|
Post by sod on May 17, 2013 2:58:59 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by edireland on May 17, 2013 4:17:07 GMT 9.5
Is this even a problem?
It's not as if the ground is going to literally break open and swallow the reactors whole. Subsidence is unlikely to cause a catastrophic loss of reactor cooling if the plant is properly prepared.
|
|
|
Post by sod on May 17, 2013 10:15:35 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on May 17, 2013 18:08:35 GMT 9.5
Remember, there was a major nuclear accident in Japan ... From a safe distance we have seen the remarkable spectacle of one of the biggest earthquakes in history strike some of the toughest structures in an earthquake-engineered country, and every single one of them survived intact. As far as I know only a crack appeared in a storm drain between two of the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi, one of the many nuclear installations that withstood the violence of Nature that day. If they had had time enough to react, a chorus of antinuclear zealots would have crowed to the world about how nuclear reactors crack in the event of earthquakes. At the same time they would have shouted down our concern for a million or so people struggling to survive as their roofs shook to come down around them. Can anyone get more callous than that? Yes they can. Because the same voices believe that instead of the nukes on the coast, all those houses should have had solar panels placed on their roofs. We do not know how many people were killed by solar panels falling into their houses in Eastern Japan that day, but we can guess how many more would have died if the zealots had had their way. The subsequent, much greater disaster arising from the most horrific tsunami did not swerve them from their fear mongering. Even now the myopia persists, because we hear repeatedly of unspecified nuclear casualties, based on the two people drowned on the site of one of these maligned monsters, while 20,000 people died horribly in an otherwise familiar suburban landscape.
|
|
|
Post by sod on May 17, 2013 21:06:25 GMT 9.5
From a safe distance we have seen the remarkable spectacle of one of the biggest earthquakes in history strike some of the toughest structures in an earthquake-engineered country, and every single one of them survived intact. As far as I know only a crack appeared in a storm drain between two of the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi, one of the many nuclear installations that withstood the violence of Nature that day. There are serious doubts about this. Instead we have a lot of evidence, suggesting that the quake did major damage to the Fukushima plant. The main problem is, that this has not been properly investigated, because TEPCO is preventing inspections with all means, including false claims. ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201302070058
|
|
|
Post by sod on May 19, 2013 0:44:53 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 19, 2013 1:07:56 GMT 9.5
The most important lesson to be learned from it (and Chernobyl as well) is the one which people like sod and the media (mostly staffed by people with no clue about science) are doing their best to avoid, namely that the anti-nuclear movement is more dangerous than nuclear power.
|
|
|
Post by sod on May 21, 2013 5:37:28 GMT 9.5
The most important lesson to be learned from it (and Chernobyl as well) is the one which people like sod and the media (mostly staffed by people with no clue about science) are doing their best to avoid, namely that the anti-nuclear movement is more dangerous than nuclear power. What i think, doesn t really matter in this case. There is a rule in Japan: no nuclear power plant above an active fault line. (i can hardly think of any rule that makes more sense) There have been doubts about this about the Tsugura plant for a long time. www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/05/20/editorials/tsuruga-reactors-active-fault/#.UZqAmJxrmJANow it looks as if the only reason that keeps this reactor online is a simple one: The company will go bankrupt, if the reactor is closed. While the argument at the top (no reactor above an active fault line) is one of the best i ve ever heard, this is among the worst.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on May 22, 2013 22:43:21 GMT 9.5
Here's an excellent summary of the Fukushima events: www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Fukushima-Accident-2011/As you can see, there was no detectable trouble when the earthquake hit, even though it was beyond the design basis of some of the Daiichi units. The plants shut down as designed upon seismic exceedence, and the diesel generators all started and ran fine till the tsunami hit. The flooding by the tsunami caused common mode failure of most electrical systems in a way that no earthquake ever could. The plants were clearly robust seismically, they were just vulnerable to the tsunami created by a quake on the sea. If such a reactor sits on top of an active fault, there won't be a tsunami. Most of Japan is in the damage influence area of active faults. Should we perhaps close down the country? If a nuclear plant in a low population area under the influence of an active fault is unacceptable, then why is a city of 13 million people (Tokyo) acceptable?
|
|
|
Post by Something Special on Jun 10, 2013 21:40:15 GMT 9.5
wow... it's wonderful
|
|