Radioactive fish in the Pacific


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Radioactive fish in the Pacific

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3
Author Message
Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3866
Credit: 396,094
RAC: 203
Italy
Message 1245362 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 14:15:22 UTC
Last modified: 13 Jun 2012, 14:31:10 UTC

Last earthquake in the Ferrara zone was in 1574, so the zone was not classified as risky Now, it is perfectly possible to build in antiseismic mode, but the building is clearly more costly. So if you build a school or a hospital you obviously choose the less costly option. Then when the earthquake comes you have loss of life and destroyed buildings, which must be rebuilt at a much higher cost. Such is life.
Tullio
____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,256,351
RAC: 1,324
United Kingdom
Message 1245370 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 15:29:53 UTC - in response to Message 1245352.
Last modified: 13 Jun 2012, 15:31:25 UTC

NPR had an interview with an American worker that was in the facility to make sure it met safety and quality standards.

He and several of the Japanese workers were caught inside the building as power was lost. His claim is that there was nothing that could have stopped the disaster. He also went on to say that the plant was not in any way compromised due to substandard safety or maintenance standards

Despite the "overutilised" fuel holding pens, despite at least one of the cooling systems failing from the earlier earthquake, despite no venting or anything else designed in to allow for known gas generation during a known failure scenario?...

Moving the held fuel elsewhere, or constructing another fuel holding pen are both expensive. As is the designing in for a safe meltdown. Far cheaper is to assume nothing goes wrong...


The plants fatal flaw was having diesel generators where they could easily be flooded in a Tsunami. Again, the Japanese are very aware of Tsunamis and have built dikes and Tsunami walls to funnel and prevent flooding from a Tsunami. This Tsunami just went right over their defenses.

That was the killer for that plant. That and also having the electrical gear and fuel tanks vulnerable to being flooded out.

The next compounding factor was there being no plan or means for getting emergency generators and pumps to the site by air or sea.

The next killer was the plant manager not admitting there was any problem until far far too late...


This Tsunami was well beyond any expected ever.

I disagree. That sort of thing has been listed as a "one in a thousand years" event. The sea defences were built to an arbitrarily convenient height that 'looked the part'. With a 50 year lifespan of the plant, would you gamble a one in twenty chance of catastrophe?...


Why is it we are so poor at gauging risk?

Regards,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13165
Credit: 7,900,103
RAC: 14,113
United States
Message 1245380 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 16:03:33 UTC - in response to Message 1245370.

Moving the held fuel elsewhere, or constructing another fuel holding pen

Both require the NIMBY's to consent. They refuse. They get disaster as a result. A stupid decision made by millions of people is still a stupid decision. The plant(s) exist, a dump for the wast is required. Sorry NIMBY. Learn you lesson from the school of hard knocks.

____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,256,351
RAC: 1,324
United Kingdom
Message 1245398 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 16:48:52 UTC - in response to Message 1245380.

Moving the held fuel elsewhere, or constructing another fuel holding pen

Both require the NIMBY's to consent. They refuse. They get disaster as a result. A stupid decision made by millions of people is still a stupid decision. The plant(s) exist, a dump for the wast is required. Sorry NIMBY. Learn you lesson from the school of hard knocks.

For Fukushima, the 'sensible' move would have been to have constructed another holding pen before refueling the reactors. The existing pens had not been designed to hold the amount of fuel for extending the plant's life for another 10 years. But why spend money when you can get away with compromising safety?...

Unfortunately, I expect the "NIMBYs" had no say in anything.

I also suspect those in charge live safely far away from the plant.


Next?

Regards,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13165
Credit: 7,900,103
RAC: 14,113
United States
Message 1245402 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 16:55:05 UTC - in response to Message 1245398.

Moving the held fuel elsewhere, or constructing another fuel holding pen

Both require the NIMBY's to consent. They refuse. They get disaster as a result. A stupid decision made by millions of people is still a stupid decision. The plant(s) exist, a dump for the wast is required. Sorry NIMBY. Learn you lesson from the school of hard knocks.

For Fukushima, the 'sensible' move would have been to have constructed another holding pen before refueling the reactors.

How do you get the permit to construct? Do you even bother to try with the level of NIMBY that exists today?

The existing pens had not been designed to hold the amount of fuel for extending the plant's life for another 10 years. But why spend money when you can get away with compromising safety?...

Unfortunately, I expect the "NIMBYs" had no say in anything.

They did have the veto vote. Now they live with their action.

I also suspect those in charge live safely far away from the plant.


Next?

Regards,
Martin


____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,256,351
RAC: 1,324
United Kingdom
Message 1245503 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 19:16:04 UTC - in response to Message 1245402.

Take 2...

For Fukushima, the 'sensible' move would have been to have constructed another holding pen before refueling the reactors.

How do you get the permit to construct? Do you even bother to try with the level of NIMBY that exists today?

On site, as is done with the nuclear installations here in the UK.

Looks you're trolling.


Nuclear power can be taken advantage of for safe power generation. The problem is investing in the safety when the accountants see that safety in terms of equipment that will wastefully never get used...

Regards,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13165
Credit: 7,900,103
RAC: 14,113
United States
Message 1245542 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 20:52:57 UTC - in response to Message 1245503.

Take 2...

For Fukushima, the 'sensible' move would have been to have constructed another holding pen before refueling the reactors.

How do you get the permit to construct? Do you even bother to try with the level of NIMBY that exists today?

On site, as is done with the nuclear installations here in the UK.

Looks you're trolling.


Nuclear power can be taken advantage of for safe power generation. The problem is investing in the safety when the accountants see that safety in terms of equipment that will wastefully never get used...

Regards,
Martin

Perhaps in the UK you don't need a permit, with public notification and comment, for an additional storage pool. First I would have ever heard of such loose regulations on anything radioactive ...

____________

Profile Orgil
Send message
Joined: 3 Aug 05
Posts: 979
Credit: 103,388
RAC: 0
Mongolia
Message 1245663 - Posted: 14 Jun 2012, 1:31:20 UTC
Last modified: 14 Jun 2012, 1:42:54 UTC

Here are some facts:




Welcome to mid-21st century:


____________
Mandtugai!

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13165
Credit: 7,900,103
RAC: 14,113
United States
Message 1245706 - Posted: 14 Jun 2012, 4:04:54 UTC - in response to Message 1245663.

My such an authoritative source. "Submit here for publication."
Authors like:

    Tips
    Episonline
    Plastic Surgery Marketing
    Florida Oil Spill Law
    George Washington
    BanksterBuster777
    Free Speech
    RTW
    admin
    calliedeer


Do you really believe anything that is posted on the net?

Oh, did you notice the math? Totals don't add up. Something besides the fish are fishy.

BTW
The nuclear explosion in Hiroshima (14 kt or 59 TJ) is estimated to have produced 8×10^24 Bq. Note that your chart lists total for Chernobyl at 5×10^18 Bq, over six orders of magnitude less.

____________

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Radioactive fish in the Pacific

Copyright © 2014 University of California