Why all the failures to natural disasters?
Stretto
would be relatively easy to design a nuclear reactor safety mechanism,
blowout preventer, etc that does it's job.
I'm starting to think that mankind is getting too arrogant and too stupid to
deal with these large scale problems. They no longer seem to be issues of
technology but of money and arrogance. Nuclear energy should be safe and
what happened at Fukushima is criminal. What's worse was the response
afterwards. Just like the BP Oil spill, Katrina, and many others it seems
when these things happen you get people totally incompetent that are in
charge and have no real plan.
It's like we simply build our house of cards and when it comes crashing down
everyone's clueless why. Because of our arrogance and greed we build the
house of cards bigger and bigger believing that we have some innate right to
do so.
It seems human incompetence and arrogance makes everything unsafe and there
is plenty of it going around. Just look at the responses to this post and
what goes on in these newsgroups now. Very little intelligent and civilized
debate is going on any more. (specially if you've been around for a while
and remember how it used to be)
Anyone else think humanity is in a downward spiral? Or maybe some of the
older folk know that this has always been like this?
TheGlimmerMan
wrote:
>Anyone else think humanity is in a downward spiral? Or maybe some of the
>older folk know that this has always been like this?
It is real simple. It is OFF TOPIC. Go away, idiot.
Yes, there have always been idiots like you that cannot measure
anything worth a shit, even if someone holds your hand through it.
linnix
Unfortunately, in this case, they are not old enough. They ignored
data that 9.0 quake happened 1000 years ago in the region. So. they
built the reactors upto 8.0. Actually, they are better than our San
Orofre reactors, which are built for 7.0. Recently, the max. possible
quake has been upped to 8.0. However, no recorded history survived to
verify the max. quake in Southern California. If the same size quake
happen in this region, we could have the exact incident here.
PS: Japan and the US West Coast are in the same Ring of Fire.
Joshua Cranmer
> It seems human incompetence and arrogance makes everything unsafe and
> there is plenty of it going around. Just look at the responses to this
> post and what goes on in these newsgroups now. Very little intelligent
> and civilized debate is going on any more. (specially if you've been
> around for a while and remember how it used to be)
>
> Anyone else think humanity is in a downward spiral? Or maybe some of the
> older folk know that this has always been like this?
Ah, nostalgia... the filter which romanticizes a lifestyle that even the
poorest among us would rather not live.
Civil discourse? Hardly true in history--the 1850s say such incivility
that a senator beat another senator on the Senate floor with a cane and
stopped only when it broke. And was rewarded with several new canes by
grateful constituents.
Incompetence? Probably half of the managers in the 1800s, if not more,
would easily have been guilty under modern laws like reckless
endangerment, gross negligence, etc. Instead of nuclear leaks with
surprisingly little radiation release, you had constant horrific train
crashes, unmaintained coal dams bursting and wiping out towns. BP had
faith in the last resort of the blowout preventer... railroads quite
actively avoided even putting pneumatic brakes on their trains,
resulting in much greater losses of life than the oil spill claimed.
Face it, this era is no worse than the past in terms of the nastiness of
humans.
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
Peter Webb
at the nuclear plants?
In terms of human life lost, it is a pretty trivial accident.
The problem is the exact opposite of what you described. It is not that we
are failing to build safe infrastructure; the problem is that ill-placed
safety concerns are stopping development; we have a culture of cowardice.
You failed to mention the 1,500 Japanese people who died when a dam
collapsed during the recent earthquake.
This shit happens all the time.
But even zero people dying from the nuclear accident makes it too dangerous
for you.
You should stay inside. Cars are dangerous too.
John Larkin
wrote:
>Is it simply incompetence, greed, or statistics? One would think that it
There are tens of thousands of oil wells, around 450 nuclear reactors,
maybe hundreds of thousands of levees. The numbers of failures are
small but get a lot of publicity.
Things usually work pretty well. Would you rather live in a forest,
foraging for food and shelter?
By most reasonable measurements, the lot of humanity keeps getting
better. But a lot of people complain more. It's called "the progress
paradox" and has its own book.
John
John Larkin
But inside is dangerous, too!
John
linnix
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:14:26 -0600, "Stretto" <Stre...@nowhere.com>
One is enough, as it's happening in Japan, and will happen again
elsewhere. All they had to do is to relocate the spent fuel rods to
safer storage site. We should do the same to our reactors as well.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
Say, maybe we could dig a big hole in, say, Nevada...
J. Clarke
says...
Then there was that little political dispute in the mid-1800s that led
to 700,000 dead . . .
linnix
Anywhere else is safer than on-site, at sea level, in populated area,
near the Ring of Fire.
Greegor
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:14:26 -0600, "Stretto" <Stre...@nowhere.com>
Archie/GlimmerMan/Nymnonuts:
When you got your PhD, didn't any of your textbooks
cover fault tolerance or human factors engineering?
Did you major in electronics or bullshitology?
Your chafing about a discussion of
engineering failures vs. natural disasters
as being off topic in an electronics design
forum is illogical and sociopathic.
Vladimir Vassilevsky
Stretto wrote:
> Is it simply incompetence, greed, or statistics? One would think that it
> would be relatively easy to design a nuclear reactor safety mechanism,
> blowout preventer, etc that does it's job.
> I'm starting to think that mankind is getting too arrogant and too
> stupid to deal with these large scale problems.
Before getting into the global problems, ask yourself for how long could
you survive without water, electricity, groceries, mobile phone and
internet. Not for very long, isn't it? If you don't care about yourself,
why should anyone else care?
VLV
Peter Webb
Your chafing about a discussion of
engineering failures vs. natural disasters
as being off topic in an electronics design
forum is illogical and sociopathic.
_________________________________
I think he is complaining about it being posted to sci.math. Is it on-topic
in a maths forum? Do you consider that him saying this is off-topic in a
maths group as "illogical and sociopathic"? Must be a lot of sociopaths out
there, because as there is zero maths content in the post it looks off-topic
in sci.math to me ... does that make me a sociopath as well?
Phil Hobbs
And pick a place where if it leaked, it would contaminate, say, Death
Valley.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
email: hobbs (atsign) electrooptical (period) net
http://electrooptical.net
linnix
I know we've been looking and debating for the ideal storage site for
decades. Meanwhile, they are kept in the most dangerous location, on
site.
John Larkin
<m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
Don't relocate them, reprocess them.
John
The Keeper of the Key to The Locks
Phil Hobbs
There are proliferation worries about that, though. See the chequered
history of fast breeder reactors and mixed-oxide fuel.
Also, reprocessing concentrates the nasties (e.g. caesium-137), and
nobody wants to dispose of that either.
The real nightmare scenario is a nuclear attack on large reactors with
large spent fuel pools.
A thousand feet of dirt and rock over top makes spent fuel pretty
bomb-resistant.
TheGlimmerMan
wrote:
>
>Did you major
Fuck off and die, you immature little bitch.
TheGlimmerMan
Rail gun them into the Sun.
Peter Webb
>> Say, maybe we could dig a big hole in, say, Nevada...
>
> And pick a place where if it leaked, it would contaminate, say, Death
> Valley.
Death Valley is pretty much the suburbs of LA compared to some places.
Here in Australia we have deserts with nobody living for a 100 kms in every
direction, sitting on hard rock that has been geologically undisturbed for
100 million years.
Drill a nice, big hole 1 kms deep in any of these places, drop the waste
down the hole, then fill the hole with a 1000 metre concrete plug. That
waste isn't going anywhere.
Problem solved.
Phil Hobbs
Hmm, 1 km minus 1000 m doesn't live much room for the actual waste. ;)
Greegor
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Your chafing about a discussion of
> engineering failures vs. natural disasters
> as being off topic in an electronics design
> forum is illogical and sociopathic.
_________________________________
> I think he is complaining about it being posted to sci.math.
Why? Does Nymnonuts infest that group as well?
> Is it on-topic in a maths forum?
sci.math is not just a "maths" (academic?) forum is it?
> Do you consider that him saying this is off-topic in a
> maths group as "illogical and sociopathic"? Must
> be a lot of sociopaths out there,
Actually, usenet is thick with several types of sociopaths.
Usenet is like an insane asylum that was
taken over long ago by the inmates.
> because as there is zero maths content
> in the post it looks off-topic in sci.math to me
But isn't sci.math supposed to be for APPLIED
math rather than just academic bullshit math?
Are you one of those "pure math" misfits?
Archie's fellow autist GX wants to punish society
for making him wear clothing that chafes.
Is that how you see real world problems?
Where do you fit on the autism spectrum?
> ... does that make me a sociopath as well?
If you're vouching for Nymnonuts, yes.
Androcles
"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote in message
news:4DA53564...@electrooptical.net...
| Peter Webb wrote:
| >
| >>> Say, maybe we could dig a big hole in, say, Nevada...
| >>
| >> And pick a place where if it leaked, it would contaminate, say, Death
| >> Valley.
| >
| > Death Valley is pretty much the suburbs of LA compared to some places.
| >
| > Here in Australia we have deserts with nobody living for a 100 kms in
| > every direction, sitting on hard rock that has been geologically
| > undisturbed for 100 million years.
| >
| > Drill a nice, big hole 1 kms deep in any of these places, drop the waste
| > down the hole, then fill the hole with a 1000 metre concrete plug. That
| > waste isn't going anywhere.
| >
| > Problem solved.
| >
|
| Hmm, 1 km minus 1000 m doesn't live much room for the actual waste. ;)
|
J. Clarke
pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net says...
What do fast breeder reactors and mixed-oxide fuel have to do with
reprocessing uranium? If there is plutonium present in the spent fuel
rods it can be extracted by anyone who is able to steal the rods--
there's no magic to doing that and they do not have to be reprocessed in
order for someone who has stolen the rods to extract the plutonium, so
how does reprocessing them and sticking them back in reactors create
"proliferation issues"?
> Also, reprocessing concentrates the nasties (e.g. caesium-137), and
> nobody wants to dispose of that either.
Cesium 137 has industrial applications and a relatively short half-
life--it's not one of those substances that has to be stored forever.
> The real nightmare scenario is a nuclear attack on large reactors with
> large spent fuel pools.
That sentence contains 8 extraneous words. If there is a nuclear
attack, what is attacked is of secondary importance.
> A thousand feet of dirt and rock over top makes spent fuel pretty
> bomb-resistant.
I love all these brilliant solutions by people who don't have a clue
what problem is being solved.
When the rods come out of the reactor they are dangerously radioctive
and producing heat at a significant level. They are stored on site
until the radiation and heat production diminish to manageable levels.
It was intended that at that point they would be reprocessed. Thanks to
Carter that didn't happen. If you want to bury them a thousand feet
deep you need to find a safe way to transport them in the condition they
are in when removed from the reactor. Do you have such a method to
present?
Peter Webb
>> Drill a nice, big hole 1 kms deep in any of these places, drop the waste
>> down the hole, then fill the hole with a 1000 metre concrete plug. That
>> waste isn't going anywhere.
>>
>> Problem solved.
>>
>
> Hmm, 1 km minus 1000 m doesn't live much room for the actual waste. ;)
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs
>
And after you plug the hole, you don't even need to guard it full time.
Just finding the exact spot 1 km underground where the stuff is buried would
be incredibly difficult, if all you know is where the hole used to reach the
surface.
And the chances of evil-doers being able secretly bore parallel holes 1 km
deep through hard rock for several weeks on top of a nuclear waste
repository in Australia without somebody noticing are zero. And you can
reasonably assume that we are not going to become a rogue state any day
soon.
Nuclear waste disposal is almost a trivial engineering problem. It is an
almost untractable political problem.
Which is a terrible thing. 50% of the world's Uranium and 40% of its Uranium
production comes from Australia. We are also ideally placed to get rid of
the high level waste.
By selling our Uranium packaged as fuel rods with a guarantee to dispose of
the spent fuel rods, Australia could do a massive amount towards making
nuclear power cheaper and safer, as well as making a great deal of money. We
have the geography, moral responsibility (as we produce the Uranium),
commercial opportunity, political stability and technological sophistication
to make this work. Everything except the public opinion.
Not your problem, I know, but it does sadden me that nuclear reactors
usually store their waste on-site, which is about the worst place in the
world for it, when there are so many other great places for it.
Peter Webb
>> There are proliferation worries about that, though. See the chequered
>> history of fast breeder reactors and mixed-oxide fuel.
>
> What do fast breeder reactors and mixed-oxide fuel have to do with
> reprocessing uranium? If there is plutonium present in the spent fuel
> rods it can be extracted by anyone who is able to steal the rods--
> there's no magic to doing that and they do not have to be reprocessed in
> order for someone who has stolen the rods to extract the plutonium, so
> how does reprocessing them and sticking them back in reactors create
> "proliferation issues"?
Fast breeders cause proliferation concerns because they can make U235 and
Plutonium from U238, eliminating or reducing the need to enrich Uranium with
centrifuges etc. As that is the hardest part of making a bomb, a nation
having a fast breeder gets most of the way for free.
And you seem to be confusing two different concepts. Yes, plutonium can be
chemically extracted in some quantity from any used fuel rods, but the
difference is that fast breeders actually create useful bomb making products
as part of their cycle, not consume them as do traditional reactors.
>
>> Also, reprocessing concentrates the nasties (e.g. caesium-137), and
>> nobody wants to dispose of that either.
>
> Cesium 137 has industrial applications and a relatively short half-
> life--it's not one of those substances that has to be stored forever.
>
>> The real nightmare scenario is a nuclear attack on large reactors with
>> large spent fuel pools.
>
> That sentence contains 8 extraneous words. If there is a nuclear
> attack, what is attacked is of secondary importance.
>
>> A thousand feet of dirt and rock over top makes spent fuel pretty
>> bomb-resistant.
>
> I love all these brilliant solutions by people who don't have a clue
> what problem is being solved.
>
> When the rods come out of the reactor they are dangerously radioctive
> and producing heat at a significant level. They are stored on site
> until the radiation and heat production diminish to manageable levels.
The highly radioactive components producing the heat have short half lives,
and burn out quite quickly.
You don't really care about isotopes with half lives measured in weeks or
less. In a years time they are gone.
Nor do you have to care about isotopes lasting 100,000 years or more. These
can be treated simply as hazardous chemicals; they are not sufficiently
radioactive to present a health risk when dispersed.
You do a rough chemical extraction - which may take several weeks - to
extract the stuff in the middle. That can be transported whever you like
with enough lead wrapped around it.
>
> It was intended that at that point they would be reprocessed. Thanks to
> Carter that didn't happen. If you want to bury them a thousand feet
> deep you need to find a safe way to transport them in the condition they
> are in when removed from the reactor. Do you have such a method to
> present?
Change the condition they are in.
Remove the most radioactive isotopes chemically and let them burn-off on
site. The rest can be transported in lead lined containers.
Tim Little
[ Why all the failures to natural disasters? ]
> Is it simply incompetence, greed, or statistics? One would think
> that it would be relatively easy to design a nuclear reactor safety
> mechanism, blowout preventer, etc that does it's job.
Yes, it is easy to design a safety mechanism that does its job.
Usually there are many safety systems that are capable of doing their
job.
However, no matter what safety systems you implement, there is always
a set of triggers for disaster that can render them useless. All we
can do is plan for the worst we expect to happen and some of the
things that we do not expect to happen. We cannot plan for everything
that could possibly happen, because we cannot know everything that
could possibly happen.
> Nuclear energy should be safe and what happened at Fukushima is
> criminal.
Nothing is perfectly safe. A natural disaster killed more than 10,000
people, and you focus on a nuclear accident caused by it that has not
even killed a single person? If you're going to focus on failures of
safety systems following one of the most powerful earthquakes on
record, why not focus on any one of the innumerable failures that
actually *caused deaths*?
Chernobyl's causes were (at least morally) "criminal". Bhopal's were
(both legally and morally) criminal. Fukushima's were just horribly
unfortunate.
> Anyone else think humanity is in a downward spiral? Or maybe some of
> the older folk know that this has always been like this?
Actually if you go by chances of death or serious injury from
disasters of various sorts (human or natural), we're in a very
strongly *safer* trend.
If my country's government allowed them, I'd be quite happy with
living near a nuclear power plant. My chances of death, injury, or
major inconvenience would be much lower than, say, the terrible design
of the intersection at the end of my street. If you're going to rant
about safety, convince my local council to fix that instead.
--
Tim
k...@kymhorsell.com
...
> Nothing is perfectly safe. A natural disaster killed more than 10,000
> people, and you focus on a nuclear accident caused by it that has not
> even killed a single person? If you're going to focus on failures of
> safety systems following one of the most powerful earthquakes on
> record, why not focus on any one of the innumerable failures that
> actually *caused deaths*?
I think the death toll among the plant workers is up to 7 now.
A similar number of elderly residents in nearby towns that had to
be evacuated because they were inside whatever was then the limit
(and now the limit is being extended to several towns even further out)
died during or shortly after the evac.
Some of the remaining 600 plant workers that are being rotated
in and out are now legally allowed to receive 250 mSv (about 200 times
the legal limit for "civilians" in the US) to perform their jobs --
and some that have indeed already received a large part of that limit --
have an increased probability of an early death.
--
The "Holy Grail": Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past
warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the
future, depends upon something called "climate sensitivity". This is
the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of `radiative
forcing', of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount
of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth
emits to outer space.
-- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming", 2008
Brian Chandler
> On 2011-04-13, Stretto <Str...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> [ Why all the failures to natural disasters? ]
>
This is a very misleading figure being widely quoted: the figures on
the front page of today's Asahi are 13,232 dead and 14,554 missing.
"Missing" people are being discovered from time to time, having gone
to stay somewhere without telling their families, so the total of
"dead"+"missing" has come down from its peak of over 30,000, but it
seems unlikely that the total death toll will be less than 25,000.
(The precise number is of course uncountable, if that brings this back
on topic...)
Brian Chandler
I AM THAT I AM
wrote:
>Actually, usenet is thick with several types of sociopaths.
>Usenet is like an insane asylum that was
>taken over long ago by the inmates.
The sad part is that we have never been able to get rid of you loony
bastards. Fuck off greegor
TheGlimmerMan
>
>I think the death toll among the plant workers is up to 7 now.
Cite for this bullshit!
Bill Sloman
> In article <4DA531C4.2010...@electrooptical.net>,
> pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net says...
Not true. A direct hit with a nuclear bomb on one of the French
nuclear reactors would contaminate most of Europe. It releases an
enormous amount of radioactive material, and spreads it across a
substantial area.
http://www.mmmfiles.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=31
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bart!
You were attempting to have a dialog with a complete loon. Ignore him,
and he will go back to the kook group, where the little brainless,
immature ditz belongs.
Joshua Cranmer
> Chernobyl's causes were (at least morally) "criminal". Bhopal's were
> (both legally and morally) criminal. Fukushima's were just horribly
> unfortunate.
Fukushima had defenses to cope with this sort of thing (e.g., (12 ft?)
seawall as anti-tsunami measure)... just not strong enough to scale with
"unprecedented disaster". Three-Mile Island is largely a case of the
safety backups eventually kicking in (total radiation release was less
than your standard coal power plant, as coal has trace amounts of
radioactive material). Chernobyl was a dangerous experiment which should
have been postponed given the circumstances (it was delayed from the
experienced day shift to the inexperienced night shift). Bhopal is more
nuanced in that the exact cause is unknown (accident, mismaintained
equipment, or sabotage), although it is clear that safety systems were
underequipped and probably mostly nonfunctional, on orders from management.
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>> Say, maybe we could dig a big hole in, say, Nevada...
>>
>> And pick a place where if it leaked, it would contaminate, say, Death
>> Valley.
>
>Death Valley is pretty much the suburbs of LA compared to some places.
...and the problem is? ;-)
>Here in Australia we have deserts with nobody living for a 100 kms in every
>direction, sitting on hard rock that has been geologically undisturbed for
>100 million years.
Hey, I have an idea... What about Nevada, in the salt caves? I heard the
government even dug a big hole and then decided they didn't want it. Ask
Harry about that.
TheGlimmerMan
At last, an intelligent post. Thanks.
This will give folks some idea about exposure levels and how to
consider news about nuclear radiation releases, emissions, etc.
Androcles
"Joshua Cranmer" <Pidg...@verizon.invalid> wrote in message
news:io4474$ejg$1...@dont-email.me...
| On 04/13/2011 05:38 AM, Tim Little wrote:
| > Chernobyl's causes were (at least morally) "criminal". Bhopal's were
| > (both legally and morally) criminal. Fukushima's were just horribly
| > unfortunate.
|
| Fukushima had defenses to cope with this sort of thing (e.g., (12 ft?)
| seawall as anti-tsunami measure
The tsunami put boats, cars and a house on top of three storey
buildings. It was 40 feet high, not 12 feet.
Google Earth has updated photographs of the region but the
"streetview" images are still present, showing a road that used
to be but is now underwater, the entire coastline is now 3 feet
lower than it once was.
Check the streetview photograph here:
37°59'56.82"N, 140°54'51.43"E
Ludovicus
> Here in Australia we have deserts with nobody living for a 100 kms in every
> direction, sitting on hard rock that has been geologically undisturbed for
> 100 million years.
> Drill a nice, big hole 1 kms deep in any of these places, drop the waste
> down the hole, then fill the hole with a 1000 metre concrete plug. That
> waste isn't going anywhere.
I think that what is now considered a dangerous waste, in the future
it
will have very high value. Because if it is dangerous that means that
it
have great amounts of remanent energy .
Then the best solution is to store it in monitored profund caverns
drilled in granite.
The country that receive that material will have buried gold.
Ludovicus
J. Clarke
b4a34a...@j11g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, imagin...@despammed.com
says...
What's "misleading" about it? More accurately it might be said to have
killed somewhere between 13,000 and 28,000, but it's certainly a true
statement that it killed more than 10,000. And that statement is more
accurate than that it killed more than 3.
As for the precise number being uncountable, you've posted this to
physics and math newsgroups, so you should know that the number most
assuredly _is_ countable. It may never be counted accurately for
reasons having to do with human nature, but this has nothing do with the
mathematical concept of countability. Don't use technical terms in
technical venues unless you know what they mean.
J. Clarke
@w6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, bill....@ieee.org says...
I understand your point and it is irrelevant. The political
ramifications of a nuclear strike will result in so much carnage that
most of Europe will be contaminated anyway and there won't be enough
civilization left for anybody to give a damn about being contaminated.
J. Clarke
k...@kymhorsell.com says...
>
> In sci.math Tim Little <t...@little-possums.net> wrote:
> ...
> > Nothing is perfectly safe. A natural disaster killed more than 10,000
> > people, and you focus on a nuclear accident caused by it that has not
> > even killed a single person? If you're going to focus on failures of
> > safety systems following one of the most powerful earthquakes on
> > record, why not focus on any one of the innumerable failures that
> > actually *caused deaths*?
> ...
>
> I think the death toll among the plant workers is up to 7 now.
Which is misleading. Two drowned during the tsunami. One was injured
and trapped during the earthquake and died of his injuries. I can't
find any reliable report on any others. If you have one please present
it. There was early speculation that 5 workers had died but there is no
confirmation of that story. If the power plant had been coal or oil
fired they would likely have still died.
> A similar number of elderly residents in nearby towns that had to
> be evacuated because they were inside whatever was then the limit
> (and now the limit is being extended to several towns even further out)
> died during or shortly after the evac.
14 elderly people who had been in care facilities died due to lack of
medical attention while or after being evacuated. Again you're implying
that they died of radiation. They didn't, they died because they were
sick and their treatment was interrupted.
> Some of the remaining 600 plant workers that are being rotated
> in and out are now legally allowed to receive 250 mSv (about 200 times
> the legal limit for "civilians" in the US) to perform their jobs --
> and some that have indeed already received a large part of that limit --
> have an increased probability of an early death.
And their dose is within US EPA guidelines for emergency workers.
Phil Hobbs
You don't think that it might be hard to find a jurisdiction that would
accept all that caesium-137? What political entity to you belong to?
It would probably take 30 half-lives before it was safe to handle, and
that's a thousand years or so. "Relatively short", I don't think.
>
>> The real nightmare scenario is a nuclear attack on large reactors with
>> large spent fuel pools.
>
> That sentence contains 8 extraneous words. If there is a nuclear
> attack, what is attacked is of secondary importance.
Be nice. It's not your sentence, it's mine, and I like it that way.
In the grand scheme of things, even Chernobyl was a fairly minor event,
whereas nuking nuke plants would make vast areas into lethal desert for
a long, long time. Life can survive a lot, and I think it's
irresponsible not to think out the consequences of our actions simply
because we won't be around to see them.
>
>> A thousand feet of dirt and rock over top makes spent fuel pretty
>> bomb-resistant.
>
> I love all these brilliant solutions by people who don't have a clue
> what problem is being solved.
There, there, you're getting all upset. I don't like to think about the
dangers of nuclear war either, but not discussing them won't make them
go away. On-site storage of spent fuel makes nuclear war much, much
worse, and that doesn't just apply to a full nuclear exchange with
Russia or China. One 20-kt bomb on Indian Point (about 10 miles from
where I live) would very likely make NYC uninhabitable for a long
time--whereas Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been rebuilt.
>
> When the rods come out of the reactor they are dangerously radioctive
> and producing heat at a significant level. They are stored on site
> until the radiation and heat production diminish to manageable levels.
The amount of residual radioactivity from fission products makes it very
unlikely that a terrorist organization could get hold of plutonium from
spent fuel, unless they were willing to wait, say, ten thousand years.
Once it's reprocessed, and you have plutonium being transported around
the world, that very useful safeguard is lost. That's the issue with
mixed oxide fuel.
I don't think transportation is such a big issue. Given the energy
density of nuclear fuel, you could ship one pellet at a time in a
truckload of lead bricks, and still come out way ahead.
I'm not against reprocessing per se, but in the last forty years we've
learned a few things about the politics of it all.
Ludovicus
wrote:
I responded to your proposition but my answer did'n appear. Why?
Bill Sloman
> In article <dd885ad6-3861-4ddc-9ca3-ccd5cba58fe8
> @w6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, bill.slo...@ieee.org says...
>
> I understand your point and it is irrelevant. The political
> ramifications of a nuclear strike will result in so much carnage that
> most of Europe will be contaminated anyway and there won't be enough
> civilization left for anybody to give a damn about being contaminated.
The political ramifications of North Korea letting off it's sole
nuclear warhead next to a nuclear reactor wouldn't look anything like
the end of civilisation as we know it (or as the North Koreans would
like to have known it).
Most of the powers that have more nuclear weapons have rather more to
lose.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Fred Bloggs
> Or maybe some of the
> older folk know that this has always been like this?
The older folk in Japan certainly knew about tsunami risk. Their
entire coastline is dotted with carved stone markers, some dating back
600 years, recording locations of severe tsunami damage in the past.
The nuclear power plants are located in known danger zones. It is not
possible to hold off a tsunami with a wall- it is tantamount to
holding back the ocean, the wave height will increase to whatever
level necessary to relieve the enormous momentum behind it- the best
that can done is to divert it and/or build on higher ground, either
natural or manmade. The Japanese know all about this.
Joshua Cranmer
>
> "Joshua Cranmer"<Pidg...@verizon.invalid> wrote in message
> news:io4474$ejg$1...@dont-email.me...
> | On 04/13/2011 05:38 AM, Tim Little wrote:
> |> Chernobyl's causes were (at least morally) "criminal". Bhopal's were
> |> (both legally and morally) criminal. Fukushima's were just horribly
> |> unfortunate.
> |
> | Fukushima had defenses to cope with this sort of thing (e.g., (12 ft?)
> | seawall as anti-tsunami measure
>
> The tsunami put boats, cars and a house on top of three storey
> buildings. It was 40 feet high, not 12 feet.
I was referring to the height of the seawall, not the tsunami.
k...@kymhorsell.com
...
>> A similar number of elderly residents in nearby towns that had to
>> be evacuated because they were inside whatever was then the limit
>> (and now the limit is being extended to several towns even further out)
>> died during or shortly after the evac.
> 14 elderly people who had been in care facilities died due to lack of
> medical attention while or after being evacuated. Again you're implying
> that they died of radiation. They didn't, they died because they were
> sick and their treatment was interrupted.
The question was related to deaths due to the existence of a
nuclear vs some other kind of power plant.
You can die "because" of "radiation" due to indirect causation.
If someone downs too many iodine pills and dies, e.g.
--
If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken
linnix
> > pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net says...
At least you don't expect big quakes. There is more than 80% chances
of 8.0 or bigger quake hitting San OnoFre within my life time. It
could contaminate the whole Los Area of S.CA. Economic loses will be
felt all over the US. I don't care about my life, but it's criminal
against my kids and yours, if we just ignore the facts.
John Larkin
<justag...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:09:29 -0700, John Larkin
><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:13:25 -0700 (PDT), linnix
>><m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>One is enough, as it's happening in Japan, and will happen again
>>>elsewhere. All they had to do is to relocate the spent fuel rods to
>>>safer storage site. We should do the same to our reactors as well.
>>
>>Don't relocate them, reprocess them.
>>
>>John
>
> Rail gun them into the Sun.
Rail guns are silly. A rocket, or even a cannon, works a lot better.
John
lang...@fonz.dk
wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:27:28 +1000, "Peter Webb"
>
>
> >>> Say, maybe we could dig a big hole in, say, Nevada...
>
> >> And pick a place where if it leaked, it would contaminate, say, Death
> >> Valley.
>
> >Death Valley is pretty much the suburbs of LA compared to some places.
>
> ...and the problem is? ;-)
>
> >Here in Australia we have deserts with nobody living for a 100 kms in every
> >direction, sitting on hard rock that has been geologically undisturbed for
> >100 million years.
>
> Hey, I have an idea... What about Nevada, in the salt caves? I heard the
> government even dug a big hole and then decided they didn't want it. Ask
> Harry about that.
>
afaik germany have had nuclear waste in an old saltmine since the 70s
but it
has started leaking contaminated water
how about some of the places that have been used for nuclear testing,
they must
be contaminated no go zones anyway?
-Lasse
lang...@fonz.dk
> elsewhere. All they had to do is to relocate the spent fuel rods to
> safer storage site. We should do the same to our reactors as well.
it's a bit difficult to move the spend fuel rods off site if you can
only
move them with a robot, while keeping them under water to keep then
cooled
and contain the radiation. I'm sure they move them after a few years
-Lasse
linnix
San OnoFre is next to Marine Camp Pendleton (17 coastal miles, 125,000
acres). They have all the equipments and man powers to move and
secure it, if only temporary. Even on the other side of I-5 is safer
(20 feet higher). It is absolutely stupid to store nuclear materials
at sea level. As they found out (and should have known), you can't
use sea water to cool nuclear reactors anyway.
Androcles
"Joshua Cranmer" <Pidg...@verizon.invalid> wrote in message
| On 04/13/2011 09:06 AM, Androcles wrote:
| >
| > "Joshua Cranmer"<Pidg...@verizon.invalid> wrote in message
| > news:io4474$ejg$1...@dont-email.me...
| > | On 04/13/2011 05:38 AM, Tim Little wrote:
| > |> Chernobyl's causes were (at least morally) "criminal". Bhopal's
were
| > |> (both legally and morally) criminal. Fukushima's were just horribly
| > |> unfortunate.
| > |
| > | Fukushima had defenses to cope with this sort of thing (e.g., (12 ft?)
| > | seawall as anti-tsunami measure
| >
| > The tsunami put boats, cars and a house on top of three storey
| > buildings. It was 40 feet high, not 12 feet.
|
| I was referring to the height of the seawall, not the tsunami.
|
height of the seawall. Now only the foundations remain.
Fukushima had NO defences to cope with this sort of thing.
linnix
2011> wrote:
> "Joshua Cranmer" <Pidgeo...@verizon.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:io4cht$hm1$1...@dont-email.me...
> | On 04/13/2011 09:06 AM, Androcles wrote:
> | >
> | >news:io4474$ejg$1...@dont-email.me...
> | > | On 04/13/2011 05:38 AM, Tim Little wrote:
> | > |> Chernobyl's causes were (at least morally) "criminal". Bhopal's
> were
> | > |> (both legally and morally) criminal. Fukushima's were just horribly
> | > |> unfortunate.
> | > |
> | > | Fukushima had defenses to cope with this sort of thing (e.g., (12 ft?)
> | > | seawall as anti-tsunami measure
> | >
> | > The tsunami put boats, cars and a house on top of three storey
> | > buildings. It was 40 feet high, not 12 feet.
> |
> | I was referring to the height of the seawall, not the tsunami.
> |
> And then you snipped references to images showing the
> height of the seawall. Now only the foundations remain.
> Fukushima had NO defences to cope with this sort of thing.
Once the sea water went over the top. The seawall was holding the
flood water inside the reactors, even after the tsunami was gone.
Sam Wormley
You won't be able to say that humans didn't predict the
abnormally rapid warming on a global scale.
GABRIELLE-GIFFORDS-FOR-PRESIDENT
You can predict anything you choose. Anyone can do that, having your
lame prediction come to reality, is another matter alltogether.
Chow
J. Clarke
07bcdc...@l6g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, bill....@ieee.org says...
That assumes that nobody starts retaliating against the wrong enemy.
But why would North Korea do that and how would they get their weapon to
Europe?
J. Clarke
jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says...
No cannon has ever existed that could launch anything into the sun, or
even into orbit. Rockets can but the effort is hugely expensive. Some
sort of electromagnetic launcher, if it can deliver the required
velocity, would be far cheaper to run.
Androcles
"linnix" <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote in message
news:14236014-163f-4ae7...@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
================================================
The evidence is available on Google Earth, you only need to look.
The tsunami didn't go "over the top", it pushed the sea wall out
of the way like a locomotive meeting a car on a rail crossing.
Joshua Cranmer
>
> "Joshua Cranmer"<Pidg...@verizon.invalid> wrote in message
> news:io4cht$hm1$1...@dont-email.me...
> | On 04/13/2011 09:06 AM, Androcles wrote:
> |>
> |> "Joshua Cranmer"<Pidg...@verizon.invalid> wrote in message
> |> news:io4474$ejg$1...@dont-email.me...
> |> | On 04/13/2011 05:38 AM, Tim Little wrote:
> |> |> Chernobyl's causes were (at least morally) "criminal". Bhopal's
> were
> |> |> (both legally and morally) criminal. Fukushima's were just horribly
> |> |> unfortunate.
> |> |
> |> | Fukushima had defenses to cope with this sort of thing (e.g., (12 ft?)
> |> | seawall as anti-tsunami measure
> |>
> |> The tsunami put boats, cars and a house on top of three storey
> |> buildings. It was 40 feet high, not 12 feet.
> |
> | I was referring to the height of the seawall, not the tsunami.
> |
> And then you snipped references to images showing the
> height of the seawall. Now only the foundations remain.
> Fukushima had NO defences to cope with this sort of thing.
I was pointing out that the seawall would have coped with lesser
tsunamis, but the situation was too great for it to have withstood. No
one has the resources to cope with a 40-ft tsunami--not even the Dutch.
linnix
> On 04/13/2011 12:58 PM, Androcles wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:io4cht$hm1$1...@dont-email.me...
> > | On 04/13/2011 09:06 AM, Androcles wrote:
> > |>
> > |> news:io4474$ejg$1...@dont-email.me...
> > |> | On 04/13/2011 05:38 AM, Tim Little wrote:
> > |> |> Chernobyl's causes were (at least morally) "criminal". Bhopal's
> > were
> > |> |> (both legally and morally) criminal. Fukushima's were just horribly
> > |> |> unfortunate.
> > |> |
> > |> | Fukushima had defenses to cope with this sort of thing (e.g., (12 ft?)
> > |> | seawall as anti-tsunami measure
> > |>
> > |> The tsunami put boats, cars and a house on top of three storey
> > |> buildings. It was 40 feet high, not 12 feet.
> > |
> > | I was referring to the height of the seawall, not the tsunami.
> > |
> > And then you snipped references to images showing the
> > height of the seawall. Now only the foundations remain.
> > Fukushima had NO defences to cope with this sort of thing.
>
> I was pointing out that the seawall would have coped with lesser
> tsunamis, but the situation was too great for it to have withstood. No
> one has the resources to cope with a 40-ft tsunami--not even the Dutch.
>
So, they/we should not have built nuclear bomb^H^H^H^Hreactor below
100-ft above sea level.
J. Clarke
@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, m...@linnix.info-for.us says...
Why would the Marines have the equipment to move hot fuel rods? What do
they use that is powered by a nuclear reactor?
> Even on the other side of I-5 is safer
> (20 feet higher). It is absolutely stupid to store nuclear materials
> at sea level.
Why is it "absolutely stupid"? Because you say so?
> As they found out (and should have known), you can't
> use sea water to cool nuclear reactors anyway.
Who found this out? Certainly not the operators of San Onofre, who have
been using sea water to cool the reactors for decades. You might want
to google "heat exchanger".
linnix
The government has the equipments to do it. They are debating where
to move them for decades.
>
> > Even on the other side of I-5 is safer
> > (20 feet higher). It is absolutely stupid to store nuclear materials
> > at sea level.
>
> Why is it "absolutely stupid"? Because you say so?
Fukushima says so.
>
> > As they found out (and should have known), you can't
> > use sea water to cool nuclear reactors anyway.
>
> Who found this out?
In emergency, sea water is dangerous to fight reactor problems.
> Certainly not the operators of San Onofre, who have
> been using sea water to cool the reactors for decades. You might want
> to google "heat exchanger".
In normal time, they can always pump sea water up 100 ft for heat
exchanger.
Androcles
==================
Exactly.
But then, the Americans shouldn't have built New Orleans below
the Mississippi levy in the path of Katrina and they certainly
shouldn't have built Los Angeles and San Francisco on the
San Andreas fault. And the Thames Barrier won't save London
with a spring tide, a deep depression in the North Sea and a
storm all at the same time.
linnix
Cities can be and will be rebuild after 7.0 or 8.0. But radiation
will be around for thousands of years. I am willing to take the risk
of 8.0, but not with the radiation aftermath.
John Larkin
<m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
Well, there was that little core meltdown hydrogen explosion thing.
John
John Larkin
Makes no sense. A projectile fired from the surface at escape velocity
will vaporize before it gets far. Who wants vaporized fuel rods? And
rail guns are pitiful at accelerating mass.
The record altitude for a ballistic launch from the surface of Earth
is 180 km, from a cannon, by Charles "Spuds" Murphy in 1966.
http://lifeboat.com/em/chapter.1.pdf
Rail guns are like fuel cells, always tomorrow's technology.
John
hanson
>>
Tim Little <t...@little-possums.net> wrote:
Nothing is perfectly safe.
>
k...@kymhorsell.com
Some of the remaining Japanese 600 plant workers
that are being rotated in and out are now legally
allowed to receive 250 mSv (about 200 times the
legal limit for "civilians" in the US) to perform their jobs --
>
"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
And their dose is within US EPA guidelines for
emergency workers.
>
hanson wrote:
EPA... ahahahaha... AHAHA... what a joke.
EPA stands for Extremely Pitiful Assholes.
DO NOT TRUST these politically correct psychos:
>
1) EPA declared that the breath you exhale
is toxic and dangerous to the environment.
2) EPA made it illegal this winter for cities like
NY & Chicago to dump snow collected from
city streets to be dumpers into streams, lakes
or the ocean for fear that this snow would
contaminate the environment.
3) EPA was forced by DHS to check the nation's
radiation monitoring system last week. Their
system was broken, in disrepair & not functional.
>
... and you recommend to trust EPA guide lines?
EPA & enviros don't know what they are talking about.
---- DE-FUND EPA and all GREEN Programs ----
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
J. Clarke
bd165f...@o21g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, m...@linnix.info-for.us
Please provide a link to a government proposal to move hot fuel rods to
a remote location immediately after a reactor is refueled.
Moving rods that have been sitting in the pool for a year is a very
different proposition from moving rods that came out of the reactor
yesterday.
> > > Even on the other side of I-5 is safer
> > > (20 feet higher). It is absolutely stupid to store nuclear materials
> > > at sea level.
> >
> > Why is it "absolutely stupid"? Because you say so?
>
> Fukushima says so.
How so? Is it your contention that any of the problem at Fukushima were
due to flooding of the storage pools? If so please provide evidence to
support your contention.
> > > As they found out (and should have known), you can't
> > > use sea water to cool nuclear reactors anyway.
> >
> > Who found this out?
>
> In emergency, sea water is dangerous to fight reactor problems.
Please provide a demonstration of this "danger".
> > Certainly not the operators of San Onofre, who have
> > been using sea water to cool the reactors for decades. You might want
> > to google "heat exchanger".
>
> In normal time, they can always pump sea water up 100 ft for heat
> exchanger.
Huh? What, at San Onofre, is at a height of 100 feet?
Androcles
================================
Energy good, keep people warm and moving.
Oil bad, coal bad, nuclear bad.
Not
In
My
Back
Yard!
Lots of nimbys, no solutions.
Hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunamis aren't a risk, they are
a certainty. Build the reactors off-shore on a floating raft,
same as houses in an earthquake zone. When broken, tow
the reactor to a deep ocean trench and scuttle. Nimby happy!
The wind breaks the tree but the grass bends.
David Eather
I was always a fan of *deep* sea dumping (not shallow sea dumping as
sometimes used in the past). The problem with radiological waste is
concentration (that's fixed) and proximity (that's fixed too).
Jon Elson
> Is it simply incompetence, greed, or statistics? One would think that it
> would be relatively easy to design a nuclear reactor safety mechanism,
> blowout preventer, etc that does it's job.
>
Any IMBECILE would know that you don't want a reactor at sea level where
there are tsunamis. The Japanese have known about this phenomenon for
literally thousands of years!
At the Fukushima Dai Ichi plant, they actually REMOVED the damn hillside
to lower the plant, rather than have to spend a little energy pumping
water up the damn hill, and have to use an extra crane to swing large
parts off a barge.
> I'm starting to think that mankind is getting too arrogant and too
> stupid to deal with these large scale problems.
Well, that plant is mostly over 40 years old, and once they built the
damn thing at such a poor site, it would be hell to protect it. They
COULD have moved the Diesel generators up the hill behind the plant,
that would have been an easy mod to do over a couple years.
All the switchgear was in the basement, too, but they could have moved
safety-critical circuits only to a higher location, provided
seismic-secure water storage, etc. as needed to mitigate a tsunami event.
So, the arrogance was built in 40 years ago, and DAMN hard and expensive
to mitigate after the thing is built.
Jon
Bill Sloman
> In article <4b7a3ee3-3569-4720-bf27-
> 07bcdced3...@l6g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,bill.slo...@ieee.org says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 13, 3:06 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarkeuse...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > In article <dd885ad6-3861-4ddc-9ca3-ccd5cba58fe8
Who knows? Nut cases do odd things.
> and how would they get their weapon to
> Europe?
In a container, as regular freight ...
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
rick_s
> So, the arrogance was built in 40 years ago, and DAMN hard and expensive
> to mitigate after the thing is built.
>
> Jon
Well I think that it was a failed opportunity to educate the public thus
far, and as far as motivating people to deal with the spent fuel pool
problems all over the globe, which was brought to everyone's attention
in the special and series, 'Life After People', it hasn't motivated
anything more than idle talk.
So in the vent of a major catastrophe, like 2012, you would have
Fukushima times about 400.
So then what is the recommendation? 50 mile no go zones around any
plant? Eat canned goods, and try to find spring water in caves, or
filter it with carbon filters?
I think all you can do is get some personal radiation detection
equipment and realize that you will be on your own in any disaster.
So what are the safe levels well I guess you will have to go with what
your dosimeter and detection equipment tell you.
Since the subject has been muddied beyond belief with all manner of
confusing new terms.
uSv per hour, immediate dosage, mSv, per year, immediate dosage, per
hour, etc and then of course you have the food contamination levels and
these new adjustments of the safe levels, and basically it all seems
designed to just confuse people.
linnix
> In article <a23cc06c-1e34-4574-87c3-
> bd165fa0b...@o21g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, m...@linnix.info-for.us
OK, keep one year old rods on site. Why keeping 20 to 30 years old
rods still cooling on site.
> > > > Even on the other side of I-5 is safer
> > > > (20 feet higher). It is absolutely stupid to store nuclear materials
> > > > at sea level.
>
> > > Why is it "absolutely stupid"? Because you say so?
>
> > Fukushima says so.
>
> How so? Is it your contention that any of the problem at Fukushima were
> due to flooding of the storage pools? If so please provide evidence to
> support your contention.
Flooding cause damages and power lost to the cooling pools of spent
fuel rods. What? Were you living under the rock for the past month?
>
> > > > As they found out (and should have known), you can't
> > > > use sea water to cool nuclear reactors anyway.
>
> > > Who found this out?
>
> > In emergency, sea water is dangerous to fight reactor problems.
>
> Please provide a demonstration of this "danger".
Watch the news, please.
>
> > > Certainly not the operators of San Onofre, who have
> > > been using sea water to cool the reactors for decades. You might want
> > > to google "heat exchanger".
>
> > In normal time, they can always pump sea water up 100 ft for heat
> > exchanger.
>
> Huh? What, at San Onofre, is at a height of 100 feet?
The hill side in Camp Pendleton is more than 100 feet high. It is far
more secure and suitable for the nuclear reactors.
Clifford Heath
>> and how would they get their weapon to Europe?
> In a container, as regular freight ...
Read "The Sum of all Fears". Terrible movie, but a frighteningly factual book.
Clifford Heath.
Joshua Cranmer
> But then, the Americans shouldn't have built New Orleans below
> the Mississippi levy in the path of Katrina and they certainly
> shouldn't have built Los Angeles and San Francisco on the
> San Andreas fault. And the Thames Barrier won't save London
> with a spring tide, a deep depression in the North Sea and a
> storm all at the same time.
Actually, New Orleans wasn't built below the levee, it was built above
the levee. And then the land began to subside because it relied on
periodic flooding by the Mississippi.
Kulin Remailer
"androcles" <headm...@hogwarts.physics.april.2011> wrote:
> Build the reactors off-shore on a floating raft,
> same as houses in an earthquake zone. When broken, tow
> the reactor to a deep ocean trench and scuttle. Nimby happy!
Wouldn't that fill the oceans with radiation the way whatshername's
magic salt shaker filled them with salt?
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
<lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>On 13 Apr., 14:22, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
>wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:27:28 +1000, "Peter Webb"
>>
>> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Say, maybe we could dig a big hole in, say, Nevada...
>>
>> >> And pick a place where if it leaked, it would contaminate, say, Death
>> >> Valley.
>>
>> >Death Valley is pretty much the suburbs of LA compared to some places.
>>
>> ...and the problem is? ;-)
>>
>> >Here in Australia we have deserts with nobody living for a 100 kms in every
>> >direction, sitting on hard rock that has been geologically undisturbed for
>> >100 million years.
>>
>> Hey, I have an idea... What about Nevada, in the salt caves? I heard the
>> government even dug a big hole and then decided they didn't want it. Ask
>> Harry about that.
>>
>
>afaik germany have had nuclear waste in an old saltmine since the 70s
>but it
>has started leaking contaminated water
Leaking water? Kinda silly to put the stuff anywhere near water, no?
>how about some of the places that have been used for nuclear testing,
>they must
>be contaminated no go zones anyway?
Bikini, perhaps, but it's not a good place to store this stuff at all.
k...@kymhorsell.com
...
>>afaik germany have had nuclear waste in an old saltmine since the 70s
>>but it
>>has started leaking contaminated water
>
> Leaking water? Kinda silly to put the stuff anywhere near water, no?
You have to select your saltmine carefully. It's kinda notorious
you put any kind of hole in a salt deposit and groundwater will flow in.
See anyway wikipedia Schacht_Asse_II for details of der problem.
--
[Non-performance. BONZO posted a dozen quotes before "discovering"
Freeman Dyson accepted man-made climate change as real]
>Dyson accepts AGW.
Huh?
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], Mar 1 16:00 EST 2011
Don Klipstein
linnix wrote:
>On Apr 12, 9:14 pm, "Stretto" <Stre...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Is it simply incompetence, greed, or statistics? One would think that it
>> would be relatively easy to design a nuclear reactor safety mechanism,
>> blowout preventer, etc that does it's job.
>>
>> I'm starting to think that mankind is getting too arrogant and too
>> stupid to deal with these large scale problems. They no longer seem to
>> be issues of technology but of money and arrogance.
<SNIP to edit for line count>
>> Anyone else think humanity is in a downward spiral? Or maybe some of the
>> older folk know that this has always been like this?
>Unfortunately, in this case, they are not old enough. They ignored
>data that 9.0 quake happened 1000 years ago in the region. So. they
>built the reactors upto 8.0.
I see so may people talking about "100 year floods", occaisionally
"500 year floods", as if there is no need to design for floods worse than
these.
Of course, this folly is worsened by land use changes and a few river
bank changes that make rivers and streams flood worse than they used to.
> Actually, they are better than our San Orofre reactors, which are built
>for 7.0. Recently, the max. possible quake has been upped to 8.0.
>However, no recorded history survived to verify the max. quake in
>Southern California. If the same size quake happen in this region, we
>could have the exact incident here.
I thought expectations were that LA and SF would take turns getting a
quake about as bad as SF's 1906 quake in a roughly 150-200 year cycle.
The SF 1906 quake magnitude was 7.9. If the next LA one comes in late, it
could easily be correspondingly worse, maybe 8 or 8.1.
>PS: Japan and the US West Coast are in the same Ring of Fire.
There is also the New Madrid fault in NE Arkansas, SE Missouri, into a
tiny piece of NW Tennessee, and approaching SW Kentucky. That one had a
series of 4 strong earthquakes from 12/15 1811 to 2/7/1812. Magnitude
estimates range from 7 to 8.1 for these.
And, Earth's crust is more acoustically transparent in south/central/east
USA than in the western USA, especially up the Mississippi and Ohio
valleys from the fault. The 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes were felt
over about 160 times as much land area as the 1906 SF quake was. One of
the 1811-1812 New Madrid quakes rang church bells in Boston and in what is
now Toronto. There were reports of chimneys toppling in Maine and
sidewalks cracking in Washington DC.
A severe earthquake possibly as much as 8.3 in magnitude though more
likely mid or upper 7's is expected to occur at the New Madrid fault every
few centuries. Are the South and Midwest going to be able to handle it
when it hits?
There is a comparison map for damage zones of the New Madrid Fault's
1895 quake (magnitude 6.8) and LA's 1994 quake (magnitue 6.7):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NMSZ_Vergleich.jpg
Are Memphis, St. Louis, Cairo IL, Indianapolis, Louisville, and
Cincinatti able to handle a major New Madrid fault quake?
--
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
linnix
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:34:36 -0700 (PDT), "langw...@fonz.dk"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <langw...@fonz.dk> wrote:
> >On 13 Apr., 14:22, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
> >wrote:
> >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:27:28 +1000, "Peter Webb"
>
> >> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> >>> Say, maybe we could dig a big hole in, say, Nevada...
>
> >> >> And pick a place where if it leaked, it would contaminate, say, Death
> >> >> Valley.
>
> >> >Death Valley is pretty much the suburbs of LA compared to some places.
>
> >> ...and the problem is? ;-)
>
> >> >Here in Australia we have deserts with nobody living for a 100 kms in every
> >> >direction, sitting on hard rock that has been geologically undisturbed for
> >> >100 million years.
>
> >> Hey, I have an idea... What about Nevada, in the salt caves? I heard the
> >> government even dug a big hole and then decided they didn't want it. Ask
> >> Harry about that.
>
> >afaik germany have had nuclear waste in an old saltmine since the 70s
> >but it
> >has started leaking contaminated water
>
> Leaking water? Kinda silly to put the stuff anywhere near water, no?
Why not? You need water to clean up radioactive stuffs. In Japan,
they just dump the water in the ocean and call it a leak.
>
> >how about some of the places that have been used for nuclear testing,
> >they must
> >be contaminated no go zones anyway?
Yes, but it's in Harry's (Senate majority leader) backyard. He single-
handedly killed the project after spending 10 billions. He welcomed
the spending, but not the actual storage.
Androcles
"Joshua Cranmer" <Pidg...@verizon.invalid> wrote in message
| On 04/13/2011 02:17 PM, Androcles wrote:
| > But then, the Americans shouldn't have built New Orleans below
| > the Mississippi levy in the path of Katrina and they certainly
| > shouldn't have built Los Angeles and San Francisco on the
| > San Andreas fault. And the Thames Barrier won't save London
| > with a spring tide, a deep depression in the North Sea and a
| > storm all at the same time.
|
| Actually, New Orleans wasn't built below the levee, it was built above
| the levee. And then the land began to subside because it relied on
| periodic flooding by the Mississippi.
|
reaches the sea it widens, the velocity drops, the silt settles
and the floor rises. That produces a delta. The problem
with walling it in happens when the snow melts and the river
floods, it can't spread over the delta anymore so it climbs the
wall.
The land didn't subside, the river got higher as it deposited
silt in a narrow slot that needs constant dredging.
linnix
> In <16b013da-f5f6-4265-8a64-12ee7ef5c...@w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
We would be lucky with 8.1. Recorded history did not survive the last
big one in LA.
In the Ring of Fire, (which include LA and SF):
1. Chile 1960 05 22 9.5
2. Prince William Sound, Alaska 1964 03 28 9.2
3. Off the West Coast of Northern Sumatra 2004 12 26 9.1
4. Near the East Coast of Honshu, Japan 2011 03 11 9.0
5. Kamchatka 1952 11 04 9.0
6. Offshore Maule, Chile 2010 02 27 8.8
7. Off the Coast of Ecuador 1906 01 31 8.8
8. Rat Islands, Alaska 1965 02 04 8.7
9. Northern Sumatra, Indonesia 2005 03 28 8.6
10. Assam - Tibet 1950 08 15 8.6
11. Andreanof Islands, Alaska 1957 03 09 8.6
12. Southern Sumatra, Indonesia 2007 09 12 8.5
13. Banda Sea, Indonesia 1938 02 01 8.5
14. Kamchatka 1923 02 03 8.5
15. Chile-Argentina Border 1922 11 11 8.5
16. Kuril Islands 1963 10 13 8.5
Rich Grise
> Is it simply incompetence, greed, or statistics? One would think that it
> would be relatively easy to design a nuclear reactor safety mechanism,
> blowout preventer, etc that does it's job.
>
Too much government.
> I'm starting to think that mankind is getting too arrogant and too stupid
> to deal with these large scale problems. They no longer seem to be issues
> of technology but of money and arrogance.
Too much government.
> Nuclear energy should be safe
> and what happened at Fukushima is criminal. What's worse was the response
> afterwards. Just like the BP Oil spill, Katrina, and many others it seems
> when these things happen you get people totally incompetent that are in
> charge and have no real plan.
Too much government.
> It's like we simply build our house of cards and when it comes crashing
> down everyone's clueless why. Because of our arrogance and greed we build
> the house of cards bigger and bigger believing that we have some innate
> right to do so.
Too much government.
> It seems human incompetence and arrogance makes everything unsafe and
> there is plenty of it going around. Just look at the responses to this
> post and what goes on in these newsgroups now. Very little intelligent and
> civilized debate is going on any more. (specially if you've been around
> for a while and remember how it used to be)
Too much government AND too many people dependent on it.
> Anyone else think humanity is in a downward spiral? Or maybe some of the
> older folk know that this has always been like this?
We're on a downward spiral, but if the Tea Party and other sane people
can get the Communists out of the Capital, we might have a prayer.
Thanks,
Rich
Rich Grise
>
> Things usually work pretty well. Would you rather live in a forest,
> foraging for food and shelter?
Can I clear a few acres for veggies and set traps for edible critters?
Thanks,
Rich
Rich Grise
>
> One is enough, as it's happening in Japan, and will happen again
> elsewhere. All they had to do is to relocate the spent fuel rods to
> safer storage site. We should do the same to our reactors as well.
Or, we could reprocess them into new fuel, if we hadn't handed the asylum
keys over to the psychotics.
Thanks,
Rich
Rich Grise
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:22:17 -0700, TheGlimmerMan
>>On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:09:29 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>
>>>>elsewhere. All they had to do is to relocate the spent fuel rods to
>>>>safer storage site. We should do the same to our reactors as well.
>>>
>>
>
> Rail guns are silly. A rocket, or even a cannon, works a lot better.
>
Thanks,
Rich
Rich Grise
>
> No cannon has ever existed that could launch anything into the sun, or
> even into orbit. Rockets can but the effort is hugely expensive. Some
> sort of electromagnetic launcher, if it can deliver the required
> velocity, would be far cheaper to run.
A 3G LIM up the side of Everest or K-2 would be a start. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
>
> There are proliferation worries about that, though. See the chequered
> history of fast breeder reactors and mixed-oxide fuel.
>
NIMBYs - the "terrorists" can just buy bombs from Russia or China.
Hope This Helps!
Rich
John Larkin
Yup. He has many names, but he's Always Wrong.
John
John Larkin
Maybe *you* are the edible critter.
John
Rich Grise
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:13:25 -0700 (PDT), linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us>
>>
>>One is enough, as it's happening in Japan, and will happen again
>>elsewhere. All they had to do is to relocate the spent fuel rods to
>>safer storage site. We should do the same to our reactors as well.
>
Or maybe use the existing one in New Mexico:
http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/the-salt-mine-solution-3797/
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
>
>>> Say, maybe we could dig a big hole in, say, Nevada...
>>
>> Valley.
>
> Death Valley is pretty much the suburbs of LA compared to some places.
>
> every direction, sitting on hard rock that has been geologically
> undisturbed for 100 million years.
>
> down the hole, then fill the hole with a 1000 metre concrete plug. That
> waste isn't going anywhere.
>
> Problem solved.
You could just lay it there in a pile, put up a chain-link fence, and
put signs on the fence that say in Strine and Aborigine, "If you go over
this fence YOU WILL DIE!!!!! <skull and crossbones>.
Cheers!
Rich
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
>On Apr 13, 5:04 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
So you're saying that it's intentional? Black helicopters keeping you awake
at night?
>> >how about some of the places that have been used for nuclear testing,
>> >they must
>> >be contaminated no go zones anyway?
>
>Yes, but it's in Harry's (Senate majority leader) backyard. He single-
>handedly killed the project after spending 10 billions. He welcomed
>the spending, but not the actual storage.
Typical leftist.
ShyDavid
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/12/11 11:14 PM, Stretto wrote:
Nothing.
> You won't be able to say that humans didn't predict the
> abnormally rapid warming on a global scale.
In fact it was not just predicted over 85 years ago (C.J. Fox in
1909, A. Angstron in 1918, and Chamberlain and Fowle in 1916,
1917, and 1918), it was already an observed fact by 1937 (E.O.
Hulburt, S.G. Callendar, Suess and Revelle).
"Calculation shows that doubling or tripling the amount of Co2
into the atmoshphere increases the average surface temperature by
about 4° and 7°K respectivly..." -- E.O. Hulburt "The Temperature
of the Lower Atmosphere of the Earth," Physical Review, vol. 38,
Issue 10, pp. 1876-1890
"The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on
temperature." -- S.G. Callendar, Quarterly Journal of the Royal
Meteorological Society, 64:223 (1938)
"As the air gets warmer, sea water will get warmer too, and CO2
dissolved in it will return to the atmosphere. More water will
evaporate from the warm ocean, and this will increase the
greenhouse effect of the CO2. Each effect will reinforce the
other, possibly raising the temperature enough to melt the icecaps
of Antarctica and Greenland, which would flood the earth's coastal
lands." -- Suess and Revelle, _Time_ Magazine "One Big
Greenhouse." (May 28, 1956)
"Arctic may become navigatable due to increased atmospheric CO2."
Testimony of Commander Roger Revelle, U.S. Congress, House 84
H1526-5, Committee on Appropriations, Hearings on Second
Supplemental Appropriation Bill (1956), pp. 474, 473.
linnix
They knew about the leaks for days. You don't think they could have
pump it out instead of "leaking" into the ocean?
Don Klipstein
linnix wrote:
>On 4/12 10:00pm Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel..@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> > Say, maybe we could dig a big hole in, say, Nevada...
>>
>> And pick a place where if it leaked, it would contaminate, say, Death
>> Valley.
>
>I know we've been looking and debating for the ideal storage site for
>decades. Meanwhile, they are kept in the most dangerous location, on
>site.
Meanwhile, Obama has been said to put a stop to the Yucca Mountain
waste site project. I think that was a political decision to gain votes
from Nevada residents. Maybe O's advisors said that would cause little
loss of votes from those living near plants that would have to keep on
storing spent fuel rods on-site for whatever more years...
One thing I have heard of is some requirement that nuclear waste must be
retrievable and monitorable. I think that requirement is an artificial
obstacle by anti-nukers, since that blocks dumping nuclear waste someplace
where it is gone for good. That blocks vitrifying it and then dumping it
into salt domes depleted of their oil, followed by plugging a mile or 2 of
borehole with concrete. That would block dumping it into the sun, where
not even a billion devoted ingenious terrorists can grab it.
I would propose that the Feds allow a state having a nuclear waste
disposal site to be allowed to have some degree of a tax on waste from
other states, on basis of REMs or Roengens of radiation expected to be
produced by radioactive decay events in the waste over the next 1,000
years. Let that tax be high enough to get a few other states in a good
mood to allow nuclear waste disposal sites within their borders.
How about getting states into a bidding war for price to put out a
welcome mat for out-of-state nuclear waste? A lot of them need money,
with 10% or whatever annual rate of inflation in health insurance
premiums by their state and local government employees including public
school teachers!