote:
>>
>>> Here's an interesting bit about the reactor design (GE Mark I, also
>>> used in type II) that are currently running rampant:
>>
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/reactors-japan-crisis-raised...
>>
>>> Designs:
>>> http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf
>>
>> A bit better explanation of the drywell/wetwell in GE Mark I, as well
>> the "blowout" panels and the spent fuel reservoir which has been running
>> dry and burning particularly in the offline reactor #4.
>>
>> http://www.beyondnuclear.org/home/2011/3/12/fukushima-dai-ichi-unit-1...
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Jeff- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> About what I'd expect from the Huffington Post. A smear of the
> design of
> the GE reactors containment vessel design without ever mentioning that
> from everything I've heard so far, the vessel itself has NOT been
> compromised.
What I posted, which was linked from Huff Post is the GE brochure on the
Mark 1, Mark 2 and Mark 3 and an article on how 3 engineers quit in '72
over the design.
You are the one judging content by the source.
Why do you shoot the messenger?
>
> Seems to me it would be better to wait for a full investigation to
> understand
> exactly what happened and learn from it. In the end, I would not be
> surprised to find out that after an earthquake
> and sunami ranking in the top 5 of the last century, while the plants
> were
> wrecked the total radiation released beyond the plant boundaries could
> turn out to be minimal and not a serious threat.
Last I noted is that they were periodically removing all personnel from
the site because it was too dangerous to work in.
In fact the Mark 1 design is not fail safe but is fail catastrophic.
Unit 4 reactor was shut down for maintenance prior to the accident and
it's on site spent fuel storage is periodically burning. There is no
containment structure for that when the blow out panels have blown out
and radiation in copious amounts is released directly to the atmosphere.
Additionally there are radioactive elements detected that suggest
reactor breaching in #2 in some form is certain.
If anything things are getting worse, not getting better. The Mark 1
design is simply not sufficient for an emergency cooling loss accident.
Such an accident could be caused by tornadoes and other natural causes.
I posted this purely as background information and am only now
commenting on it because of your clear prejudice. In fact I am a
proponent of nuclear energy and have been. But if you read the GE
literature the Mark 1 design was promoted as being of a cost benefit
design. What cost is the accident? Is this not gong to be hugely
expensive? Who will pay?
Smarter more forward looking utilities have gone toward the more
expensive pressurized water or at least toward the later boiling water
designs that have greater reserves and not have spent fuel positioned in
the blow out zone. It's all in the literature if you had bothered to
read instead of shooting the messenger.
Jeff
Jeff Thies
Th failure mentioned here is because they did not notice that the tanks
had run dry on unit 4 on day 2 (I believe) that took some time to
detect. There are other operator type errors that have occurred because
they have been overwhelmed by the situation. Blow out panels damaging
adjacent reactor plumbing has not helped either. Much of this was
forseen and dismissed.
Last update has two of the reactor vessels with cracks and releasing
radioactive steam. This will get worse. If you look at the design and
see what they are trying to do you can see that this is difficult and
unprecedented. These were never meant to be flooded with seawater,that
is being done because both the high pressure emergency cooling has
failed and the low pressure suppression pool emergency cooling was
insufficient for the task. In effect the built in emergency cooling
systems are complete failures.
Jeff
>
> TDD
The Daring Dufas
Well, it may be that the most prevalent cause of the nuclear disaster is
complacency and lack of due diligence. I did notice one thing when I
looked at a map showing the location of the epicenter of the quake, it
was very close and I suppose the water hit those folks with no warning.
I haven't immersed myself in the news of the disaster but how would you
prepare for the worst earthquake EVER?
TDD
Han
@news.eternal-september.org:
> Well, it may be that the most prevalent cause of the nuclear disaster is
> complacency and lack of due diligence. I did notice one thing when I
> looked at a map showing the location of the epicenter of the quake, it
> was very close and I suppose the water hit those folks with no warning.
> I haven't immersed myself in the news of the disaster but how would you
> prepare for the worst earthquake EVER?
The reactors and their systems were fine after the quake. The tsunami that
came had been estimated for worst case scenarios to be 5 meters (~16 feet).
It was more like twice that. Therefore instead of a force just due to
weight of water, it was 10 tons per square meter (vertical static force),
rather than 5. Similarly all horizontal forces probably were twice worst
case scenario.
Rod Speed
> Jeff Thies <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote
>> Jeff Thies wrote
>>> Here's an interesting bit about the reactor design (GE Mark I,
>>> also used in type II) that are currently running rampant:
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/reactors-japan-crisis-raised...
>>> Designs:
>>> http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf
>> A bit better explanation of the drywell/wetwell in GE Mark I, as
>> well the "blowout" panels and the spent fuel reservoir which has
>> been running dry and burning particularly in the offline reactor #4.
>> http://www.beyondnuclear.org/home/2011/3/12/fukushima-dai-ichi-unit-1...
> About what I'd expect from the Huffington Post. A smear of the design
> of the GE reactors containment vessel design without ever mentioning that
> from everything I've heard so far, the vessel itself has NOT been compromised.
> Seems to me it would be better to wait for a full investigation to understand
> exactly what happened and learn from it. In the end, I would not be
> surprised to find out that after an earthquake and sunami ranking in the
> top 5 of the last century, while the plants were wrecked the total radiation
> released beyond the plant boundaries could turn out to be minimal
Its already a bit worse than that. Some have ended up with significant radiation levels at Fukushima airport.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/9020581/aussie-rescuers-exposed-to-japan-radiation/
Han
news:8ucdpr...@mid.individual.net:
> Its already a bit worse than that. Some have ended up with significant
> radiation levels at Fukushima airport.
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/9020581/aussie-rescuers-exposed-to-
> japan-radiation/
That link says (as far as I could read) that 2 people had been contaminated
with low level contaminants. That means that some radioactive dust flew
off and attached to their clothing or something like that. Geiger or
whatever counters are very sensitive and will distinguish between ~30
counts per minute and 60 cpm. Therefore it is real easy to find something
that low. Riding the subway in New York or flying cross country gets you
more radiation. Keep perspective!!
The Daring Dufas
Well, I suppose that's what I meant, perhaps I should written "Worst
disaster combination they never imagined"?
TDD
Hank
> The Daring Dufas <the-daring-du...@stinky.net> wrote innews:ilqhpo$7du$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
Let me say that I know nothing about Nuclear Power Plants. But from
the reports I have read/heard, the major problem was the fact that
both back-up water pumping stations (both the diesel generator
operated pump and battery operated pumps failed. Why don't they have a
steam turbine/steam reciprocating pump as back-up? The reactor
produces steam, steam runs the pumps. All is good.
I have worked with steam driven reciprocating pumps while in the Navy,
so, I know it can be done to pump water to cool the rods.
Hank <~~~~just a peon, probably wrong on this somehow :-)
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> tra...@optonline.net wrote
>>> In the end, I would not be surprised to find out that after an
>>> earthquake and sunami ranking in the top 5 of the last century,
>>> while the plants were wrecked the total radiation released
>>> beyond the plant boundaries could turn out to be minimal
>> Its already a bit worse than that. Some have ended up
>> with significant radiation levels at Fukushima airport.
>> http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/9020581/aussie-rescuers-exposed-to-japan-radiation/
> That link says (as far as I could read) that 2 people
> had been contaminated with low level contaminants.
Yes, but that clearly does prove that there is significant radioactive
material outside the plant boundarys, unlike what he said.
> That means that some radioactive dust flew off and
> attached to their clothing or something like that.
It was actually on their shoes, so it must be on the ground they walked on.
> Geiger or whatever counters are very sensitive and will
> distinguish between ~30 counts per minute and 60 cpm.
That article doesnt say what levels were actually seen.
> Therefore it is real easy to find something that low.
> Riding the subway in New York or flying cross
> country gets you more radiation.
No it does not.
> Keep perspective!!
Comprehend what is being discussed!!!
Rod Speed
> Let me say that I know nothing about Nuclear Power Plants.
Thats obvious.
> But from the reports I have read/heard, the major problem was the
> fact that both back-up water pumping stations (both the diesel
> generator operated pump and battery operated pumps failed.
They cant have failed completely otherwise they couldnt
have pumped sea water into the reactors and they did.
> Why don't they have a steam turbine/steam reciprocating pump as back-up?
Presumably because that approach would rely on being able
to get steam to drive it from the reactor. That isnt guaranteed.
> The reactor produces steam,
Not always.
The reactor produces electricity too, but they dont rely on that either.
> steam runs the pumps. All is good.
Not if the water doesnt stay where you want it to.
> I have worked with steam driven reciprocating pumps while in the
> Navy, so, I know it can be done to pump water to cool the rods.
The problem isnt just the rods.
> Hank <~~~~just a peon, probably wrong on this somehow :-)
Yep, you certainly have.
Bob F
> Well, it may be that the most prevalent cause of the nuclear disaster
> is complacency and lack of due diligence. I did notice one thing when
> I looked at a map showing the location of the epicenter of the quake,
> it was very close and I suppose the water hit those folks with no
> warning.
1/2 hour warning as I heard it.
> I haven't immersed myself in the news of the disaster but
> how would you prepare for the worst earthquake EVER?
>
If you can't, you shouldn't build the plant.
The Daring Dufas
A gee golly gosh darn meteor could hit the power plant too!
Perhaps that would be a good reason for not building it?
TDD
Jeff Thies
A plant of a different design would not be in the unholy mess that
Fukushima is in now. It's a bad design sold in quantity because it was a
lower cost. It has a cheap completely inadequate onsite spent fuel
storage that in the case of the offline #4 also had the offline fuel.
This should not now be running amuck. You can not afford to take chances
and cut corners with something that can have such dire consequences if
it fails.
This will get worse.
Jeff
>
> TDD
Michael Dobony
From what I have been reading and hearing the real problem is lack of
electrical power at the electric power stations (??????). The reactors went
down and the backup diesel generators were waterlogged. With no power to
run the circulation pumps the cooling process went down. It seems to me
that nuclear plants near the ocean and known areas of tsunamis, this was a
stupid idea. These plants were not miles inland away from the probable
tsumani threat. Dry and simple makes sense. The more complicated the
design, the more risk, like cars with power everything. Something WILL go
wrong. An earthquake/tsunami double hit should NOT have been unexpected.
Politics won and now the Japanese people are paying the price for their
greed.
The Daring Dufas
Like many other people, I'm all for safety but the owners have to
consider what the stockholders wish to spend on it. In North Alabama
where there are nuclear power reactors, I don't think any thought was
given to a tsunami but there is an earthquake fault not too far away.
Tornadoes are known to hit the area from time to time and there are
passenger jet routes crisscrossing the area. If the plant is on a river,
there is the possibility of a flood. Of course there are some wicked
thunderstorms with cataclysmic lightning now and then, lightening could
wipe out unprotected control and power systems. It's all about location,
location, location. :-)
TDD
DGDevin
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
news:ilqs0s$5uj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Well, it may be that the most prevalent cause of the nuclear disaster is
> complacency and lack of due diligence. I did notice one thing when I
> looked at a map showing the location of the epicenter of the quake, it
> was very close and I suppose the water hit those folks with no warning.
> I haven't immersed myself in the news of the disaster but how would you
> prepare for the worst earthquake EVER?
To start with you don't assume for no particular reason that the worst quake
your reactor will ever have to ride out will be a 7.0 and the worst tsunami
it will face will be one caused by a 7.0 quake.
Most of us probably assumed these plants are way over-engineered, able to
take the worst nature can throw at them and come through it safely even if
they have to shut down for awhile. Well, it turns out GE sold the the Mark
I reactors in part with a lower cost than some competing designs. Gee,
looks like spending more might have been a good idea. And one of the
damaged reactors was supposed to have been shut down this month, but the
company got a ten year extension to keep it running rather than replace it
even though it's already over a decade past it's design life. Oh well,
corporate profits are the most important thing, building a new, safer
reactor would have been really, really expensive.
DGDevin
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
news:ils32g$dl9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Like many other people, I'm all for safety but the owners have to consider
> what the stockholders wish to spend on it.
Screw the stockholders! Hundreds of thousands of people have been
evacuated, and if this situation gets worse that will seem like a minor
inconvenience especially as the wind shifts to the south. The mentality
that corporate profits should come ahead of the safety of an entire nation
(and of the entire world) is insane.
DGDevin
"Hank" wrote in message
news:743b84f9-467f-4c1e...@j9g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> Let me say that I know nothing about Nuclear Power Plants. But from
> the reports I have read/heard, the major problem was the fact that
> both back-up water pumping stations (both the diesel generator
> operated pump and battery operated pumps failed. Why don't they have a
> steam turbine/steam reciprocating pump as back-up? The reactor
> produces steam, steam runs the pumps. All is good.
The reactors are designed to automatically SCRAM (shut down) in an emergency
situation like a major earthquake. And there is no guarantee that the
tsunami wouldn't have disrupted regular power production just as it did the
backup power. If the backup systems and their plumbing had been tougher
that would probably have been sufficient, but for some bizarre reason this
whole plant was insanely vulnerable.
DGDevin
"Rod Speed" wrote in message news:8ud3dk...@mid.individual.net...
>> But from the reports I have read/heard, the major problem was the
>> fact that both back-up water pumping stations (both the diesel
>> generator operated pump and battery operated pumps failed.
> They cant have failed completely otherwise they couldnt
> have pumped sea water into the reactors and they did.
Among other things they have been using fire engines to pump water into the
reactors, so it's possible that all the pumps built into the plant are in
fact down.
DGDevin
wrote in message
news:48d6041a-f5c3-42a7...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> About what I'd expect from the Huffington Post. A smear of the
> design of
> the GE reactors containment vessel design without ever mentioning that
> from everything I've heard so far, the vessel itself has NOT been
> compromised.
There is ample evidence that the GE reactors were sold as cheaper than
competing designs, that there were warnings going back to the 70s about the
potential for just such failures as we are now seeing, and that the design
of the plant in question was shockingly vulnerable. To suggest that
questioning the safety of the design is a left-wing smear is not a position
supported by the facts.
GE began making the Mark 1 boiling-water reactors in the 1960s, marketing
them as cheaper and easier to build — in part because they used a
comparatively smaller and less expensive containment structure.
US regulators began identifying weaknesses very early on.
In 1972, Stephen Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic Energy
Commission, recommended that the Mark 1 system be discontinued because it
presented unacceptable safety risks. Among the concerns cited was the
smaller containment design, which was more susceptible to explosion and
rupture from a buildup in hydrogen — a situation that may have unfolded at
the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
Later that same year, Joseph Hendrie, who would later become chairman of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a successor agency to the atomic commission,
said the idea of a ban on such systems was attractive. But the technology
had been so widely accepted by the industry and regulatory officials, he
said, that “reversal of this hallowed policy, particularly at this time,
could well be the end of nuclear power.’’
> Seems to me it would be better to wait for a full investigation to
> understand
> exactly what happened and learn from it. In the end, I would not be
> surprised to find out that after an earthquake
> and sunami ranking in the top 5 of the last century, while the plants
> were
> wrecked the total radiation released beyond the plant boundaries could
> turn out to be minimal and not a serious threat.
"Minimal" and "not a serious threat" would no longer seem to be appropriate
terms to use in this disaster. I bet if you lived a couple of hundred miles
downwind from that plant your opinion would be very different.
DGDevin
"Han" wrote in message news:Xns9EAA9648F...@207.246.207.189...
> That link says (as far as I could read) that 2 people had been
> contaminated
> with low level contaminants. That means that some radioactive dust flew
> off and attached to their clothing or something like that. Geiger or
> whatever counters are very sensitive and will distinguish between ~30
> counts per minute and 60 cpm. Therefore it is real easy to find something
> that low. Riding the subway in New York or flying cross country gets you
> more radiation. Keep perspective!!
That why the USN moved a carrier battle group from downwind of the plant,
because there was less radiation than a ride on the NY subway?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> But from the reports I have read/heard, the major problem was the fact that both back-up water pumping stations
>>> (both the diesel
>>> generator operated pump and battery operated pumps failed.
>> They cant have failed completely otherwise they couldnt
>> have pumped sea water into the reactors and they did.
> Among other things they have been using fire engines to pump water into the reactors,
That wasnt done initially.
> so it's possible that all the pumps built into the plant are in fact down.
Fraid not. The problem was that some of them are powered by the mains and that went down.
Jeff Thies
Exactly. There is a reason for regulation and why market forces should
not decide such things.
You have too much faith in the corporation and too little in doing
things for the greater good. When the consequences are this dire, and
they are, to be so cavalier...
I'd like to make one more point, and that is that the safety of this
plant is based on complexity. There are no expensive cooling towers,
there is a cheap suppression pool that requires everything else to
function to prevent the catastrophe that is at hand. Emergency cooling
should not be done with firetrucks and helicopters and men facing death
from radiation.
The reason such has to be done is unconscionable.
When I first heard of this I thought a mighty technology nation with
many resources at hand will manage this. It might take a few hours or
days. I was wrong.
Onsite fuel storage must change, particularly for any Mark 1 reactors
left licensed, but the rest need to be decommissioned. Screw the
corporate cost when the public good is at such risk.
Note that the Browns Ferry reactor #1 had already been disabled once by
fire and has had other problems. It is a GE Mark 1.
Jeff
The Daring Dufas
"That's a good way to sustain injury to your penis" circa 1965, IBM
360/50 mainframe's answer the IBM Selectric terminal typed back when
you tried to insult the computer with a common rude colloquialism.
TDD
Han
news:XLydnS8_xNx1PhzQ...@earthlink.com:
I think you are misreading. What I was trying to say is that measurable
and significant are adjectives that do not by themselves mean dangerous.
Right now I am significantly sniffing and coughing, but that doesn't mean
I am about to die from pneumonia.
Of course, if you can move from a position where you "catch" radioactive
particles to one where you don't, then it is totally proper and advisable
to change course.
R. F. Duffer
discussion touches on how much lead is needed to wrap a house near a
reactor, then this is the wrong newsgroup.
Jeff Thies
> What does this have to do with home repair or frugal-living? Unless the
> discussion touches on how much lead is needed to wrap a house near a
> reactor, then this is the wrong newsgroup.
Every newsgroup has it's share of OT, many threads that start on topic
drift OT.
Usenet etiquette requires subjects start with OT, which this does. Then
it is your option to read or not. Only the English because of their
billing ever object. You can simply configure your newsreader to ignore
OT if you wish. If you don't know how to do this, then you should either
find out or get a better reader.
We are friends here (although some of our dialect might suggest
otherwise) and it is unusual to object to marked OT threads. It is not
just home repairs that get discussed here. To sum it up, get over it,
and get on with your life.
Now, SPAM, that is not tolerated.
Jeff
Kurt Ullman
"DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
They are, that is the entire problem, pretty much. So far, from afar
it looks like the major possible design flaw was placement of the
back-up electric systems in a low-lying area. The tsuanami came through,
ripped out the generators and the battery back-ups.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke
gpsman
wrote:
> What does this have to do with home repair or frugal-living?
Reports suggest a bunch of homes in Japan got broken, and what broke
them is likely to send the the cost of what we want to go down, up,
and what we want to go up, down.
If you want to invest in real estate, Hawaii is the place to do it,
yesterday.
-----
- gpsman
Kurt Ullman
Jeff Thies <jeff_...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Exactly. There is a reason for regulation and why market forces should
> not decide such things.
>
Yet it has been shown over and over again that market forces end up
deciding the regulations, too.
> When I first heard of this I thought a mighty technology nation with
> many resources at hand will manage this. It might take a few hours or
> days. I was wrong.
>
So far they have for the most part. However, I will admit to
stressing the so far part.
> Onsite fuel storage must change, particularly for any Mark 1 reactors
> left licensed, but the rest need to be decommissioned. Screw the
> corporate cost when the public good is at such risk.
HOw about the public cost? You don't just shut down reactors without
replacing them with something else.
Jeff Thies
> On 3/15/2011 6:07 PM, Jeff Thies wrote:
>> Here's an interesting bit about the reactor design (GE Mark I, also
>> used in type II) that are currently running rampant:
Diagram of the spent fuel storage, and data on the amounts thereof and
how the emergency measures to pump saltwater work:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/japan-nuclear-reactors-and-seismic-activity/
Jeff
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/reactors-japan-crisis-raised-concerns-1972_n_836227.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Designs:
>> http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf
>
> A bit better explanation of the drywell/wetwell in GE Mark I, as well
> the "blowout" panels and the spent fuel reservoir which has been running
> dry and burning particularly in the offline reactor #4.
>
> http://www.beyondnuclear.org/home/2011/3/12/fukushima-dai-ichi-unit-1-reactor-schematic.html
>
>
> Jeff
>
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>
Hank
>
> > Among other things they have been using fire engines to pump water into the
> > reactors, so it's possible that all the pumps built into the plant are in
> > fact down.
>
> They are, that is the entire problem, pretty much. So far, from afar
> it looks like the major possible design flaw was placement of the
> back-up electric systems in a low-lying area. The tsuanami came through,
> ripped out the generators and the battery back-ups.
>
That is why I suggest steam driven pumps as back-up, no electric and
the reactor produces steam to drive the pumps. Sounds like a great
back-up plan to me. Of course, nothing is perfect.
Hank
Jeff Thies
> In article<ilsk5q$9j7$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> Jeff Thies<jeff_...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly. There is a reason for regulation and why market forces should
>> not decide such things.
>>
> Yet it has been shown over and over again that market forces end up
> deciding the regulations, too.
I don't disagree.
But, better regulatory rather than none as the Tea Party wants is the
answer. If your objective is to break government than broken government
is what you get.
>
>
>> When I first heard of this I thought a mighty technology nation with
>> many resources at hand will manage this. It might take a few hours or
>> days. I was wrong.
>>
> So far they have for the most part. However, I will admit to
> stressing the so far part.
So far? So far it is a cluster fuck. The situation is largely out of
control. The complex is a total writeoff and will cost billions to clean
up. And that is the best case.
>
>> Onsite fuel storage must change, particularly for any Mark 1 reactors
>> left licensed, but the rest need to be decommissioned. Screw the
>> corporate cost when the public good is at such risk.
> HOw about the public cost? You don't just shut down reactors without
> replacing them with something else.
They can stop extending the licenses on Mark 1s. One was just renewed in
Vermont, despite local regulatory refusal. Just because it takes a long
time to do something doesn't mean the only option is the status quo. The
faults previously identified and the likely outcome of their failures is
exactly the situation that is in Fukuyama.
To reiterate, if you think things are going well there, you need to take
another look.
Jeff
>
Jeff Thies
> In article<w7adnQ5beb_gPRzQ...@earthlink.com>,
> "DGDevin"<DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Rod Speed" wrote in message news:8ud3dk...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>>>> But from the reports I have read/heard, the major problem was the
>>>> fact that both back-up water pumping stations (both the diesel
>>>> generator operated pump and battery operated pumps failed.
>>
>>> They cant have failed completely otherwise they couldnt
>>> have pumped sea water into the reactors and they did.
>>
>> Among other things they have been using fire engines to pump water into the
>> reactors, so it's possible that all the pumps built into the plant are in
>> fact down.
>
> They are, that is the entire problem, pretty much. So far, from afar
> it looks like the major possible design flaw was placement of the
> back-up electric systems in a low-lying area. The tsuanami came through,
> ripped out the generators and the battery back-ups.
>
major flaw is not that something failed, it is that it can't be fixed
once it does. And the battery backups were used so they must have been
intact.
Ever been to a big concert? They have mega generators suitable for
powering everything. That stuff can be gotten and moved one way or another.
Jeff
Han
news:ilt3i5$bt9$1...@news.albasani.net:
> Diagram of the spent fuel storage, and data on the amounts thereof and
> how the emergency measures to pump saltwater work:
>
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/japan-nuclear-
reactors-and-seismic-activity/>
>
> Jeff
That is a really good background.
Bob F
it did. What is going on in Japan is still getting worse. It is not acceptable.
They have already proven they cannot guarantee safety despite their continuous
assurances. These things are way too dangerous to be allowed without serious
investment in safety.
You would like to live in the neighborhood of the plant hit by a meteor? How
about a terrorist attack on the secondary containment, scattering used fuel all
over you? Would you rather not have it near you?
Bob F
As are, probably, many others.
Bob F
Except for the fact that the reactors shut down in a earthquake.
bud--
I have not heard there was damage from the earthquake.
The plant was protected from tsunami by a seawall. They did not envision
a quake as strong as what occurred and thus did not expect a tsunami as
high as occurred (design error). The plant is very near the sea -
presumably for cooling water. Emergency generators, in one report, were
in the basement and flooded (likely design error). From the rather poor
reporting it sounds like if they would have had emergency electrical
power for the pumps both the reactors and spent rod pools would have
been OK.
Reports are they are working on getting electric power to the plant,
which implies that the plant pumps can do the cooling. On the other hand
reporting of what is known is pretty poor, and a lot appears to not be
known. The US NRC says the spent rod pool at reactor 4 is dry (which is
apparently not entirely certain). As of last night that spent rod pool
was the major source of released radiation.
People are generally not supposed to be with in 12? mi of the plant. Out
to 29 miles you are supposed to stay inside and try to seal the
building. A lot depends on weather. So far wind has been mostly out to
sea. (So the US carrier moved to the west side of Japan.) If the wind
blows onshore health risks go up. And that can be 'excessive' cancers
years later. Years after Chernobyl thyroid cancer is far elevated.
The Daring Dufas
Wouldn't bother me, I think glowing in the dark could be pretty cool. ^_^
TDD
dgk
<the-dari...@stinky.net> wrote:
>On 3/16/2011 10:14 PM, Jeff Thies wrote:
>> On 3/16/2011 10:34 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2011 8:36 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>>> The Daring Dufas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, it may be that the most prevalent cause of the nuclear disaster
>>>>> is complacency and lack of due diligence. I did notice one thing when
>>>>> I looked at a map showing the location of the epicenter of the quake,
>>>>> it was very close and I suppose the water hit those folks with no
>>>>> warning.
>>>>
>>>> 1/2 hour warning as I heard it.
>>>>
>>>>> I haven't immersed myself in the news of the disaster but
>>>>> how would you prepare for the worst earthquake EVER?
>>>>>
>>>> If you can't, you shouldn't build the plant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> A gee golly gosh darn meteor could hit the power plant too!
>>> Perhaps that would be a good reason for not building it?
>>
>> A plant of a different design would not be in the unholy mess that
>> Fukushima is in now. It's a bad design sold in quantity because it was a
>> lower cost. It has a cheap completely inadequate onsite spent fuel
>> storage that in the case of the offline #4 also had the offline fuel.
>>
>> This should not now be running amuck. You can not afford to take chances
>> and cut corners with something that can have such dire consequences if
>> it fails.
>>
>> This will get worse.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>
>Like many other people, I'm all for safety but the owners have to
>consider what the stockholders wish to spend on it. In North Alabama
>where there are nuclear power reactors, I don't think any thought was
>given to a tsunami but there is an earthquake fault not too far away.
>Tornadoes are known to hit the area from time to time and there are
>passenger jet routes crisscrossing the area. If the plant is on a river,
>there is the possibility of a flood. Of course there are some wicked
>thunderstorms with cataclysmic lightning now and then, lightening could
>wipe out unprotected control and power systems. It's all about location,
>location, location. :-)
>
>TDD
If saving money for stockholders is the problem then private
enterprise should not be in the business of building nuclear power
plants.
DGDevin
"bud--" wrote in message news:ilt91j$nt2$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> I have not heard there was damage from the earthquake.
Or from previous quakes apparently. But the system is still designed to
shut down if something happens that might have caused serious damage. That
seems prudent. And it would have been fine if not for the poorly-designed
backup power systems.
> The plant was protected from tsunami by a seawall.
Yesterday I saw video of one of those walls that protected a town, it was
broken up like a cinder-block wall put up by somebody who didn't know how to
mix mortar.
> They did not envision a quake as strong as what occurred and thus did not
> expect a tsunami as high as occurred (design error).
Incredible design error, to save x-million dollars they rolled the dice on
how big a quake would occur while the plant was in service. They just got
an extension on keeping one of those reactors in service for another decade
too, despite the design life being hit before the turn of the century.
Profits ahead of safety--that's a formula for disaster.
Kurt Ullman
"DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Incredible design error, to save x-million dollars they rolled the dice on
> how big a quake would occur while the plant was in service. They just got
> an extension on keeping one of those reactors in service for another decade
> too, despite the design life being hit before the turn of the century.
> Profits ahead of safety--that's a formula for disaster.
I don't how it works in Japan, but in the US most utilites are highly
regulated from a profit standpoint. Usually they are guaranteed a
certain return on investment and can pass along most of costs of
producing the energy. So, keeping these online and saving money is at
least as much a political decision, so the Regulatory Commissions (and
through them the governor and legislators) don't get yelled at for
higher electricity rates.
DGDevin
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
news:3f-dnaOAioj9zB_Q...@earthlink.com...
> I don't how it works in Japan, but in the US most utilites are highly
> regulated from a profit standpoint. Usually they are guaranteed a
> certain return on investment and can pass along most of costs of
> producing the energy. So, keeping these online and saving money is at
> least as much a political decision, so the Regulatory Commissions (and
> through them the governor and legislators) don't get yelled at for
> higher electricity rates.
I'm thinking the formula is going to be changed after this, especially in
light of massive deception and fraud in how the Japanese nuclear industry
has handled safety. For a start different agencies should review safety and
promote the nuclear industry--not one agency responsible for both. And
it's not like nobody saw this disaster coming.
"The unfolding disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant follows decades of
falsified safety reports, fatal accidents and underestimated earthquake risk
in Japan's atomic power industry."
***
"The cascade of events at Fukushima had been foretold in a report published
in the U.S. two decades ago. The 1990 report by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, an independent agency responsible for safety at the country's
power plants, identified earthquake-induced diesel generator failure and
power outage leading to failure of cooling systems as one of the "most
likely causes" of nuclear accidents from an external event."
***
"Mitsuhiko Tanaka, 67, working as an engineer at Babcock Hitachi K.K.,
helped design and supervise the manufacture of a $250 million steel pressure
vessel for Tokyo Electric in 1975. Today, that vessel holds the fuel rods in
the core of the No. 4 reactor at Fukushima's Dai-Ichi plant, hit by
explosion and fire after the tsunami.
Tanaka says the vessel was damaged in the production process. He says he
knows because he orchestrated the cover-up. When he brought his accusations
to the government more than a decade later, he was ignored, he says."
***
"Tokyo Electric in 2002 admitted it had falsified repair reports at nuclear
plants for more than two decades. Chairman Hiroshi Araki and President
Nobuyama Minami resigned to take responsibility for hundred of occasions on
which the company had submitted false data to the regulator.
Then in 2007, the utility said it hadn't come entirely clean five years
earlier. It had concealed at least six emergency stoppages at its Fukushima
Dai-Ichi power station and a "critical" reaction at the plant's No. 3 unit
that lasted for seven hours."
***
"The world's biggest nuclear power plant had been built on an earthquake
fault line that generated three times as much as seismic acceleration, or
606 gals, as it was designed to withstand, the utility said. One gal, a
measure of shock effect, represents acceleration of 1 centimeter (0.4 inch)
per square second.
After Hokuriku Electric's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa prefecture
was rocked by a 6.9 magnitude quake in March 2007, government scientists
found it had been built near an earthquake fault that was more than twice as
long as regulators deemed threatening."
Smitty Two
"DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> I'm thinking the formula is going to be changed after this, especially in
> light of massive deception and fraud in how the Japanese nuclear industry
> has handled safety. For a start different agencies should review safety and
> promote the nuclear industry--not one agency responsible for both. And
> it's not like nobody saw this disaster coming.
My vote would be to require the 3 highest officials in charge of every
nuclear power plant to live, with their families, within 5 miles of the
plant.
Rod Speed
> Jeff Thies <jeff_...@att.net> wrote
>> Diagram of the spent fuel storage, and data on the amounts thereof
>> and how the emergency measures to pump saltwater work:
>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/japan-nuclear-reactors-and-seismic-activity/>
> That is a really good background.
You have no way of knowing how accurate it is on the emergency measures.
The Daring Dufas
There was a SciFi writer who wrote a story where there was a priesthood
responsible for all nuclear power. It was kind of amusing in its own way
with the strict rituals and regimented operating procedures. :-)
TDD
Jeff Thies
Some of the best past disasters were very colorful indeed. Hindenburg,
Dresden, Hiroshima and Krakatoa. Now those you could write home about.
Why should we be shorted with the mundane dark and drab
hurricanes,floods and tornadoes?
Jeff
>
> TDD
Robert Green
news:FqidnTq4Hr3vwR_QnZ2dnUVZ_u-
<stuff snipped>
> After Hokuriku Electric's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa prefecture
> was rocked by a 6.9 magnitude quake in March 2007, government scientists
> found it had been built near an earthquake fault that was more than twice
as
> long as regulators deemed threatening."
We also know that some of the greatest earthquakes have been along blind
thrust faults whose presence is known only after they've been triggered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_thrust_earthquake
"blind thrust earthquakes contribute more to urban seismic risk than the
'big ones' of magnitude 8 or more"
Building to avoid known fault lines in a no brainer, but it's also no
guarantee of not getting the M9.0 hell shaken out of you no matter where you
build. I'm no geologist, but I think our actual knowledge of what lies deep
below the earth's mantle is limited to a relatively few samples at sites
dispersed widely through the world. I've read some explanations of the
history of magnetic pole reversal and there's an awful lot of "we believes"
compared to the "we knows"
http://www.physorg.com/news159704651.html
"“The quadrupolar field (it is likely to be a quadrupole but another
structure could be possible)"
"small fluctuations in convective flow in Earth’s core can push the planet’s
sensitive magnetic system away from one pole toward an intermediate state,
where the system becomes attracted to the opposite pole."
I can sort of understand that, but there seems to be a lot that's missing.
Like how the process even starts itself up and why there's such an immensely
long time between changes, but a relatively quick change from north to
south, at least according to the rock records. I wonder if the switch isn't
associated with an increase in earthquakes.
--
Bobby G.
Jeff Thies
>
>
> "Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
> news:3f-dnaOAioj9zB_Q...@earthlink.com...
>
>> I don't how it works in Japan, but in the US most utilites are highly
>> regulated from a profit standpoint. Usually they are guaranteed a
>> certain return on investment and can pass along most of costs of
>> producing the energy. So, keeping these online and saving money is at
>> least as much a political decision, so the Regulatory Commissions (and
>> through them the governor and legislators) don't get yelled at for
>> higher electricity rates.
>
> I'm thinking the formula is going to be changed after this, especially
> in light of massive deception and fraud in how the Japanese nuclear
> industry has handled safety. For a start different agencies should
> review safety and promote the nuclear industry--not one agency
> responsible for both. And it's not like nobody saw this disaster coming.
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/03/16/bloomberg1376-LI7CHJ07SXKX01-27JLEJH6UQPBTE0NLL2I2HSRRJ.DTL&ao=3
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> "The unfolding disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant follows decades
> of falsified safety reports, fatal accidents and underestimated
> earthquake risk in Japan's atomic power industry."
>
> ***
Yow! Fukushima appears to be the Deepwater Horizon of Nukes. Not that
there aren't other stellar contenders.
The below left intact because it bears repeating.
Jeff
Jeff Thies
reactor unconnected so it is most certainly inaccurate. The PDF has a
better showing of the lines but the general idea of just what is flooded
and the rough path is described there. If you can find something else,
post it up. I'd like to know how hacked together this is. Certainly plan
"F" is a bad hack.
Jeff
DGDevin
"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news:prestwhich-1E4C6...@mx02.eternal-september.org...
> My vote would be to require the 3 highest officials in charge of every
> nuclear power plant to live, with their families, within 5 miles of the
> plant.
Works for me, although right on the grounds of the plant might be even
better.
Rod Speed
> DGDevin <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>> After Hokuriku Electric's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa
>> prefecture was rocked by a 6.9 magnitude quake in March 2007,
>> government scientists found it had been built near an earthquake
>> fault that was more than twice as long as regulators deemed
>> threatening."
> We also know that some of the greatest earthquakes have been along
> blind thrust faults whose presence is known only after they've been triggered.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_thrust_earthquake
> "blind thrust earthquakes contribute more to urban seismic risk than
> the 'big ones' of magnitude 8 or more"
> Building to avoid known fault lines in a no brainer,
Easier said than done with a small place like Japan right on the boundary between two plates.
Thats actually why its there.
> but it's also no guarantee of not getting the M9.0
> hell shaken out of you no matter where you build.
Thats just plain wrong.
> I'm no geologist,
Thats obvious.
> but I think our actual knowledge of what lies deep below the earth's mantle is
> limited to a relatively few samples at sites dispersed widely through the world.
Nope not with fault lines.
> I've read some explanations of the history of magnetic pole reversal
> and there's an awful lot of "we believes" compared to the "we knows"
Sure, but thats an entirely different matter to fault lines.
> http://www.physorg.com/news159704651.html
> "“The quadrupolar field (it is likely to be a quadrupole
> but another structure could be possible)"
> "small fluctuations in convective flow in Earth’s core can push the
> planet’s sensitive magnetic system away from one pole toward an
> intermediate state, where the system becomes attracted to the
> opposite pole."
> I can sort of understand that, but there seems to be a lot that's missing.
Not surprising given that its a bit hard to see whats going on in the center of the earth.
> Like how the process even starts itself up and why there's such
> an immensely long time between changes, but a relatively quick
> change from north to south, at least according to the rock records.
> I wonder if the switch isn't associated with an increase in earthquakes.
No evidence that it is.
DGDevin
"Robert Green" wrote in message
news:ilttta$oc4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> After Hokuriku Electric's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa
>> prefecture
>> was rocked by a 6.9 magnitude quake in March 2007, government scientists
>> found it had been built near an earthquake fault that was more than twice
>> as
>> long as regulators deemed threatening."
> We also know that some of the greatest earthquakes have been along blind
> thrust faults whose presence is known only after they've been triggered.
And we know that the Earth has been smacked by giant meteorites, but that
seems to have little relation to the current crisis. The point here is that
the nuclear industry in Japan was allowed to build plants near known fault
lines after doing their own evaluation of the threat, and the govt. only
became concerned when it was too late. If you're familiar with how industry
and govt. work hand-in-glove in Japan this comes as no surprise however.
Hopefully the hellish situation now underway will prompt governments around
the world to take a closer look at how such plants are designed and where
they are built.
tra...@optonline.net
> On 3/17/2011 9:38 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
>
> > Jeff Thies<jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> Exactly. There is a reason for regulation and why market forces should
> >> not decide such things.
>
> > Yet it has been shown over and over again that market forces end up
> > deciding the regulations, too.
>
> I don't disagree.
>
> But, better regulatory rather than none as the Tea Party wants is the
> answer. If your objective is to break government than broken government
> is what you get.
>
>
>
> >> When I first heard of this I thought a mighty technology nation with
> >> many resources at hand will manage this. It might take a few hours or
> >> days. I was wrong.
>
> > So far they have for the most part. However, I will admit to
> > stressing the so far part.
>
> So far? So far it is a cluster fuck. The situation is largely out of
> control. The complex is a total writeoff and will cost billions to clean
> up. And that is the best case.
>
>
And that affects you exactly how? Did they ask you to pay for the
clean up?
>
> >> Onsite fuel storage must change, particularly for any Mark 1 reactors
> >> left licensed, but the rest need to be decommissioned. Screw the
> >> corporate cost when the public good is at such risk.
> > HOw about the public cost? You don't just shut down reactors without
> > replacing them with something else.
>
> They can stop extending the licenses on Mark 1s. One was just renewed in
> Vermont, despite local regulatory refusal. Just because it takes a long
> time to do something doesn't mean the only option is the status quo. The
> faults previously identified and the likely outcome of their failures is
> exactly the situation that is in Fukuyama.
>
> To reiterate, if you think things are going well there, you need to take
> another look.
>
> Jeff
>
I think you need to take not another look, but a FIRST look. That
will come
when we have the investigation into exactly what happened and what
went
wrong. Right now, we don't know. And so far, the reactor
situation
appears worse than Three Mile Island, but nowhere near as serious as
Chernobyl. At the end of it all, I'll wager right now that when the
death
toll is summed up, you'll have tens of thousands dead from the
earthquake
and sunami and two orders of magnitude less from the nuclear incident.
Following your logic, we should immediately halt all contruction of
buildings, roads, etc because of the earthquake. Unless you think
tthey all
performed exactly as designed and intended. It could turn out that a
simple change like having the diesel generators located 25 feet higher
would have prevented the whole thing. And that change could be
implemented without closing anything. But we won't know until we
have an investigation and learn all the facts.
tra...@optonline.net
> The Daring Dufas wrote:
> > On 3/16/2011 8:36 PM, Bob F wrote:
> >> The Daring Dufas wrote:
>
> >>> Well, it may be that the most prevalent cause of the nuclear
> >>> disaster is complacency and lack of due diligence. I did notice one
> >>> thing when I looked at a map showing the location of the epicenter
> >>> of the quake, it was very close and I suppose the water hit those
> >>> folks with no warning.
>
> >> 1/2 hour warning as I heard it.
>
> >>> I haven't immersed myself in the news of the disaster but
> >>> how would you prepare for the worst earthquake EVER?
>
> >> If you can't, you shouldn't build the plant.
>
> > A gee golly gosh darn meteor could hit the power plant too!
> > Perhaps that would be a good reason for not building it?
>
> Do you pay any attention to the news? They said it couldn't happen. Guess what,
> it did. What is going on in Japan is still getting worse. It is not acceptable.
> They have already proven they cannot guarantee safety despite their continuous
> assurances. These things are way too dangerous to be allowed without serious
> investment in safety.
>
> You would like to live in the neighborhood of the plant hit by a meteor?
We already all live in a neighborhood called Earth that could be hit
by a meteor.
The remote chance of a meteor of sufficient size to breach the
containment
vessel yet not end life is say a 10 mile perimeter from the meteor
itself is
miniscule. But it does show the bizarre lengths some people will go
to
conjure up nonsense.
> How
> about a terrorist attack on the secondary containment, scattering used fuel all
> over you? Would you rather not have it near you?- Hide quoted text -
>
That used fuel would be safely stored in Yucca Mountain long ago if
alarmists
and nut jobs like Harry Reid had not stopped it. If you're worried
about security
we can secure one Yucca a hell of a lot easier than 100 spent fuel
pools
all around the country.
At the end of the day, everything has risks. following the madness of
zero risk
tolerance, we should immediately shut down all airports near major
cities, eg
Laguardia, JFK, LAX, etc because of the horrific possibility of a 747
crashing
into a populated area. Yet, they fly everyday, people get on them,
and life
goes on.
tra...@optonline.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's my understanding that at least some of these reactors have
exactly
what was suggested. That is a turbine driven pump system that uses
the
remaining heat inthe reactor after the control rods are inserted to
pump
cooling water. Then they have a diesel generator driven pump system
and then a battery power source as well.
Once again, until there is an investigation, it's just pure
speculation
to suggest what could have been done differently, because we
don't know the exact sequence of events or what went wrong.
Rod Speed
>>>> Diagram of the spent fuel storage, and data on the amounts thereof
>>>> and how the emergency measures to pump saltwater work:
>>>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/japan-nuclear-reactors-and-seismic-activity/>
>>> That is a really good background.
>> You have no way of knowing how accurate it is on the emergency measures.
> It's all I can find.
Sure, but its far too superficial to be any use when
discussing what they are currently doing about cooling it.
> It leaves the seawater path into and out the reactor unconnected so it is most certainly inaccurate. The PDF has a
> better showing of the lines but the general idea of just what is flooded and the rough path is described there. If you
> can find something else, post it up.
I doubt we'll see anything that can be relied on until the formal
enquiry, particularly on just what the tsunami damaged and
what they used to get the sea water into the reactors initially.
Its easier with the latest use of chinooks etc, they are very visible.
Rod Speed
> Kurt Ullman wrote
>> Jeff Thies<jeff_...@att.net> wrote
>>> Exactly. There is a reason for regulation and why market forces should not decide such things.
>> Yet it has been shown over and over again that market forces end up deciding the regulations, too.
> I don't disagree.
I do, it doesnt happen like that.
Not one of the Canadian or Australian retail banks imploded spectacularly
or even needed to be bailed out by govt in the most recent complete implosion
of the entire world financial system. The regulations in those countrys that
produced that result clearly had not been decided by market forces.
> But, better regulatory rather than none as the Tea Party wants is the answer. If your objective is to break government
> than broken government is what you get.
Nope, its just another fad, it wont have any real long term effect.
>>> When I first heard of this I thought a mighty technology nation with many resources at hand will manage this. It
>>> might take a few hours or days. I was wrong.
>> So far they have for the most part. However, I will admit to
>> stressing the so far part.
> So far? So far it is a cluster fuck. The situation is largely out of control.
No its not.
> The complex is a total writeoff
Yes, but then it was going to be decomissioned anyway.
And should be given that its in an area prone to very severe earthquakes.
They should be using reactors that cant melt down like the Canadian CANDUs etc.
> and will cost billions to clean up.
Nope. Even if they do melt down, they can just be entombed in concrete.
> And that is the best case.
Nope, the best case is that there is no meltdown
and they are just permanently shut down now.
>>> Onsite fuel storage must change, particularly for any Mark 1
>>> reactors left licensed, but the rest need to be decommissioned.
>>> Screw the corporate cost when the public good is at such risk.
>> HOw about the public cost? You don't just shut down reactors without replacing them with something else.
> They can stop extending the licenses on Mark 1s.
Not practical. There are something like 100 of them in use.
> One was just renewed in Vermont, despite local regulatory refusal.
Local regulatory is just posturing clowns.
> Just because it takes a long time to do something doesn't mean the only option is the status quo.
Yes. The Japanese Mark 1s should be shut down and replaced
with reactors that cant meltdown like the Canadian CANDUs,
because Japan is a very well know severe earthquake region.
> The faults previously identified and the likely outcome of their failures is exactly the situation that is in
> Fukuyama.
Yes.
> To reiterate, if you think things are going well there,
He didnt say that.
Robert Green
> Robert Green wrote
> > DGDevin <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>
> >> After Hokuriku Electric's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa
> >> prefecture was rocked by a 6.9 magnitude quake in March 2007,
> >> government scientists found it had been built near an earthquake
> >> fault that was more than twice as long as regulators deemed
> >> threatening."
>
> > We also know that some of the greatest earthquakes have been along
> > blind thrust faults whose presence is known only after they've been
triggered.
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_thrust_earthquake
>
> > "blind thrust earthquakes contribute more to urban seismic risk than
> > the 'big ones' of magnitude 8 or more"
>
> > Building to avoid known fault lines in a no brainer,
>
> Easier said than done with a small place like Japan right on the boundary
between two plates.
>
> Thats actually why its there.
Agreed. The whole damn island is the result of one huge tectonic plate
banging against another.
> > but it's also no guarantee of not getting the M9.0
> > hell shaken out of you no matter where you build.
>
> Thats just plain wrong.
How so? Without any reasoning to support your statement, it's just your
word. On the other hand, with huge plates floating on the surface of a
molten metal core, there's no guarantee of anything not rupturing, splitting
or heaving at some point. I'll agree that some places are far more likely
to pop 9.0 on the Richter scale. However, I happen to know you're dead
wrong in this case because time and time again I've read that there's no
immunity to earthquakes anywhere in the world. Do you have contrary
information?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50E12FF395E13738DDDA00994D9415B818DF1D3
NO PLACE IMMUNE FROM EARTHQUAKES; Scientists Agree That There Is Nothing
Amazing About Those in Germany. Scientists who have made a study of
earthquakes expressed no astonishment yesterday at the fact that extensive
shocks had occurred in Germany and Switzerland, where heretofore they have
been almost unknown. They said that while earthquakes were more common in
certain other localities, there was no reason why one should not occur
anywhere.
Operative words: "NO REASON WHY ONE SHOULD NOT OCCUR ANYWHERE." Just ask
any competent geologist.
I think that about demolishes your implied contention that there are "safe
areas" where people are guaranteed not to get a M9.0 shaking at some point.
> > I'm no geologist,
>
> Thats obvious.
As if *you* are. We've already proved you don't know shit about seismology
and that you somehow believe that earthquakes will only appear in certain
places. THAT'S wrong.
> > but I think our actual knowledge of what lies deep below the earth's
mantle is
> > limited to a relatively few samples at sites dispersed widely through
the world.
>
> Nope not with fault lines.
Garbage. Read what I wrote. "What lies deep below the mantle." Are you
saying we have all those fault lines mapped out? If so, you're a bigger
BS'er than you appear to be. That would mean that there is no such thing as
a blind thrust fault. Just looking up Northridge on Google will put the lie
to that contention. We've barely mapped surface faults and even then, it's
mostly in places that are known to be active. Very little fault mapping is
done in areas that haven't recently had earthquakes. Especially deep faults
lying "deep below the mantle."
> > I've read some explanations of the history of magnetic pole reversal
> > and there's an awful lot of "we believes" compared to the "we knows"
>
> Sure, but thats an entirely different matter to fault lines.
Prove it. We know so little about the processes in the earth's core I say
it's impossible, given how little we know about deep earth processes, to
conclude they're entirely different and unrelated. Common sense alone
implies there's a relation because it's the heat from the core that provides
the energy to power vulcanism and the core itself that allows plates to
float and move around. The convection of the molten core determines
magnetic pole orientation (so they believe) and you want us to believe that
huge currents of molten metal at the center of the planet have no relation
to earthquakes? You can believe it if you like . . .
> > http://www.physorg.com/news159704651.html
>
> > ""The quadrupolar field (it is likely to be a quadrupole
> > but another structure could be possible)"
>
> > "small fluctuations in convective flow in Earth's core can push the
> > planet's sensitive magnetic system away from one pole toward an
> > intermediate state, where the system becomes attracted to the
> > opposite pole."
>
> > I can sort of understand that, but there seems to be a lot that's
missing.
>
> Not surprising given that its a bit hard to see whats going on in the
center of the earth.
Strewth! Not being able to see usually means not being able to include or
exclude those unseen processes from processes sitting right on top of them
(like earthquakes) that we can see.
> > Like how the process even starts itself up and why there's such
> > an immensely long time between changes, but a relatively quick
> > change from north to south, at least according to the rock records.
>
> > I wonder if the switch isn't associated with an increase in earthquakes.
> No evidence that it is.
No evidence yet other than we seem to be going through an era of increased
earthquake activity of very serious intensity. Understanding what's going
on with processes in the earth's core is at its very infancy. Right now,
all we can do it look at the geological records of both types of events to
see if there's a concordance. As you might know from your own countryman's
brilliant deduction that microbes, not stress, causes ulcers, science
doesn't necessarily have all the answers. I think it's valid to conclude
that convection currents in the molten core of the earth can affect both
magnetic pole reversals AND geological events like earthquakes. It's not
like trying to prove astrology is meaningful, it's linking two events that
share a very fundamental component - the entire, massive nickel-iron molten
core of the earth.
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
news:iltuob$da2$1...@news.albasani.net...
<stuff snipped>
> It's all I can find. It leaves the seawater path into and out the
> reactor unconnected so it is most certainly inaccurate. The PDF has a
> better showing of the lines but the general idea of just what is flooded
> and the rough path is described there. If you can find something else,
> post it up. I'd like to know how hacked together this is. Certainly plan
> "F" is a bad hack.
No matter what the government is saying, when you see firefighting helos
dropping buckets of water (and boric acid - kills roaches AND runaway
reactors, too!) then you know we're in deep, deep doodoo.
--
Bobby G.
> Jeff
Gary Heston
Jeff Thies <jeff_...@att.net> wrote:
[ ... ]
>A plant of a different design would not be in the unholy mess that
>Fukushima is in now. It's a bad design sold in quantity because it was a
>lower cost. It has a cheap completely inadequate onsite spent fuel
>storage that in the case of the offline #4 also had the offline fuel.
You're saying it's the Ford Pinto of nuclear energy?
Not everyone can afford the Lincoln model. Japan has kept those
reactors going because they need the electricity. While not the
best, they've worked well over the decades.
Energy, not just nuclear energy, is a complex thing. While it's easy
to Monday morning quarterback decisions made decades ago, none of us
were there nor are any of us privy to all the issues.
Can we get back on topic, now?
Gary
Jeff Thies
> On Mar 17, 10:38 am, Jeff Thies<jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
>> On 3/17/2011 9:38 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
>>
> Following your logic, we should immediately halt all contruction of
> buildings, roads, etc because of the earthquake.
You make a lot of straw man arguments about what other people think.
Unless you think
> tthey all
> performed exactly as designed and intended. It could turn out that a
> simple change like having the diesel generators located 25 feet higher
> would have prevented the whole thing.
This plant has been dodging bullets. Just another "if only" in a bad
design. What did happen is more important than what could have. Early in
the accident, even with the generators working, there was trouble:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_nuclear_accidents
And that change could be
> implemented without closing anything. But we won't know until we
> have an investigation and learn all the facts.
The GE Mark 1 should not be allowed unmodified in any danger zone. Out
of 6 reactors, 4 are history. What cost that? The flaws in the design
were well known, among them an insufficient wet well and spent fuel
storage located where it could be damaged and is essentially uncontained.
I have never been anti nuclear. I previously had no opinion on any
reactor. But, whatever it takes to make sure this model reactor never
does what four of them are currently doing, is what has to be done. That
takes no investigation to figure out.
Jeff
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Robert Green wrote
>>> DGDevin <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>>> After Hokuriku Electric's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa
>>>> prefecture was rocked by a 6.9 magnitude quake in March 2007,
>>>> government scientists found it had been built near an earthquake
>>>> fault that was more than twice as long as regulators deemed threatening."
>>> We also know that some of the greatest earthquakes have been along blind
>>> thrust faults whose presence is known only after they've been triggered.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_thrust_earthquake
>>> "blind thrust earthquakes contribute more to urban seismic risk than
>>> the 'big ones' of magnitude 8 or more"
>>> Building to avoid known fault lines in a no brainer,
>> Easier said than done with a small place like Japan right on the boundary between two plates.
>> Thats actually why its there.
> Agreed. The whole damn island is the result of one huge tectonic
> plate banging against another.
>>> but it's also no guarantee of not getting the M9.0
>>> hell shaken out of you no matter where you build.
>> Thats just plain wrong.
> How so?
If you build in the middle of one of the major plates,
you wont get the M9.0 hell shaken out of you.
> Without any reasoning to support your statement, it's just your word.
Nope, its also a fact.
> On the other hand, with huge plates floating on the
> surface of a molten metal core, there's no guarantee of
> anything not rupturing, splitting or heaving at some point.
It doesnt in fact happen like that.
> I'll agree that some places are far more likely to pop 9.0 on the
> Richter scale. However, I happen to know you're dead wrong
> in this case because time and time again I've read that there's
> no immunity to earthquakes anywhere in the world.
Just because some fool claims something repeatedly doesnt make it gospel.
> Do you have contrary information?
Yep.
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50E12FF395E13738DDDA00994D9415B818DF1D3
Just because some fool journo claims something repeatedly doesnt make it gospel.
> NO PLACE IMMUNE FROM EARTHQUAKES;
Just because some fool journo claims something repeatedly doesnt make it gospel.
> Scientists Agree That There Is Nothing Amazing About Those in Germany.
Those what ?
> Scientists who have made a study of earthquakes expressed no astonishment
> yesterday at the fact that extensive shocks had occurred in Germany and
> Switzerland, where heretofore they have been almost unknown.
Those werent anything even remotely resembling
anything like get the M9.0 hell shaken out of you.
And switzerland isnt that far from areas which
have had major earthquakes for millennia now.
> They said that while earthquakes were more common in certain other
> localities, there was no reason why one should not occur anywhere.
> Operative words: "NO REASON WHY ONE SHOULD NOT OCCUR ANYWHERE."
Just because some fool journo claims something repeatedly doesnt make it gospel.
> Just ask any competent geologist.
They dont say anything like that about get the M9.0 hell shaken out of you.
> I think that about demolishes your implied contention that there are "safe areas"
> where people are guaranteed not to get a M9.0 shaking at some point.
'think' again.
>>> I'm no geologist,
>> Thats obvious.
> As if *you* are.
You have absolutely no idea what I am.
> We've already proved you don't know shit about seismology
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying to your teeth.
And just how many of you are there between those ears anyway ?
> and that you somehow believe that earthquakes will only appear in certain places.
Never ever said anything like that.
> THAT'S wrong.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
>>> but I think our actual knowledge of what lies deep below the
>>> earth's mantle is limited to a relatively few samples at sites
>>> dispersed widely through the world.
>> Nope not with fault lines.
> Garbage.
Fact.
> Read what I wrote.
No point, it stays mindless pig ignorant shit no matter how often its read.
> "What lies deep below the mantle."
That aint what earthquakes are about.
> Are you saying we have all those fault lines mapped out?
We certainly have a hell of a lot more than just a relatively
few samples at sites dispersed widely through the world.
They just happen to be the most metalurgically active
areas, so have been very extensively mapped ineed.
> If so, you're a bigger BS'er than you appear to be.
You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
> That would mean that there is no such thing as a blind thrust fault.
No it wouldnt.
> Just looking up Northridge on Google will put the lie to that contention.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
> We've barely mapped surface faults
Another pig ignorant lie.
> and even then, it's mostly in places that are known to be active.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> Very little fault mapping is done in areas that haven't recently had earthquakes.
Another pig ignorant lie.
Those just happen to be the most metalurgically active geology, fool.
> Especially deep faults lying "deep below the mantle."
They are irrelevant to most earthquakes.
>>> I've read some explanations of the history of magnetic pole reversal
>>> and there's an awful lot of "we believes" compared to the "we knows"
>> Sure, but thats an entirely different matter to fault lines.
> Prove it.
You dont see that with fault lines.
> We know so little about the processes in the earth's core
> I say it's impossible, given how little we know about deep earth
> processes, to conclude they're entirely different and unrelated.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> Common sense alone implies there's a relation because it's the
> heat from the core that provides the energy to power vulcanism
> and the core itself that allows plates to float and move around.
Doesnt mean its got a damned thing to do with magnetic pole reversal
> The convection of the molten core determines magnetic pole
> orientation (so they believe) and you want us to believe that
> huge currents of molten metal at the center of the planet have
> no relation to earthquakes?
Its completely trivial to compare the magnetic pole reversals
that have happened with the major eathquakes that have
happened and see that there is no correlation what so ever.
> You can believe it if you like . . .
It aint about belief, its about evidence and rigorous science.
>>> http://www.physorg.com/news159704651.html
>>> ""The quadrupolar field (it is likely to be a quadrupole
>>> but another structure could be possible)"
>>> "small fluctuations in convective flow in Earth's core can push the planet's
>>> sensitive magnetic system away from one pole toward an intermediate
>>> state, where the system becomes attracted to the opposite pole."
>>> I can sort of understand that, but there seems to be a lot that's missing.
>> Not surprising given that its a bit hard to see whats going on in the center of the earth.
> Strewth! Not being able to see usually means not being able
> to include or exclude those unseen processes from processes
> sitting right on top of them (like earthquakes) that we can see.
Its completely trivial to compare the magnetic pole reversals
that have happened with the major eathquakes that have
happened and see that there is no correlation what so ever.
>>> Like how the process even starts itself up and why there's such
>>> an immensely long time between changes, but a relatively quick
>>> change from north to south, at least according to the rock records.
>>> I wonder if the switch isn't associated with an increase in earthquakes.
>> No evidence that it is.
> No evidence yet
Its completely trivial to compare the magnetic pole reversals
that have happened with the major eathquakes that have
happened and see that there is no correlation what so ever.
> other than we seem to be going through an era of
> increased earthquake activity of very serious intensity.
And no magnetic pole reversals whatever associated with that.
> Understanding what's going on with processes in the earth's core is at its very infancy.
And just when we have seen magnetic pole reversals aint.
> Right now, all we can do it look at the geological records
> of both types of events to see if there's a concordance.
And there isnt.
> As you might know from your own countryman's brilliant
> deduction that microbes, not stress, causes ulcers,
> science doesn't necessarily have all the answers.
It does know that there is no correlation whatever between magnetic
pole reversals and major earthquakes or bursts of earthquakes.
> I think it's valid to conclude that convection currents in the molten core of the earth
> can affect both magnetic pole reversals AND geological events like earthquakes.
Its completely trivial to compare the magnetic pole reversals
that have happened with the major eathquakes that have
happened and see that there is no correlation what so ever.
> It's not like trying to prove astrology is meaningful, it's linking
> two events that share a very fundamental component - the
> entire, massive nickel-iron molten core of the earth.
And there is no link what so ever.
You get to like that or lump it.
Rod Speed
> Jeff Thies <jeff_...@att.net> wrote
>> It's all I can find. It leaves the seawater path into and out the
>> reactor unconnected so it is most certainly inaccurate. The PDF
>> has a better showing of the lines but the general idea of just
>> what is flooded and the rough path is described there. If you
>> can find something else, post it up. I'd like to know how
>> hacked together this is. Certainly plan "F" is a bad hack.
> No matter what the government is saying, when you see firefighting helos
They aint firefighting helos.
> dropping buckets of water (and boric acid - kills roaches AND
> runaway reactors, too!) then you know we're in deep, deep doodoo.
Nope, all you know is that there is no other way to get water into there currently.
Rod Speed
> On 3/17/2011 7:47 PM, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 10:38 am, Jeff Thies<jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On 3/17/2011 9:38 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
>>>
> <snip>
>
>> Following your logic, we should immediately halt all contruction of
>> buildings, roads, etc because of the earthquake.
>
> You make a lot of straw man arguments about what other people think.
>
> Unless you think
>> tthey all
>> performed exactly as designed and intended. It could turn out
>> that a simple change like having the diesel generators located 25
>> feet higher would have prevented the whole thing.
>
> This plant has been dodging bullets. Just another "if only" in a bad
> design. What did happen is more important than what could have. Early
> in the accident, even with the generators working, there was trouble:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_nuclear_accidents
>
>
> And that change could be
>> implemented without closing anything. But we won't know until we
>> have an investigation and learn all the facts.
>
> The GE Mark 1 should not be allowed unmodified in any danger zone. Out
> of 6 reactors, 4 are history. What cost that? The flaws in the design
> were well known, among them an insufficient wet well and spent fuel
> storage located where it could be damaged and is essentially uncontained.
The most important flaw is that they can melt down.
Canadian CANDU nukes cant and nukes like that should be used in earthquake prone areas.
Jeff Thies
There it is the absurd meteor argument. You Tea Party types get so
wrapped up in what might happen, even though it likely won't, that you
don't care about what did happen.
>
>
>
>> How
>> about a terrorist attack on the secondary containment, scattering used fuel all
>> over you? Would you rather not have it near you?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> That used fuel would be safely stored in Yucca Mountain long ago if
> alarmists
> and nut jobs like Harry Reid had not stopped it.
Two completely different things. You can't take hot fuel and move it, it
has to cool down. It has to stay in cooling pools for years before going
anywhere.
If you're worried
> about security
> we can secure one Yucca a hell of a lot easier than 100 spent fuel
> pools
> all around the country.
Moving hot fuel is lunacy. #4 had come out in November of last year.
>
> At the end of the day, everything has risks. following the madness of
> zero risk
> tolerance, we should immediately shut down all airports near major
> cities, eg
> Laguardia, JFK, LAX, etc because of the horrific possibility of a 747
> crashing
> into a populated area. Yet, they fly everyday, people get on them,
> and life
> goes on.
Another straw man argument. Assign some ridiculous proposition to your
opponent and then trash it.
Everything has risks. But you don't take the design that is the least
likely to handle stress and use it in earthquake and Tsunami zones.
In the end, the additional cost of using a more robust design will be a
fraction of the cost of this "accident". The plant is a writeoff, the
cleanup is going to be very expensive, the ripple effect will be extensive.
But a meteor might hit so why bother.
Jeff
>
Jeff Thies
We've got a damn good idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_nuclear_accidents
And it is well documented the flaws and insufficient wet well of the GE
Mark 1. All previously listed in this thread.
What will take time is just how to moderate the risks of an
insufficient design in very bad locations.
Jeff
dgk
<the-dari...@stinky.net> wrote:
There was a SciFi book by Niven and Pournelle called Lucifer's Hammer
that was about life after an asteroid slams into the earth. As I
recall, the locals survive and prosper because they can keep their
nuclear power plant running. It really bothered me at the time because
it was such bullshit. First off, no one, no matter what their
expertise, is going to be able to keep a nuclear plant running and
safe without the support of a large industrial capacity.
More importantly, and the reason I never read anything else by
Pournelle, is because they never bothered to explain what happened to
all the other nuclear power plants after the world wide earthquakes
and tsunamis. I can only conclude that most or all of them went to
category 7 destroying a good part of what was left of the world.
I had read other Niven stuff before, Ringworld and such, so I
concluded that Pournelle was the force behind the stupidity.
The Daring Dufas
I read LH back in 1979 when I was working at an electronics repair
depot and I shared SciFi books with a coworker. My coworker refused
to read Lucifer's Hammer because the name Lucifer was in the title.
My friend was a devout Southern Baptist but I didn't hold it against
him because half my relatives are Southern Baptist and they're just
as funny as he was. :-)
TDD
Bob F
> In article <FqidnTq4Hr3vwR_Q...@earthlink.com>,
> "DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking the formula is going to be changed after this,
>> especially in light of massive deception and fraud in how the
>> Japanese nuclear industry has handled safety. For a start different
>> agencies should review safety and promote the nuclear industry--not
>> one agency responsible for both. And it's not like nobody saw this
>> disaster coming.
>
> nuclear power plant to live, with their families, within 5 miles of
> the plant.
No. The highest management of the utilities and the manufacturers should be
assigned cleanup duty.
tra...@optonline.net
Yeah, why bother with an investigation where we'll learn exactly what
happened and can then figure out what to do. We should just listen
to arm chair experts like you. The one thing virtually everyone
agrees on is that right now we don't know very much about what is
going on, let alone the root causes. Except you, who already has
the answer.
tra...@optonline.net
If you can read, I made it clear that I agree the meteor argument is
absurd.
And your mind must work in mysterious ways to somehow link the
meteor to the Tea Party.
>
> >> How
> >> about a terrorist attack on the secondary containment, scattering used fuel all
> >> over you? Would you rather not have it near you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > That used fuel would be safely stored in Yucca Mountain long ago if
> > alarmists
> > and nut jobs like Harry Reid had not stopped it.
>
> Two completely different things. You can't take hot fuel and move it, it
> has to cool down. It has to stay in cooling pools for years before going
> anywhere.
No, they are not. There would be minimal amounts of spent fuel at
the
cooling pools at individual nuclear reactors if we had Yucca Mountain.
Since the libs and environmental nuts blocked it after we spent
billions
on it, those cooling pools have many years worth of backed up spent
fuel just sitting there.
>
> If you're worried
>
> > about security
> > we can secure one Yucca a hell of a lot easier than 100 spent fuel
> > pools
> > all around the country.
>
> Moving hot fuel is lunacy. #4 had come out in November of last year.
>
>
>
> > At the end of the day, everything has risks. following the madness of
> > zero risk
> > tolerance, we should immediately shut down all airports near major
> > cities, eg
> > Laguardia, JFK, LAX, etc because of the horrific possibility of a 747
> > crashing
> > into a populated area. Yet, they fly everyday, people get on them,
> > and life
> > goes on.
>
> Another straw man argument. Assign some ridiculous proposition to your
> opponent and then trash it.
It's an excellent example of how irrational some people are. If
you're
going to conjure up images of meteors hitting a nuke, what exactly is
wrong with comparing it to other far more likely scenarios that we
live with every day?
>
> Everything has risks. But you don't take the design that is the least
> likely to handle stress and use it in earthquake and Tsunami zones.
>
> In the end, the additional cost of using a more robust design will be a
> fraction of the cost of this "accident". The plant is a writeoff, the
> cleanup is going to be very expensive, the ripple effect will be extensive.
>
> But a meteor might hit so why bother.
>
> Jeff
>
So, says you, the armchair expert that knows how to fix things before
there is any investigation. It's entirely possible, the
investigation could
determine that other reactor designs might not have done any better.
Or that key problems could be simple things that have nothing to do
with the GE reactor design. An example being how the backup diesel
generators were located and secured. Bu then you already have
reached your conclusion, without letting any facts get in your way.
tra...@optonline.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, no need for an investiagtion to figure out what happened and
learn from
it before figuring out solutions. Just go to that source of all
knowledge and truth,
Wikipedia, where any armchair idiot can edit it and put up anything
they want.
I'm beginning to see your problem here.
Smitty Two
<f727d4fa-c428-41d6...@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
"tra...@optonline.net" <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Yeah, no need for an investiagtion to figure out what happened
Wasn't needed for 9/11, so shouldn't be necessary for this. Just clean
up the debris and haul it off to the dump.
Karen Silkwood
"DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:48d6041a-f5c3-42a7...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > About what I'd expect from the Huffington Post. A smear of the
> > design of
> > the GE reactors containment vessel design without ever mentioning that
> > from everything I've heard so far, the vessel itself has NOT been
> > compromised.
>
> There is ample evidence that the GE reactors were sold as cheaper than
> competing designs, that there were warnings going back to the 70s about the
> potential for just such failures as we are now seeing, and that the design
> of the plant in question was shockingly vulnerable. To suggest that
> questioning the safety of the design is a left-wing smear is not a position
> supported by the facts.
>
> http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/03/16/warning_was_issued_i
> n_70s_on_ge_designed_reactors/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z
>
> GE began making the Mark 1 boiling-water reactors in the 1960s, marketing
> them as cheaper and easier to build — in part because they used a
> comparatively smaller and less expensive containment structure.
>
> US regulators began identifying weaknesses very early on.
>
> In 1972, Stephen Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic Energy
> Commission, recommended that the Mark 1 system be discontinued because it
> presented unacceptable safety risks. Among the concerns cited was the
> smaller containment design, which was more susceptible to explosion and
> rupture from a buildup in hydrogen — a situation that may have unfolded at
> the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
>
> Later that same year, Joseph Hendrie, who would later become chairman of the
> Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a successor agency to the atomic commission,
> said the idea of a ban on such systems was attractive. But the technology
> had been so widely accepted by the industry and regulatory officials, he
> said, that “reversal of this hallowed policy, particularly at this time,
> could well be the end of nuclear power.’’
>
> > Seems to me it would be better to wait for a full investigation to
> > understand
> > exactly what happened and learn from it. In the end, I would not be
> > surprised to find out that after an earthquake
> > and sunami ranking in the top 5 of the last century, while the plants
> > were
> > wrecked the total radiation released beyond the plant boundaries could
> > turn out to be minimal and not a serious threat.
>
> "Minimal" and "not a serious threat" would no longer seem to be appropriate
> terms to use in this disaster. I bet if you lived a couple of hundred miles
> downwind from that plant your opinion would be very different.
What if every roof top had a solar panel? we wouldn't need a single
nuklar device. and Wars for Oil could be eliminated too. Sound good?
--
Karma, What a concept!
Jeff Thies
> On Mar 18, 7:14 am, Jeff Thies<jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
>> On 3/17/2011 7:58 PM, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Yeah, no need for an investiagtion to figure out what happened and
> learn from
> it before figuring out solutions.
Do you think the option is no investigation? There will be plenty of
investigations. A great deal will be learned.
If you need to wait until a full investigation has been completed than
go ahead. It should be obvious to anyone that I have no say in this. But
that matters not on why this perfect maelstrom happened, it is little
different than all the cost benefit that was done at the Deepwater
Horizon. It should also be obvious that the cost of such mistakes is huge.
But not to you. You are immersed in the ideology.
Just go to that source of all
> knowledge and truth,
> Wikipedia, where any armchair idiot can edit it and put up anything
> they want.
Shoot the messenger on a documented timeline. I found that recently and
it is comprehensive, if you have something better post it.
>
> I'm beginning to see your problem here.
I've seen your problem before. You've put a label on me and you can't
see beyond that.
Jeff
chaniarts
how much energy would it take to MAKE all those rooftop solar panels?
DGDevin
wrote in message
news:7cc7e69d-32ee-4097...@p16g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>> So far? So far it is a cluster fuck. The situation is largely out of
>> control. The complex is a total writeoff and will cost billions to clean
>> up. And that is the best case.
> And that affects you exactly how? Did they ask you to pay for the
> clean up?
Who do you think is paying for the U.S. military's efforts to offer aid in
Japan if not the American taxpayer? U.S. auto plants are shutting down
because they can't get parts from Japan, do you imagine that won't have a
serious impact in the U.S.? Japan is America's most important ally in Asia,
but for years to come they're going to be focused inward, rebuilding from
this horrible disaster, is that unlikely to effect U.S. foreign policy in
that part of the world?
> Following your logic, we should immediately halt all contruction of
> buildings, roads, etc because of the earthquake. Unless you think
> tthey all
> performed exactly as designed and intended.
That is an odd interpretation of what he posted.
> It could turn out that a
> simple change like having the diesel generators located 25 feet higher
> would have prevented the whole thing. And that change could be
> implemented without closing anything. But we won't know until we
> have an investigation and learn all the facts.
While I agree that a rush to judgment should be avoided, it is hard to
ignore that these particular reactors have caused trouble before. Warnings
about the vulnerability of the design were first raised in the 1970s, and
the reactors at this plant are already well past their intended design life
yet they were kept in service because corporate profits were put ahead of
public safety. Nuclear power generation is profitable only after the huge
capital costs have been paid, but not putting public safety into that
formula amounts to reckless greed.
DGDevin
"Gary Heston" wrote in message
news:M5GdnSy_M-CFXx_Q...@posted.hiwaay2...
> Not everyone can afford the Lincoln model. Japan has kept those
> reactors going because they need the electricity. While not the
> best, they've worked well over the decades.
If you ignore the accidents (sometimes fatal) that Japan's nuclear industry
concealed for decades, including a "critical" incident at one of the
Fukushima reactors.
> Energy, not just nuclear energy, is a complex thing. While it's easy
> to Monday morning quarterback decisions made decades ago, none of us
> were there nor are any of us privy to all the issues.
Some of the people who were there tried to alert the Japanese govt. to
serious problems in the nuclear industry and were ignored. In Japan, govt.
and business work hand-in-glove and that seems to be one of the problems
with why nuclear plants were built in poor locations.
> Can we get back on topic, now?
The easiest way to cast a vote for that is to start an on-topic thread. But
expecting people not to talk about something this big is a faint hope.
Jeff Thies
I could not agree more.
Jeff
Bob F
>> What if every roof top had a solar panel? we wouldn't need a single
>> nuklar device. and Wars for Oil could be eliminated too. Sound good?
>
> how much energy would it take to MAKE all those rooftop solar panels?
Less than it would cost to pay for them.
HeyBub
>
> What if every roof top had a solar panel? we wouldn't need a single
> nuklar device. and Wars for Oil could be eliminated too. Sound good?
No, it doesn't sound good.
* First, there is the horrendous expense of making, buying, and installing
them.
* Second, one of the most common causes of visits to the emergency room is
"falls." Imagine the cost to society when, literally, millions of
middle-aged men start cavorting on their roofs to remove leaves, dirt, and
snow.
* Third, there probably are not enough rooftops in Las Vegas to power a
single casino, let alone the strip. Point is, one aluminum smelting plant,
alfalfa dryer, or other commercial customer consumes enough electricity to
add the word "silly" to the notion of universal solar panels.
HeyBub
Not if the government (i.e., you, me, and everyone else) subsidizes the
project.
The Daring Dufas
> In article<PqydnbFgCLrqPhzQ...@earthlink.com>,
> "DGDevin"<DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> wrote in message
>> news:48d6041a-f5c3-42a7...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> About what I'd expect from the Huffington Post. A smear of the
>>> design of
>>> the GE reactors containment vessel design without ever mentioning that
>>> from everything I've heard so far, the vessel itself has NOT been
>>> compromised.
>>
>> There is ample evidence that the GE reactors were sold as cheaper than
>> competing designs, that there were warnings going back to the 70s about the
>> potential for just such failures as we are now seeing, and that the design
>> of the plant in question was shockingly vulnerable. To suggest that
>> questioning the safety of the design is a left-wing smear is not a position
>> supported by the facts.
>>
>> http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/03/16/warning_was_issued_i
>> n_70s_on_ge_designed_reactors/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z
>>
>> GE began making the Mark 1 boiling-water reactors in the 1960s, marketing
>> comparatively smaller and less expensive containment structure.
>>
>> US regulators began identifying weaknesses very early on.
>>
>> In 1972, Stephen Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic Energy
>> Commission, recommended that the Mark 1 system be discontinued because it
>> presented unacceptable safety risks. Among the concerns cited was the
>> smaller containment design, which was more susceptible to explosion and
>> the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
>>
>> Later that same year, Joseph Hendrie, who would later become chairman of the
>> Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a successor agency to the atomic commission,
>> said the idea of a ban on such systems was attractive. But the technology
>> had been so widely accepted by the industry and regulatory officials, he
>> could well be the end of nuclear power.’’
>>
>>> Seems to me it would be better to wait for a full investigation to
>>> understand
>>> exactly what happened and learn from it. In the end, I would not be
>>> surprised to find out that after an earthquake
>>> and sunami ranking in the top 5 of the last century, while the plants
>>> were
>>> wrecked the total radiation released beyond the plant boundaries could
>>> turn out to be minimal and not a serious threat.
>>
>> "Minimal" and "not a serious threat" would no longer seem to be appropriate
>> terms to use in this disaster. I bet if you lived a couple of hundred miles
>> downwind from that plant your opinion would be very different.
>
> What if every roof top had a solar panel? we wouldn't need a single
> nuklar device. and Wars for Oil could be eliminated too. Sound good?
Dang Karen, no wonder you were assassinated! ^_^
TDD
Rod Speed
Taint enough for heating and cooling alone.
> we wouldn't need a single nuklar device.
You'd certainly need more than that.
> and Wars for Oil could be eliminated too.
Nope, you cant drive you car with a solar panel on it.
Try doing a 747 like that. Doesnt work too well.
> Sound good?
Nope, mindlessly superficial, actually.
Rod Speed
>>> So far? So far it is a cluster fuck. The situation is largely
>>> out of control. The complex is a total writeoff and will cost
>>> billions to clean up. And that is the best case.
>> And that affects you exactly how? Did they ask you to pay for the clean up?
> Who do you think is paying for the U.S. military's efforts to offer aid in Japan if not the American taxpayer?
Thats peanuts as part of the US budget.
> U.S. auto plants are shutting down because they can't get parts from Japan, do you imagine that won't have a serious
> impact in the U.S.?
Corse it wont, they will just get them from china and korea etc instead.
> Japan is America's most important ally in Asia, but for years to come they're going to be focused inward, rebuilding
> from this horrible disaster,
And that is likely to be good for their economy, because otherwise their lost
decade could very well have ended up as a lost quarter century instead.
> is that unlikely to effect U.S. foreign policy in that part of the world?
Yep. It wont have any effect on that.
What might well happen is that Japan stops buying so much US govt
debt, but china etc will be able to do that instead and china may very well
profit from what Japan wont be able to produce due to the power cuts.
>> Following your logic, we should immediately halt all contruction of buildings, roads, etc because of the earthquake.
>> Unless you think tthey all performed exactly as designed and intended.
> That is an odd interpretation of what he posted.
>> It could turn out that a
>> simple change like having the diesel generators located 25 feet
>> higher would have prevented the whole thing. And that change could
>> be implemented without closing anything. But we won't know until we
>> have an investigation and learn all the facts.
> While I agree that a rush to judgment should be avoided, it is hard to ignore that these particular reactors have
> caused trouble before.
And the terminal stupidity of building nukes that can melt down
in a very earthquake prone zone when there are nukes that
cant melt down like the Canadian CANDUs in spades.
> Warnings about the vulnerability of the design were first raised in
> the 1970s, and the reactors at this plant are already well past their
> intended design life yet they were kept in service because corporate
> profits were put ahead of public safety.
Nope, because there is nothing special about the intended life.
The germans were planning to do the same thing until the shit hit the fan in Japan.
> Nuclear power generation is profitable only after the huge capital costs have been paid,
Thats not true in china.
> but not putting public safety into that formula amounts to reckless greed.
Corse public safety is considered. Its not a black and white issue tho.
The other VERY fundamental point is that even if those particular reactors
do melt down, the total radiation put in the atmosphere will be MUCH lower
than would have been emitted from coal fired power stations used instead
of Japan having any nukes at all.
Jeff Thies
> Karen Silkwood wrote:
>> In article<PqydnbFgCLrqPhzQ...@earthlink.com>,
>> "DGDevin"<DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> wrote in message
>>> news:48d6041a-f5c3-42a7...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> About what I'd expect from the Huffington Post. A smear of the
>>>> design of
>>>> the GE reactors containment vessel design without ever mentioning
>>>> that from everything I've heard so far, the vessel itself has NOT
>>>> been compromised.
>>>
>>> There is ample evidence that the GE reactors were sold as cheaper
>>> than competing designs, that there were warnings going back to the
>>> 70s about the potential for just such failures as we are now seeing,
>>> and that the design of the plant in question was shockingly
>>> vulnerable. To suggest that questioning the safety of the design is
>>> a left-wing smear is not a position supported by the facts.
>>>
>>> http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/03/16/warning_was_issued_i
>>> n_70s_on_ge_designed_reactors/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z
>>>
>>> GE began making the Mark 1 boiling-water reactors in the 1960s,
>>> they used a comparatively smaller and less expensive containment
>>> structure.
>>>
>>> US regulators began identifying weaknesses very early on.
>>>
>>> In 1972, Stephen Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic
>>> Energy Commission, recommended that the Mark 1 system be
>>> discontinued because it presented unacceptable safety risks. Among
>>> the concerns cited was the smaller containment design, which was
>>> more susceptible to explosion and rupture from a buildup in hydrogen
>>> plant.
>>>
>>> Later that same year, Joseph Hendrie, who would later become
>>> chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a successor agency to
>>> the atomic commission, said the idea of a ban on such systems was
>>> attractive. But the technology had been so widely accepted by the
>>> hallowed policy, particularly at this time, could well be the end of
>>>
>>>> Seems to me it would be better to wait for a full investigation to
>>>> understand
>>>> exactly what happened and learn from it. In the end, I would not
>>>> be surprised to find out that after an earthquake
>>>> and sunami ranking in the top 5 of the last century, while the
>>>> plants were
>>>> wrecked the total radiation released beyond the plant boundaries
>>>> could turn out to be minimal and not a serious threat.
>>>
>>> "Minimal" and "not a serious threat" would no longer seem to be
>>> appropriate terms to use in this disaster. I bet if you lived a
>>> couple of hundred miles downwind from that plant your opinion would
>>> be very different.
>>
>> What if every roof top had a solar panel? we wouldn't need a single
>
> how much energy would it take to MAKE all those rooftop solar panels?
It depends on the technology for PV, those costs are reflected in the
cost/watt. Some day if you need a watt you may be able to print it:
Thermal is a much better return for now. Both for hot water and space
heating.
Jeff
>
>
DGDevin
"Rod Speed" wrote in message news:8ui68l...@mid.individual.net...
>> Who do you think is paying for the U.S. military's efforts to offer aid
>> in Japan if not the American taxpayer?
> Thats peanuts as part of the US budget.
So is taxpayer support for public broadcasting, and yet the Republicans in
Congress figure its essential to end it as part of saving the budget.
>> U.S. auto plants are shutting down because they can't get parts from
>> Japan, do you imagine that won't have a serious impact in the U.S.?
> Corse it wont, they will just get them from china and korea etc instead.
Then why are plants closing if it's just a matter of ordering the parts from
someone else?
>> Japan is America's most important ally in Asia, but for years to come
>> they're going to be focused inward, rebuilding from this horrible
>> disaster,
> And that is likely to be good for their economy, because otherwise their
> lost
> decade could very well have ended up as a lost quarter century instead.
It's only a few years short of being that now, which is why the Japanese
have largely changed the name to The Lost Years, it isn't over yet.
>> is that unlikely to effect U.S. foreign policy in that part of the world?
> Yep. It wont have any effect on that.
So all those efforts to sign up Asian nations to resist China's efforts to
increasingly throw its weight around won't be impacted by the most powerful
economy in that group of nations being unable to participate? Check the
battery in your crystal ball.
>> While I agree that a rush to judgment should be avoided, it is hard to
>> ignore that these particular reactors have caused trouble before.
> And the terminal stupidity of building nukes that can melt down
> in a very earthquake prone zone when there are nukes that
> cant melt down like the Canadian CANDUs in spades.
If AECL was a publically traded company I'd suspect you of holding a lot of
stock.
>> Warnings about the vulnerability of the design were first raised in
>> the 1970s, and the reactors at this plant are already well past their
>> intended design life yet they were kept in service because corporate
>> profits were put ahead of public safety.
> Nope, because there is nothing special about the intended life.
If you ignore that the Mark I design had safety flaws addressed in later
designs, flaws which have been revealed as brutally real in the past week.
But other than that, no big deal.
>> Nuclear power generation is profitable only after the huge capital costs
>> have been paid,
> Thats not true in china.
Lots of things aren't true in China, like representative democracy--doesn't
mean we want to emulate their approach.
>> but not putting public safety into that formula amounts to reckless
>> greed.
> Corse public safety is considered. Its not a black and white issue tho.
Building a nuclear power plant near a known fault that can produce three
times as much seismic energy as the plant is capable of handling is actually
quite black and white, so is concealing hundreds of accidents and falsified
repairs over decades.
> The other VERY fundamental point is that even if those particular reactors
> do melt down, the total radiation put in the atmosphere will be MUCH lower
> than would have been emitted from coal fired power stations used instead
> of Japan having any nukes at all.
You can drown in a river with an average depth of six inches. The impact on
people living on the other side of the globe isn't the issue, it's what
happens to people immediately downwind if a bad situation gets even worse.
Would you care to volunteer to move to a hundred miles south of this power
plant? Thirteen million people in and around Tokyo; if this situation gets
worse I bet they won't find your views on the relative amounts of radiation
released to be too comforting.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> DGDevin wrote
>>>>> So far? So far it is a cluster fuck. The situation is largely
>>>>> out of control. The complex is a total writeoff and will cost
>>>>> billions to clean up. And that is the best case.
>>>> And that affects you exactly how? Did they ask you to pay for the clean up?
>>> Who do you think is paying for the U.S. military's efforts to offer aid in Japan if not the American taxpayer?
>> Thats peanuts as part of the US budget.
> So is taxpayer support for public broadcasting, and yet the Republicans in Congress figure its essential to end it as
> part of saving the budget.
Your problem.
>>> U.S. auto plants are shutting down because they can't get parts from
>>> Japan, do you imagine that won't have a serious impact in the U.S.?
>> Corse it wont, they will just get them from china and korea etc instead.
> Then why are plants closing if it's just a matter of ordering the parts from someone else?
Because it takes a bit of time to organise a change of supplier like that.
>>> Japan is America's most important ally in Asia, but for years to
>>> come they're going to be focused inward, rebuilding from this
>>> horrible disaster,
>> And that is likely to be good for their economy, because otherwise their lost
>> decade could very well have ended up as a lost quarter century instead.
> It's only a few years short of being that now, which is why the Japanese have largely changed the name to The Lost
> Years, it isn't over yet.
Time will tell if this beings an end to it.
>>> is that unlikely to effect U.S. foreign policy in that part of the world?
>> Yep. It wont have any effect on that.
> So all those efforts to sign up Asian nations to resist China's efforts to increasingly throw its weight around
Pure fantasy.
> won't be impacted by the most powerful economy in that group of nations being unable to participate?
You aint established that Japan wont be able to
continue to do what it has already been doing.
> Check the battery in your crystal ball.
Dont have one.
>>> While I agree that a rush to judgment should be avoided, it is hard
>>> to ignore that these particular reactors have caused trouble before.
>> And the terminal stupidity of building nukes that can melt down in a very earthquake prone zone when there are nukes
>> that cant melt down like the Canadian CANDUs in spades.
> If AECL was a publically traded company I'd suspect you of holding a lot of stock.
More fool you.
>>> Warnings about the vulnerability of the design were first raised in the 1970s, and the reactors at this plant are
>>> already well past
>>> their intended design life yet they were kept in service because
>>> corporate profits were put ahead of public safety.
>> Nope, because there is nothing special about the intended life.
> If you ignore that the Mark I design had safety flaws addressed in later designs,
All nukes and anything else that major have done too.
> flaws which have been revealed as brutally real in the past week. But other than that, no big deal.
Irrelevant to that silly shit of yours about corporate profits.
>>> Nuclear power generation is profitable only after the huge capital costs have been paid,
>> Thats not true in china.
> Lots of things aren't true in China, like representative
> democracy--doesn't mean we want to emulate their approach.
Never said a word about emulating anything.
>>> but not putting public safety into that formula amounts to reckless greed.
>> Corse public safety is considered. Its not a black and white issue tho.
> Building a nuclear power plant near a known fault that can produce
> three times as much seismic energy as the plant is capable of handling
That isnt what the problem at those reactors is about.
> is actually quite black and white,
Nope. You have no idea what that particular fault can produce seismic energy wise.
> so is concealing hundreds of accidents and falsified repairs over decades.
Nope.
>> The other VERY fundamental point is that even if those particular
>> reactors do melt down, the total radiation put in the atmosphere
>> will be MUCH lower than would have been emitted from coal fired
>> power stations used instead of Japan having any nukes at all.
> You can drown in a river with an average depth of six inches.
The rolling stone gathers no moss.
> The impact on people living on the other side of the globe isn't the issue, it's what happens to people immediately
> downwind if a bad situation gets even worse.
What I said about even if they all melt down covers that.
> Would you care to volunteer to move to a hundred miles south of this power plant?
Irrelevant to what Japan uses to generate power.
> Thirteen million people in and around Tokyo; if this situation gets worse I bet they won't find your views on the
> relative amounts of radiation released to be too comforting.
Irrelevant to what Japan uses to generate power.
DGDevin
"Rod Speed" wrote in message news:8uih4r...@mid.individual.net...
>> flaws which have been revealed as brutally real in the past week. But
>> other than that, no big deal.
> Irrelevant to that silly shit of yours about corporate profits.
News flash, Einstein, it isn't my silly shit, it's admissions from the
Japanese nuclear industry that they concealed hundreds of accidents and
falsified safety inspections and repairs going back decades, the top men at
the company that operates the Fukushima plant had to resign over it. Then
later they admitted they still hadn't told the govt. everything, the
Fukushima plant had a series of incidents including a critical fault in one
reactor that lasted seven hours. And why did they do that? Lower costs =
higher profits, nothing more complicated than that.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've realized I mistook you for one of the
grownups, no point wasting any more time on a conversation with someone who
thinks in bumper stickers.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> DGDevin wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> DGDevin wrote
>>>>> Warnings about the vulnerability of the design were first raised in the 1970s, and the reactors at this plant are
>>>>> already well past
>>>>> their intended design life yet they were kept in service because
>>>>> corporate profits were put ahead of public safety.
>>>> Nope, because there is nothing special about the intended life.
>>> If you ignore that the Mark I design had safety flaws addressed in later designs,
>> All nukes and anything else that major have done too.
>>> flaws which have been revealed as brutally real in the past week. But other than that, no big deal.
>> Irrelevant to that silly shit of yours about corporate profits.
> News flash, Einstein,
Flashing is illegal, fuckwit child.
> it isn't my silly shit, it's admissions from the Japanese nuclear industry that they concealed hundreds of accidents
> and falsified safety inspections and repairs going back decades, the top men at the company that operates the
> Fukushima plant had to resign over it.
Irrelevant to that silly shit of yours about corporate profits.
> Then later they admitted they still hadn't told the govt. everything, the Fukushima plant had a series of incidents
> including a critical fault in one reactor that lasted seven hours.
Irrelevant to that silly shit of yours about corporate profits.
> And why did they do that?
Because thats how Japs operate, fuckwit child.
<reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
tra...@optonline.net
> DGDevin wrote
>
> > Rod Speed wrote
> >> DGDevin wrote
> >>>>> So far? So far it is a cluster fuck. The situation is largely
> >>>>> out of control. The complex is a total writeoff and will cost
> >>>>> billions to clean up. And that is the best case.
> >>>> And that affects you exactly how? Did they ask you to pay for the clean up?
> >>> Who do you think is paying for the U.S. military's efforts to offer aid in Japan if not the American taxpayer?
> >> Thats peanuts as part of the US budget.
> > So is taxpayer support for public broadcasting, and yet the Republicans in Congress figure its essential to end it as
> > part of saving the budget.
>
> Your problem.
Last time I checked, the US assistance to Japan is focused on the
direct
effects of the earthquake and tsuanmi, which are far greater than any
effect the nuclear accident has had. Of course some would like to
make
it sound like the nuclear part is the worst part, but anyone paying
attention
to the news would know that we have 10,000+ dead from the direct
effects of the earthquake and tsunami. So far, what's the nuclear
death
toll? Zero.
>
> >>> U.S. auto plants are shutting down because they can't get parts from
> >>> Japan, do you imagine that won't have a serious impact in the U.S.?
> >> Corse it wont, they will just get them from china and korea etc instead.
> > Then why are plants closing if it's just a matter of ordering the parts from someone else?
>
> Because it takes a bit of time to organise a change of supplier like that.
Any plant closings due to parts shortages are attributable to the
earthquake,
not the nuclear power issue. Bottom line, they lost part of their
generating
capacity. Show us a credible study that says if the power came from
other
sources, say coal or even solar, that the power situation as of now
would be
radically different. Or do you believe solar panels on the roofs of
collapsed
buildings just keep on sending power through transmission towers that
have toppled over.
>
> >>> Japan is America's most important ally in Asia, but for years to
> >>> come they're going to be focused inward, rebuilding from this
> >>> horrible disaster,
> >> And that is likely to be good for their economy, because otherwise their lost
> >> decade could very well have ended up as a lost quarter century instead.
> > It's only a few years short of being that now, which is why the Japanese have largely changed the name to The Lost
> > Years, it isn't over yet.
>
> Time will tell if this beings an end to it.
It's quite amazing how some of the anti-nukes can drag all kinds of
absurd
side issues into the discussion, isn't it?
>
> >>> is that unlikely to effect U.S. foreign policy in that part of the world?
> >> Yep. It wont have any effect on that.
> > So all those efforts to sign up Asian nations to resist China's efforts to increasingly throw its weight around
>
> Pure fantasy.
>
> > won't be impacted by the most powerful economy in that group of nations being unable to participate?
Pure fantasy X2. Another lame attempt to try to link all kinds of
crap
by the anti-nuke nuts.
>
> You aint established that Japan wont be able to
> continue to do what it has already been doing.
>
> > Check the battery in your crystal ball.
>
> Dont have one.
>
> >>> While I agree that a rush to judgment should be avoided, it is hard
> >>> to ignore that these particular reactors have caused trouble before.
> >> And the terminal stupidity of building nukes that can melt down in a very earthquake prone zone when there are nukes
> >> that cant melt down like the Canadian CANDUs in spades.
> > If AECL was a publically traded company I'd suspect you of holding a lot of stock.
>
> More fool you.
>
> >>> Warnings about the vulnerability of the design were first raised in the 1970s, and the reactors at this plant are
> >>> already well past
> >>> their intended design life yet they were kept in service because
> >>> corporate profits were put ahead of public safety.
> >> Nope, because there is nothing special about the intended life.
> > If you ignore that the Mark I design had safety flaws addressed in later designs,
>
> All nukes and anything else that major have done too.
>
> > flaws which have been revealed as brutally real in the past week. But other than that, no big deal.
>
> Irrelevant to that silly shit of yours about corporate profits.
And irrelevant to the accident as we know it so far. No one, other
than the
anti-nuke armchair experts, has said any design issues specific to
these
reactors were the cause of the accident. After a full investigation,
it
could very well turn out that the biggest issue was where the diesel
generators were located and how they were protected. And I would
not be surprised to see that reactors of other design were not
built with similar short comings. But we won't know that until there
is a full investigation, something some of us here obviously don't
want to see happen because they already claim to know so much.
tra...@optonline.net
> In article
> <f727d4fa-c428-41d6-9f42-63b09c38c...@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > Yeah, no need for an investiagtion to figure out what happened
>
> Wasn't needed for 9/11, so shouldn't be necessary for this. Just clean
> up the debris and haul it off to the dump.
Are you now claiming there was no investigation of 9/11? Sounds
like you're a truther, which shows where you're coming from. Of
course
the real truth is investigators had full access to the building
debris
prior to it being hauled away. Some of it is still in their
possession.