MJW155 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I saw a ratings system earlier for nuclear accidents-- Im trying to remember the source-- but basically, Chernobyl was rated a 7, Three Mile Island was rated a 4 and this disaster was rated a 3 on that scale. To be fair, it's hard to label this a 3 when we don't even really know what's going on yet. For all we know, it could be like that dumbass on FOX saying "New Orleans dodged a bullet." LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 most likely. i mean, if you end up with 4 chernobyls from an event like this then that's a huge problem. i dont think that's happening though. putting them near population centers in CA might be worrisome should the big one hit, ill agree to that. but engineers usually learn from these things so hopefully future designs will be even more hardened/ready for similar issues. Fair enough. I think you see where I'm coming from. And as I've pointed out before, you don't need the "Big One" to produce really violent shaking. The Northridge Quake was just as violent as this Honshu Quake, if not more violent (MM Level IX), it just covered a much smaller area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJW155 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 One thing I want to point out: no one in this thread lives in a seismically active region. (Yeah, yeah, OR is theoretically, blah blah, but they rarely get anything of real consequence.) When you live somewhere that gets hit by violent quakes with regularity, these risks seems less palatable. Well that's b/c you are a dumbass for living in an earthquake prone region. The rest of us aren't idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 To be fair, it's hard to label this a 3 when we don't even really know what's going on yet. For all we know, it could be like that dumbass on FOX saying "New Orleans dodged a bullet." LOL. Ha, I remember when they did that-- as did the guy on CNN. Media...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 One thing I want to point out: no one in this thread lives in a seismically active region. (Yeah, yeah, OR is theoretically, blah blah, but they rarely get anything of real consequence.) When you live somewhere that gets hit by violent quakes with regularity, these risks seems less palatable. fairly weak argument but good try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtRosen Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 California is not Japan. Without nuclear power, Japan's economy would be a mere shadow of what it actually is. And America would probably be manufacturing more goods, which would mean more jobs for Americans. How we transitioned from a country to the biggest exporter of goods to the biggest importer of goods, I don't know....Sorry, wrong forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 One thing I want to point out: no one in this thread lives in a seismically active region. (Yeah, yeah, OR is theoretically, blah blah, but they rarely get anything of real consequence.) When you live somewhere that gets hit by violent quakes with regularity, these risks seems less palatable. You're being pretty confusing here. Japan gets hit with an unprecedented 'quake/tsunami combo (largest in their recorded history) and you expect everything to go perfectly smoothly with absolutely zero bumps, but because Oregon "rarely" gets anything of real consequence, I shouldn't be as concerned? Even though we have the same kind of fault offshore (as well as a decently-powerful near-surface fault, the Portland Hills Fault, right under downtown Portland)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Fair enough. I think you see where I'm coming from. And as I've pointed out before, you don't need the "Big One" to produce really violent shaking. The Northridge Quake was just as violent as this Honshu Quake, if not more violent (MM Level IX), it just covered a much smaller area. i guess but the northridge quake was still a baby compared to this thing. i think you make some valid points but im guessing you were already anti nuke plant before this event... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewxmann Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Sorry, I should have clarified "L.A. Metro". San Onofre is in San Diego County. "Japan knows what it's going"? OK, cool. So then why are all these reactors having serious problems at the same time? I hope you're right, but saying, "Don't worry-- the winds will blow the stuff offshore" is a pretty thin defense for the possible consequences. I'm happy y'all are so into nuclear energy. Yeah, but San Onofre is close enough to LA such that a radioactive release would have serious consequences. Especially considering the ubiquitous summer inversions in the area... that cloud would just spread out and choke everyone in a xx-km radius. Evacuations? With only an hour lead-time to deadly radiation exposure and clogged LA freeways to boot? South OC is screwed. On the other hand, you don't see such a big catastrophic threat with Fukushima. It's bad, but not super-uber bad. Because they built the plant in a geographical location such that a meltdown wouldn't entail all-out catastrophe. And really, I'm not a big fan of nuclear energy, esp. with the depleting Uranium resources and what I just mentioned above. But I think if this were to happen here, panic would ensue... on the other hand, Japan is handling it relatively well given that the biggest earthquake/tsunami in the country's history just impacted the plant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetjanet998 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I understand that the salt should would corrosion over the long term which is why they use fresh water, but does anyone know why sea water wouldn't work to cool the reactor.. Why are these expers calling it a "hail marry"? WASHINGTON – US nuclear experts warned Saturday that pumping sea water to cool a quake-hit Japanese nuclear reactor was an "act of desperation" that may foreshadow a Chernobyl-like disaster. Several experts, in a conference call with reporters, also predicted that regardless of the outcome at the Fukushima No. 1 atomic plant crisis, the accident will seriously damage the nuclear power renaissance. "The situation has become desperate enough that they apparently don't have the capability to deliver fresh water or plain water to cool the reactor and stabilize it, and now, in an act of desperation, are having to resort to diverting and using sea water," said Robert Alvarez, who works on nuclear disarmament at the Institute for Policy Studies. would describe this measure as a 'Hail Mary' pass," http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20110313-325126/US-experts-fear-Chernobyl-like-crisis-for-Japan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 fairly weak argument but good try. What argument? Again, no one here lives with that reality. If you lived in CA, you might have a different perspective on it and you might not want to live near a reactor. You can say it wouldn't matter to you, and I would say I frankly didn't believe you. I guess it's easy on a message board to just say you'd be cool with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetjanet998 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I understand that the salt should would cause corrosion over the long term which is why they use fresh water, but does anyone know why sea water wouldn't work to cool the reactor.. Why are these experts calling it a "hail marry"? also I thought they said they were adding boron to the sea water for some reason WASHINGTON – US nuclear experts warned Saturday that pumping sea water to cool a quake-hit Japanese nuclear reactor was an "act of desperation" that may foreshadow a Chernobyl-like disaster. Several experts, in a conference call with reporters, also predicted that regardless of the outcome at the Fukushima No. 1 atomic plant crisis, the accident will seriously damage the nuclear power renaissance. "The situation has become desperate enough that they apparently don't have the capability to deliver fresh water or plain water to cool the reactor and stabilize it, and now, in an act of desperation, are having to resort to diverting and using sea water," said Robert Alvarez, who works on nuclear disarmament at the Institute for Policy Studies. would describe this measure as a 'Hail Mary' pass," http://newsinfo.inqu...risis-for-Japan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 What argument? Again, no one here lives with that reality. If you lived in CA, you might have a different perspective on it and you might not want to live near a reactor. You can say it wouldn't matter to you, and I would say I frankly didn't believe you. I guess it's easy on a message board to just say you'd be cool with it. yeah it's not like i lived half a mile from the san andreas fault for almost half of my life and did not feel plenty of big quakes while there. these thoughts have never crossed my mind till 10 minutes ago! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtRosen Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Well that's b/c you are a dumbass for living in an earthquake prone region. The rest of us aren't idiots. You live in Ft. Lauderdale. Does the name Andrew mean anything to you? What about all of the other hurricanes that have hit over the past few decades? Face it - no matter where we live, we're vulnerable to natural disasters. We live on the coast, huricanes and blizzards, we live on the West, earthquakes, we live in the middle, tornadoes and severe storms. We're basically screwed no matter where we go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJW155 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Ha, I remember when they did that-- as did the guy on CNN. Media...... Yea I mean look at this snippet. WASHINGTON – US nuclear experts warned Saturday that pumping sea water to cool a quake-hit Japanese nuclear reactor was an "act of desperation" that may foreshadow a Chernobyl-like disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJW155 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 You live in Ft. Lauderdale. Does the name Andrew mean anything to you? What about all of the other hurricanes that have hit over the past few decades? Face it - no matter where we live, we're vulnerable to natural disasters. We live on the coast, huricanes and blizzards, we live on the West, earthquakes, we live in the middle, tornadoes and severe storms. We're basically screwed no matter where we go. I was just busting Josh's chops and I'm pretty sure he knows it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 What argument? Again, no one here lives with that reality. If you lived in CA, you might have a different perspective on it and you might not want to live near a reactor. You can say it wouldn't matter to you, and I would say I frankly didn't believe you. I guess it's easy on a message board to just say you'd be cool with it. I can understand being concerned about living in close proximity to a nuclear reactor in an unstable geological area. I just think the "OMG see nuclear power is too dangerous" statements based on these events are over the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 You're being pretty confusing here. Japan gets hit with an unprecedented 'quake/tsunami combo (largest in their recorded history) and you expect everything to go perfectly smoothly with absolutely zero bumps, but because Oregon "rarely" gets anything of real consequence, I shouldn't be as concerned? Even though we have the same kind of fault offshore (as well as a decently-powerful near-surface fault, the Portland Hills Fault, right under downtown Portland)? Were you affected by the earthquake that hit Seattle earlier last decade, Mallow? I remember I was on the phone with someone in Bellingham and got disconnected when that happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 i guess but the northridge quake was still a baby compared to this thing. i think you make some valid points but im guessing you were already anti nuke plant before this event... The Northridge was a baby-- and that is my exact point. That it doesn't take a 100-year event to cause really violent shaking-- meaning that a fairly common 6.5-6.9 aimed just right could cause a catastrophe. I admitted above that I was never a fan of nuclear energy. Yeah, but San Onofre is close enough to LA such that a radioactive release would have serious consequences. Especially considering the ubiquitous summer inversions in the area... that cloud would just spread out and choke everyone in a xx-km radius. Evacuations? With only an hour lead-time to deadly radiation exposure and clogged LA freeways to boot? South OC is screwed. On the other hand, you don't see such a big catastrophic threat with Fukushima. It's bad, but not super-uber bad. Because they built the plant in a geographical location such that a meltdown wouldn't entail all-out catastrophe. And really, I'm not a big fan of nuclear energy, esp. with the depleting Uranium resources and what I just mentioned above. But I think if this were to happen here, panic would ensue... on the other hand, Japan is handling it relatively well given that the biggest earthquake/tsunami in the country's history just impacted the plant. One thing about that area of SoCal: it is less seismically active than areas to the N and E. Look at seismic risk maps and you'll see what I'm talking about. Long Beach had a decent quake in 1933, but San Diego hasn't gotten a lot of action, and there just seem to be less active faults down there. L.A., on the other hand, has gotten pounded by two violent quakes in the last 40 years (1971 and 1994). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Could we get a mod in here to cut out the politics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BxEngine Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Lol...I live 8 miles from a nuclear power plant with a fault line running under it. It doesn't make my opinion any more or less important than anyone elses....so can we take the other crap to AP and talk about the situation at hand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtRosen Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I understand that the salt should would cause corrosion over the long term which is why they use fresh water, but does anyone know why sea water wouldn't work to cool the reactor.. Why are these experts calling it a "hail marry"? also I thought they said they were adding boron to the sea water for some reason WASHINGTON – US nuclear experts warned Saturday that pumping sea water to cool a quake-hit Japanese nuclear reactor was an "act of desperation" that may foreshadow a Chernobyl-like disaster. Several experts, in a conference call with reporters, also predicted that regardless of the outcome at the Fukushima No. 1 atomic plant crisis, the accident will seriously damage the nuclear power renaissance. "The situation has become desperate enough that they apparently don't have the capability to deliver fresh water or plain water to cool the reactor and stabilize it, and now, in an act of desperation, are having to resort to diverting and using sea water," said Robert Alvarez, who works on nuclear disarmament at the Institute for Policy Studies. would describe this measure as a 'Hail Mary' pass," http://newsinfo.inqu...risis-for-Japan One hail mary pass is a miracle. They've got 5 reactors with problems down there. The odds don't look too good. Conflicting reports mention that #1 had a partial meltdown alla TMI. Again, the problem with this is we're not talking about 1 reactor at 1 site. We're talking about 5 reactors in 2 different sites where the plants have been heavily damaged by a biblically historic earthquake and tsunami... this is like fighting a Dark Sith Lord blindfolded with your hands tied behind your back with a concussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I can understand being concerned about living in close proximity to a nuclear reactor in an unstable geological area. I just think the "OMG see nuclear power is too dangerous" statements based on these events are over the top. With the proper safeguards, it's just as safe or maybe even safer than older technologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 yeah it's not like i lived half a mile from the san andreas fault for almost half of my life and did not feel plenty of big quakes while there. these thoughts have never crossed my mind till 10 minutes ago! You lived there as a child. Children don't sit around thinking of the consequences of these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 what politics are involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 The Northridge was a baby-- and that is my exact point. That it doesn't take a 100-year even to cause really violent shaking-- meaning that a fairly common 6.5-6.9 aimed just right could cause a catastrophe. I admitted above that I was never a fan of nuclear energy. how many nuke plants have failed in 6.5-6.9 quakes though? who even codes to a mega quake in this range anyway? they are a once in multi-generation events.. and most know that if a 9 happens in SoCal you're all really fooked regardless of nuclear plants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkman Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Between the Japanese government's desire not to spread panic (and probably save some face) and every expert commenting on the situation seemingly being fueled by some political agenda it's really hard to figure out what the hell is happening. Hopefully this place remains somewhere we can try to do that.... Also, the verbage of that breaking news report on CNN was exactly the same as the one that prompted the start of this thread. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they just saw that interview and thought it was more recent. CNN's coverage of the whole event has been pretty much awful aside from allowing me to watch video in HD, I've gone to just using the BBC for updates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtRosen Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 TimeOutTokyo TimeOutTokyo At about 6am, the third fuel rod at Fukushima nuclear reactor number 1 reported no water supplies. Cont... TimeOutTokyo TimeOutTokyo They are trying to lower the pressure and add water. Emergency situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srain Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Why not take the lame political bs back to PR where everyone loves to sling **** at each other.... Good try, but fail... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 what politics are involved? That'd be the pro-nuclear versus anti-nuclear politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.