On Mar 17, 10:19*pm, Alan wrote:
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" wrote





On 17/03/2011 17:07, Alan wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
wrote
Alan wrote:
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" wrote

Exactly. The sixth largest earthquake ever recorded in probably the
worst place it could happen.
So why didn't they design the facility for the worst ever earthquake
recorded (plus a large margin on top)?

They did. But not the tsunami.

And remember, this was built in the early 70's.

And they had no experience of tsunamis after earthquakes 40 years ago?

This tsunami is now being rated as a 1 in 1,000 year event.
Realistically, nobody plans for events that rare.

Take Wiki with a pinch of salt but this 1 in 1000 year event of similar
magnitude seems to happened in Japan in 1946, 1933, 1923, 1896, *1854
etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_tsunamis

While I accept that the actual magnitude recent quake may be a 1 in 1000
year event Japan has suffered major quakes that resulted in a great loss
of life and very larger tsunamis on a much more regular basis. *300 foot
waves have been reported! *The magnitude of these events, including the
height of the worst tsunami, should have been included in the risk
assessment and design for the facility. This doesn't appear to have been
the case.

Even if an event is a 1 in 1000 year occurrence doesn't mean it is going
to happen 1000 years after commissioning the facility, It could occur
within days of the plant becoming operational!

I suspect that this incident may lead to the death of plans for future
nuclear power stations in the UK. A few weeks ago a large part of the UK
population may have considered nuclear to be a viable *way forward (as
long as it was not in their own back yard). Today the competence of
those responsible for the safety of such facilities, both national and
international, has to be questioned. Trusting politicians and experts if
they claim future UK nuclear energy will be safe is going to be
difficult when you need a 20/30Km exclusion zone for *a minor hick-up in
an equally safe facility in Japan.


The 1:1000 years is only for that area. There are other areas. So, if
there were two areas for example (with reactors), that would bring it
down to 1:500 yrs
So, if we had 1000 reactors in 1000 different earthquake prone zones
there would be an average of one incident per year. Which is an
entirely different thing. Supposing the 1:1000 is correct. Sounds to
me like a figure pulled from the air as there is not sufficient data
to establish this.
Many indusrialised countries are in earthquake zones for good reasons.
You need to get a grasp of statistics.