Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
MAJOR TSUNAMI---Damage in N Japan after 8.9 quake
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JRSherman" data-source="post: 1484274" data-attributes="member: 13432"><p>Yeah but saying you could put something anywhere in the world that's safe from a natural disaster of great magnitude is kind of imbalanced. California has more possible high magnitude earthquake related issues than most of the US, but they have reactors too. Not that I would miss California if it went belly up, just giving an equal comparison state-side.</p><p></p><p>The thing of it is, you've just got to have a source of power that fits your means. I'm sure the initial Japanese reception to the idea was less than thrilled. In a place with a decently low level of landmass with even less available space, that would require exorbitant amounts of fossil fuel consumption just to deliver the fuel, and the associated costs to power that type of electrical generation facility, I can easily see why they would choose nuclear over anything else.</p><p></p><p>Every nuclear plant that was approved by the AEA was held to reasonable standards of natural disasters, including American Naval vessels. This was not a reasonable level of a natural disaster, this was the 5th most potent earthquake in recorded history. </p><p></p><p>Nobody can plan for an event of that magnitude, same as the Indonesian tsunami. If you wanted something similar here in the mid-Western US, compare it to the theories of Yellowstone beginning its super-volcanic eruption. 90% of us in the affected area will be wrote off. The nuclear plants in the mid-West will be scrambled and wrote off, with their families going home to enjoy a few days if they're smart, or trying to beat the other millions of morons on the highways. More than likely, anything between the Mississippi River valley and the central to Western edges of the Rocky Mountains will be wrote off, with El Pres saying "we hold you in our prayers".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JRSherman, post: 1484274, member: 13432"] Yeah but saying you could put something anywhere in the world that's safe from a natural disaster of great magnitude is kind of imbalanced. California has more possible high magnitude earthquake related issues than most of the US, but they have reactors too. Not that I would miss California if it went belly up, just giving an equal comparison state-side. The thing of it is, you've just got to have a source of power that fits your means. I'm sure the initial Japanese reception to the idea was less than thrilled. In a place with a decently low level of landmass with even less available space, that would require exorbitant amounts of fossil fuel consumption just to deliver the fuel, and the associated costs to power that type of electrical generation facility, I can easily see why they would choose nuclear over anything else. Every nuclear plant that was approved by the AEA was held to reasonable standards of natural disasters, including American Naval vessels. This was not a reasonable level of a natural disaster, this was the 5th most potent earthquake in recorded history. Nobody can plan for an event of that magnitude, same as the Indonesian tsunami. If you wanted something similar here in the mid-Western US, compare it to the theories of Yellowstone beginning its super-volcanic eruption. 90% of us in the affected area will be wrote off. The nuclear plants in the mid-West will be scrambled and wrote off, with their families going home to enjoy a few days if they're smart, or trying to beat the other millions of morons on the highways. More than likely, anything between the Mississippi River valley and the central to Western edges of the Rocky Mountains will be wrote off, with El Pres saying "we hold you in our prayers". [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
MAJOR TSUNAMI---Damage in N Japan after 8.9 quake
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom