On 19/03/2011 17:02, harry wrote:
On Mar 19, 11:59 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
On 19/03/2011 09:44, harry wrote:
...

I seem to remember there was one in Indonesia, boxing day or
something? Just so happened they didn't have a reactor in the
vicinity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Indonesia

But they were close.
So that's two in five years not one in a thousand years.

That is two tsunami, not two tsunami of similar size and intensity. The
one in Japan was about 10m high. The one in Indonesia was about 3m high
and seismologists are still discussing why it was as big as that, given
the size of the earthquake that triggered it.

There is California, Arizona Argentina Mexico Greece Taiwan Iran
Pakistan to name a few in earthquake zones.
Do really suppose they are as well built as theJapanese ones?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...icy_by_country
So where does this leave your 1 in a 1000?

Exactly where it started: A seismologist says that tsunami similar to
this one seem to hit Japan about once in 1,000 years. You seem to have
problems understanding that it is the size and intensity of this tsunami
that makes it a one in 1,000 year event, not simply that it was a tsunami.

Colin Bignell

The problem is that if you take into account the whole world as
opposed to some particular place the chances are in favour of another
chernobyl or fukushima soon. Not 1000/1 against.

You really do seem to have problems with statistics. The fact that the
tsunami was a 1 in 1,000 year event does not make odds of either 1/1000
against. It only means that a tsunami of the same power hits Japan on
average about once every 1,000 years. Nothing more, nothing less.

The chances of another Chrenobyl are zero, as there are no remaining
plants of that type that have not been modified. It is also a quite
unrelated incident, although if it had been hit by a tsunami at the
time, that might have put the fire out.

The chances of another Fukusima is far more complicated to calculate.
First, it would be necessary to identify how many nuclear plants are not
passively safe designs - i.e. are of a type that would not have been
affected by the tsunami that hit Fukushima - and eliminate all those.
Second, it would be necessary to determine how well each of those left
is protected against a tsunami. Third, it would be necessray to
calculate for each site the probability of a tsunami that would
overwhelm any defences. I expect that the people responsible for nuclear
safety around the world are doing those sums now, but I very much doubt
they will come up with anything as low as 1000 to 1 against, as they
already protect against much less probable events. I would also be
surprised if many were not already modifying the provisions for
emergency power at those stations that need it.

Colin Bignell