Radioactive fish in the Pacific
Radioactive fish in the Pacific |
|
| log in |
Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Radioactive fish in the Pacific
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
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. | |
ID: 1245362 ·  | |
NPR had an interview with an American worker that was in the facility to make sure it met safety and quality 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 ____________ Mandriva Linux A user friendly OS! See new freedom Mageia2 The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3) | |
| ID: 1245370 · | |
 Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester  Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 10320 Credit: 5,088,454 RAC: 6,436  | |
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. ____________   | |
| ID: 1245380 · | |
Moving the held fuel elsewhere, or constructing another fuel holding pen 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 ____________ Mandriva Linux A user friendly OS! See new freedom Mageia2 The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3) | |
| ID: 1245398 · | |
|
Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 10320 Credit: 5,088,454 RAC: 6,436 | |
Moving the held fuel elsewhere, or constructing another fuel holding pen 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?... 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. ____________ | |
| ID: 1245402 · | |
|
Take 2... For Fukushima, the 'sensible' move would have been to have constructed another holding pen before refueling the reactors. 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 ____________ Mandriva Linux A user friendly OS! See new freedom Mageia2 The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3) | |
| ID: 1245503 · | |
|
Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 10320 Credit: 5,088,454 RAC: 6,436 | |
Take 2... 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 ... ____________ | |
| ID: 1245542 · | |
|
Here are some facts: | |
| ID: 1245663 · | |
|
Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 10320 Credit: 5,088,454 RAC: 6,436 | |
|
My such an authoritative source. "Submit here for publication."
Episonline Plastic Surgery Marketing Florida Oil Spill Law George Washington BanksterBuster777 Free Speech RTW admin calliedeer
| |
| ID: 1245706 · | |
Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Radioactive fish in the Pacific
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |
