harry wrote:
On Apr 2, 10:50 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Jeff Thies wrote:

The genesis of the current problem, the root cause, the whole
enchilada, lies at the foot on one horrendous mistake: The location
of the reactors.

Most reactors are located either near the sea or near a river.

But you don't get tsunamis on the Great Lakes, the Gulf Coast, or
100 miles up the Mississippi. Lets look at a few:

* There are three in Idaho
* One in Fresno
* One in New Mexico
* One each is Iowa, Kansas, and Northern Alabama
* There are two in Dallas and Illinois
* One in Wisconsin and two in Massachusetts

I suggest that planning for a tsunami for the above wasn't even on
the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunamis_in_lakes

Thank you for the link. Notice the article reports NOT A SINGLE TSUNAMI
involving a lake and is full of weasel-words:

"Lake Tahoe is an example of a lake that is in danger of having a tsunami
due to faulting processes." (Never had one, though.)

"These could possibly cause sub-aerial mass flows that could generate
tsunamis within the lakes [in New Zealand]..."

And so on . . .