DGDevin wrote:


"Hank" wrote in message
...


Let me say that I know nothing about Nuclear Power Plants. But from
the reports I have read/heard, the major problem was the fact that
both back-up water pumping stations (both the diesel generator
operated pump and battery operated pumps failed. Why don't they have a
steam turbine/steam reciprocating pump as back-up? The reactor
produces steam, steam runs the pumps. All is good.

The reactors are designed to automatically SCRAM (shut down) in an
emergency situation like a major earthquake. And there is no guarantee
that the tsunami wouldn't have disrupted regular power production just
as it did the backup power. If the backup systems and their plumbing
had been tougher that would probably have been sufficient, but for some
bizarre reason this whole plant was insanely vulnerable.

I have not heard there was damage from the earthquake.

The plant was protected from tsunami by a seawall. They did not envision
a quake as strong as what occurred and thus did not expect a tsunami as
high as occurred (design error). The plant is very near the sea -
presumably for cooling water. Emergency generators, in one report, were
in the basement and flooded (likely design error). From the rather poor
reporting it sounds like if they would have had emergency electrical
power for the pumps both the reactors and spent rod pools would have
been OK.

Reports are they are working on getting electric power to the plant,
which implies that the plant pumps can do the cooling. On the other hand
reporting of what is known is pretty poor, and a lot appears to not be
known. The US NRC says the spent rod pool at reactor 4 is dry (which is
apparently not entirely certain). As of last night that spent rod pool
was the major source of released radiation.

People are generally not supposed to be with in 12? mi of the plant. Out
to 29 miles you are supposed to stay inside and try to seal the
building. A lot depends on weather. So far wind has been mostly out to
sea. (So the US carrier moved to the west side of Japan.) If the wind
blows onshore health risks go up. And that can be 'excessive' cancers
years later. Years after Chernobyl thyroid cancer is far elevated.

"bud--" wrote in message ...

I have not heard there was damage from the earthquake.

Or from previous quakes apparently. But the system is still designed to
shut down if something happens that might have caused serious damage. That
seems prudent. And it would have been fine if not for the poorly-designed
backup power systems.

The plant was protected from tsunami by a seawall.

Yesterday I saw video of one of those walls that protected a town, it was
broken up like a cinder-block wall put up by somebody who didn't know how to
mix mortar.

They did not envision a quake as strong as what occurred and thus did not
expect a tsunami as high as occurred (design error).

Incredible design error, to save x-million dollars they rolled the dice on
how big a quake would occur while the plant was in service. They just got
an extension on keeping one of those reactors in service for another decade
too, despite the design life being hit before the turn of the century.
Profits ahead of safety--that's a formula for disaster.

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

Incredible design error, to save x-million dollars they rolled the dice on
how big a quake would occur while the plant was in service. They just got
an extension on keeping one of those reactors in service for another decade
too, despite the design life being hit before the turn of the century.
Profits ahead of safety--that's a formula for disaster.

I don't how it works in Japan, but in the US most utilites are highly
regulated from a profit standpoint. Usually they are guaranteed a
certain return on investment and can pass along most of costs of
producing the energy. So, keeping these online and saving money is at
least as much a political decision, so the Regulatory Commissions (and
through them the governor and legislators) don't get yelled at for
higher electricity rates.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

"DGDevin" wrote in message
news:FqidnTq4Hr3vwR_QnZ2dnUVZ_u-
stuff snipped

After Hokuriku Electric's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa prefecture
was rocked by a 6.9 magnitude quake in March 2007, government scientists
found it had been built near an earthquake fault that was more than twice
as
long as regulators deemed threatening."

We also know that some of the greatest earthquakes have been along blind
thrust faults whose presence is known only after they've been triggered.

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

"blind thrust earthquakes contribute more to urban seismic risk than the
'big ones' of magnitude 8 or more"

Building to avoid known fault lines in a no brainer, but it's also no
guarantee of not getting the M9.0 hell shaken out of you no matter where you
build. I'm no geologist, but I think our actual knowledge of what lies deep
below the earth's mantle is limited to a relatively few samples at sites
dispersed widely through the world. I've read some explanations of the
history of magnetic pole reversal and there's an awful lot of "we believes"
compared to the "we knows"

http://www.physorg.com/news159704651.html

"“The quadrupolar field (it is likely to be a quadrupole but another
structure could be possible)"

"small fluctuations in convective flow in Earth’s core can push the planet’s
sensitive magnetic system away from one pole toward an intermediate state,
where the system becomes attracted to the opposite pole."

I can sort of understand that, but there seems to be a lot that's missing.
Like how the process even starts itself up and why there's such an immensely
long time between changes, but a relatively quick change from north to
south, at least according to the rock records. I wonder if the switch isn't
associated with an increase in earthquakes.

--
Bobby G.

On 3/17/2011 3:09 PM, DGDevin wrote:


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...

I don't how it works in Japan, but in the US most utilites are highly
regulated from a profit standpoint. Usually they are guaranteed a
certain return on investment and can pass along most of costs of
producing the energy. So, keeping these online and saving money is at
least as much a political decision, so the Regulatory Commissions (and
through them the governor and legislators) don't get yelled at for
higher electricity rates.

I'm thinking the formula is going to be changed after this, especially
in light of massive deception and fraud in how the Japanese nuclear
industry has handled safety. For a start different agencies should
review safety and promote the nuclear industry--not one agency
responsible for both. And it's not like nobody saw this disaster coming.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...HSRRJ.DTL&ao=3

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



"The unfolding disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant follows decades
of falsified safety reports, fatal accidents and underestimated
earthquake risk in Japan's atomic power industry."

***

Yow! Fukushima appears to be the Deepwater Horizon of Nukes. Not that
there aren't other stellar contenders.

The below left intact because it bears repeating.

Jeff

"The cascade of events at Fukushima had been foretold in a report
published in the U.S. two decades ago. The 1990 report by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an independent agency responsible for
safety at the country's power plants, identified earthquake-induced
diesel generator failure and power outage leading to failure of cooling
systems as one of the "most likely causes" of nuclear accidents from an
external event."

***

"Mitsuhiko Tanaka, 67, working as an engineer at Babcock Hitachi K.K.,
helped design and supervise the manufacture of a $250 million steel
pressure vessel for Tokyo Electric in 1975. Today, that vessel holds the
fuel rods in the core of the No. 4 reactor at Fukushima's Dai-Ichi
plant, hit by explosion and fire after the tsunami.

Tanaka says the vessel was damaged in the production process. He says he
knows because he orchestrated the cover-up. When he brought his
accusations to the government more than a decade later, he was ignored,
he says."

***

"Tokyo Electric in 2002 admitted it had falsified repair reports at
nuclear plants for more than two decades. Chairman Hiroshi Araki and
President Nobuyama Minami resigned to take responsibility for hundred of
occasions on which the company had submitted false data to the regulator.

Then in 2007, the utility said it hadn't come entirely clean five years
earlier. It had concealed at least six emergency stoppages at its
Fukushima Dai-Ichi power station and a "critical" reaction at the
plant's No. 3 unit that lasted for seven hours."

***

"The world's biggest nuclear power plant had been built on an earthquake
fault line that generated three times as much as seismic acceleration,
or 606 gals, as it was designed to withstand, the utility said. One gal,
a measure of shock effect, represents acceleration of 1 centimeter (0.4
inch) per square second.

After Hokuriku Electric's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa
prefecture was rocked by a 6.9 magnitude quake in March 2007, government
scientists found it had been built near an earthquake fault that was
more than twice as long as regulators deemed threatening."

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
My vote would be to require the 3 highest officials in charge of every
nuclear power plant to live, with their families, within 5 miles of the
plant.

Works for me, although right on the grounds of the plant might be even
better.

Robert Green wrote
DGDevin wrote

After Hokuriku Electric's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa
prefecture was rocked by a 6.9 magnitude quake in March 2007,
government scientists found it had been built near an earthquake
fault that was more than twice as long as regulators deemed
threatening."

We also know that some of the greatest earthquakes have been along
blind thrust faults whose presence is known only after they've been triggered.

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

"blind thrust earthquakes contribute more to urban seismic risk than
the 'big ones' of magnitude 8 or more"

Building to avoid known fault lines in a no brainer,

Easier said than done with a small place like Japan right on the boundary between two plates.

Thats actually why its there.

but it's also no guarantee of not getting the M9.0
hell shaken out of you no matter where you build.

Thats just plain wrong.

I'm no geologist,

Thats obvious.

but I think our actual knowledge of what lies deep below the earth's mantle is
limited to a relatively few samples at sites dispersed widely through the world.

Nope not with fault lines.

I've read some explanations of the history of magnetic pole reversal
and there's an awful lot of "we believes" compared to the "we knows"

Sure, but thats an entirely different matter to fault lines.

http://www.physorg.com/news159704651.html

"“The quadrupolar field (it is likely to be a quadrupole
but another structure could be possible)"

"small fluctuations in convective flow in Earth’s core can push the
planet’s sensitive magnetic system away from one pole toward an
intermediate state, where the system becomes attracted to the
opposite pole."

I can sort of understand that, but there seems to be a lot that's missing.

Not surprising given that its a bit hard to see whats going on in the center of the earth.

Like how the process even starts itself up and why there's such
an immensely long time between changes, but a relatively quick
change from north to south, at least according to the rock records.

I wonder if the switch isn't associated with an increase in earthquakes.

No evidence that it is.

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...


After Hokuriku Electric's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa
prefecture
was rocked by a 6.9 magnitude quake in March 2007, government scientists
found it had been built near an earthquake fault that was more than twice
as
long as regulators deemed threatening."

We also know that some of the greatest earthquakes have been along blind
thrust faults whose presence is known only after they've been triggered.

And we know that the Earth has been smacked by giant meteorites, but that
seems to have little relation to the current crisis. The point here is that
the nuclear industry in Japan was allowed to build plants near known fault
lines after doing their own evaluation of the threat, and the govt. only
became concerned when it was too late. If you're familiar with how industry
and govt. work hand-in-glove in Japan this comes as no surprise however.
Hopefully the hellish situation now underway will prompt governments around
the world to take a closer look at how such plants are designed and where
they are built.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote in message

After Hokuriku Electric's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa
prefecture was rocked by a 6.9 magnitude quake in March 2007,
government scientists found it had been built near an earthquake
fault that was more than 2X as long as regulators deemed threatening."

We also know that some of the greatest earthquakes have been along blind
thrust faults whose presence is known only after they've been triggered.

And we know that the Earth has been smacked by giant meteorites, but that
seems to have little relation to the current crisis. The point here is
that
the nuclear industry in Japan was allowed to build plants near known fault
lines after doing their own evaluation of the threat, and the govt. only
became concerned when it was too late. If you're familiar with how
industry
and govt. work hand-in-glove in Japan this comes as no surprise however.
Hopefully the hellish situation now underway will prompt governments
around
the world to take a closer look at how such plants are designed and where
they are built.

The giant meteorite comment is specious. Everyone here knows of the times
in the last few years that the Earth has experienced serious earthquakes in
usually quiet places like Haiti. Let's see if they can name one incident of
serious loss of life and property from a meteor impact in the last 100 years
.. . . Hmmm, thought not. The entire country of Japan is in a
seismologically active area. Visible faults are often ancient history.

You're comparing outrageous rare threat levels (giant meteors) with ones
that strike with alarming frequency in areas like Chile, China, Indonesia,
New Zealand, etc. My point is that no matter where they are built in Japan
or California, they are very likely to end up being built over a fault that
has not yet revealed itself.

That, in my mind, means that siting is not as important as it seems.
Hardening all reactors AT LEAST in areas known to be seismologically active
is the better course of action simply because huge earthquakes are a) so
unpredictable and b) likely to spawn in areas like Northridge that were
thought to be safe because they are not near faults visible from the
surface.

--
Bobby G.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
Robert Green wrote
DGDevin wrote

After Hokuriku Electric's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa
prefecture was rocked by a 6.9 magnitude quake in March 2007,
government scientists found it had been built near an earthquake
fault that was more than twice as long as regulators deemed
threatening."

We also know that some of the greatest earthquakes have been along
blind thrust faults whose presence is known only after they've been
triggered.

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

"blind thrust earthquakes contribute more to urban seismic risk than
the 'big ones' of magnitude 8 or more"

Building to avoid known fault lines in a no brainer,

Easier said than done with a small place like Japan right on the boundary
between two plates.

Thats actually why its there.

Agreed. The whole damn island is the result of one huge tectonic plate
banging against another.

but it's also no guarantee of not getting the M9.0
hell shaken out of you no matter where you build.

Thats just plain wrong.

How so? Without any reasoning to support your statement, it's just your
word. On the other hand, with huge plates floating on the surface of a
molten metal core, there's no guarantee of anything not rupturing, splitting
or heaving at some point. I'll agree that some places are far more likely
to pop 9.0 on the Richter scale. However, I happen to know you're dead
wrong in this case because time and time again I've read that there's no
immunity to earthquakes anywhere in the world. Do you have contrary
information?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...415B 818DF1D3

NO PLACE IMMUNE FROM EARTHQUAKES; Scientists Agree That There Is Nothing
Amazing About Those in Germany. Scientists who have made a study of
earthquakes expressed no astonishment yesterday at the fact that extensive
shocks had occurred in Germany and Switzerland, where heretofore they have
been almost unknown. They said that while earthquakes were more common in
certain other localities, there was no reason why one should not occur
anywhere.

Operative words: "NO REASON WHY ONE SHOULD NOT OCCUR ANYWHERE." Just ask
any competent geologist.

I think that about demolishes your implied contention that there are "safe
areas" where people are guaranteed not to get a M9.0 shaking at some point.

I'm no geologist,

Thats obvious.

As if *you* are. We've already proved you don't know **** about seismology
and that you somehow believe that earthquakes will only appear in certain
places. THAT'S wrong.

but I think our actual knowledge of what lies deep below the earth's
mantle is
limited to a relatively few samples at sites dispersed widely through
the world.

Nope not with fault lines.

Garbage. Read what I wrote. "What lies deep below the mantle." Are you
saying we have all those fault lines mapped out? If so, you're a bigger
BS'er than you appear to be. That would mean that there is no such thing as
a blind thrust fault. Just looking up Northridge on Google will put the lie
to that contention. We've barely mapped surface faults and even then, it's
mostly in places that are known to be active. Very little fault mapping is
done in areas that haven't recently had earthquakes. Especially deep faults
lying "deep below the mantle."

I've read some explanations of the history of magnetic pole reversal
and there's an awful lot of "we believes" compared to the "we knows"

Sure, but thats an entirely different matter to fault lines.

Prove it. We know so little about the processes in the earth's core I say
it's impossible, given how little we know about deep earth processes, to
conclude they're entirely different and unrelated. Common sense alone
implies there's a relation because it's the heat from the core that provides
the energy to power vulcanism and the core itself that allows plates to
float and move around. The convection of the molten core determines
magnetic pole orientation (so they believe) and you want us to believe that
huge currents of molten metal at the center of the planet have no relation
to earthquakes? You can believe it if you like . . .

http://www.physorg.com/news159704651.html

""The quadrupolar field (it is likely to be a quadrupole
but another structure could be possible)"

"small fluctuations in convective flow in Earth's core can push the
planet's sensitive magnetic system away from one pole toward an
intermediate state, where the system becomes attracted to the
opposite pole."

I can sort of understand that, but there seems to be a lot that's
missing.

Not surprising given that its a bit hard to see whats going on in the
center of the earth.

Strewth! Not being able to see usually means not being able to include or
exclude those unseen processes from processes sitting right on top of them
(like earthquakes) that we can see.

Like how the process even starts itself up and why there's such
an immensely long time between changes, but a relatively quick
change from north to south, at least according to the rock records.

I wonder if the switch isn't associated with an increase in earthquakes.

No evidence that it is.

No evidence yet other than we seem to be going through an era of increased
earthquake activity of very serious intensity. Understanding what's going
on with processes in the earth's core is at its very infancy. Right now,
all we can do it look at the geological records of both types of events to
see if there's a concordance. As you might know from your own countryman's
brilliant deduction that microbes, not stress, causes ulcers, science
doesn't necessarily have all the answers. I think it's valid to conclude
that convection currents in the molten core of the earth can affect both
magnetic pole reversals AND geological events like earthquakes. It's not
like trying to prove astrology is meaningful, it's linking two events that
share a very fundamental component - the entire, massive nickel-iron molten
core of the earth.

--
Bobby G.

"DGDevin" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Profits ahead of safety--that's a formula for disaster.

No, it's the American (and apparently the Japanese) Way! No one wants to
pay for safety until after it's too late.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

My point is that no matter where they are built in Japan
or California, they are very likely to end up being built over a fault that
has not yet revealed itself.

The many faults surrounding Diablo Canyon "revealed themselves" well
before the plant was built.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

My point is that no matter where they are built in Japan
or California, they are very likely to end up being built over a fault
that
has not yet revealed itself.

The many faults surrounding Diablo Canyon "revealed themselves" well
before the plant was built.

Well, yes, there's no accounting for some forms of stupidity. Diablo was a
"learning experience." (-:

I don't propose that it's a GOOD idea to locate on a fault. But I contend
that no matter WHERE you put them, a M9.0 earthquake should be considered
possible and should still result in them failing safe and not melting down.
Sure, luck has a lot to do with it. From what I've read of quake damage, if
your structure has exactly the right resonance and exactly the wrong
location, a strong earthquake might still flatten the best of earthquake
resistant designs. A large enough quake will damage everything short of a
solid steel ball.

I'm waiting to see what happens to the old nuke subs that have been
converted to training vessels. Built to withstand tremendous pressures,
they should survive quite nicely. IIRC, the Daniel Webster is somewhere in
the earthquake zone.

Earthquakes are a bit like lightning. You can survive all sorts of near
misses, but if a big bolt wants your butt, it's gonna fry you. Add to that
geological variables like cities built on reclaimed swamp mud that shakes
like a giant bowl of jello and well, yes, siting is important. But we
shouldn't feel too secure that by siting in an area that had NO earthquakes
that it will guarantee the site NEVER has earthquakes.

I'll say this - the reactor itself seems more robust than I thought,
apparently surviving an M9.0 quake. It was spent rods and backup generators
that screwed this pooch, if news reports are credible. The areas that need
improvement (cooling systems) are not necessarily going to be prohibitively
expensive to heavy-up. It's probably far easier to build a quake proof
reactor than it is to build a quake proof dam.

The lesson here is that at least some reactors in the world are not up to
surviving an M9.0 quake and some emergency procedures need revision.

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Robert Green wrote
DGDevin wrote

After Hokuriku Electric's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa
prefecture was rocked by a 6.9 magnitude quake in March 2007,
government scientists found it had been built near an earthquake
fault that was more than twice as long as regulators deemed threatening."

We also know that some of the greatest earthquakes have been along blind
thrust faults whose presence is known only after they've been triggered.

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

"blind thrust earthquakes contribute more to urban seismic risk than
the 'big ones' of magnitude 8 or more"

Building to avoid known fault lines in a no brainer,

Easier said than done with a small place like Japan right on the boundary between two plates.

Thats actually why its there.

Agreed. The whole damn island is the result of one huge tectonic
plate banging against another.

but it's also no guarantee of not getting the M9.0
hell shaken out of you no matter where you build.

Thats just plain wrong.

How so?

If you build in the middle of one of the major plates,
you wont get the M9.0 hell shaken out of you.

Without any reasoning to support your statement, it's just your word.

Nope, its also a fact.

On the other hand, with huge plates floating on the
surface of a molten metal core, there's no guarantee of
anything not rupturing, splitting or heaving at some point.

It doesnt in fact happen like that.

I'll agree that some places are far more likely to pop 9.0 on the
Richter scale. However, I happen to know you're dead wrong
in this case because time and time again I've read that there's
no immunity to earthquakes anywhere in the world.

Just because some fool claims something repeatedly doesnt make it gospel.

Do you have contrary information?

Yep.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...415B 818DF1D3

Just because some fool journo claims something repeatedly doesnt make it gospel.

NO PLACE IMMUNE FROM EARTHQUAKES;

Just because some fool journo claims something repeatedly doesnt make it gospel.

Scientists Agree That There Is Nothing Amazing About Those in Germany.

Those what ?

Scientists who have made a study of earthquakes expressed no astonishment
yesterday at the fact that extensive shocks had occurred in Germany and
Switzerland, where heretofore they have been almost unknown.

Those werent anything even remotely resembling
anything like get the M9.0 hell shaken out of you.

And switzerland isnt that far from areas which
have had major earthquakes for millennia now.

They said that while earthquakes were more common in certain other
localities, there was no reason why one should not occur anywhere.

Operative words: "NO REASON WHY ONE SHOULD NOT OCCUR ANYWHERE."

Just because some fool journo claims something repeatedly doesnt make it gospel.

Just ask any competent geologist.

They dont say anything like that about get the M9.0 hell shaken out of you.

I think that about demolishes your implied contention that there are "safe areas"
where people are guaranteed not to get a M9.0 shaking at some point.

'think' again.

I'm no geologist,

Thats obvious.

As if *you* are.

You have absolutely no idea what I am.

We've already proved you don't know **** about seismology

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying to your teeth.

And just how many of you are there between those ears anyway ?

and that you somehow believe that earthquakes will only appear in certain places.

Never ever said anything like that.

THAT'S wrong.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

but I think our actual knowledge of what lies deep below the
earth's mantle is limited to a relatively few samples at sites
dispersed widely through the world.

Nope not with fault lines.

Garbage.

Fact.

Read what I wrote.

No point, it stays mindless pig ignorant **** no matter how often its read.

"What lies deep below the mantle."

That aint what earthquakes are about.

Are you saying we have all those fault lines mapped out?

We certainly have a hell of a lot more than just a relatively
few samples at sites dispersed widely through the world.

They just happen to be the most metalurgically active
areas, so have been very extensively mapped ineed.

If so, you're a bigger BS'er than you appear to be.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

That would mean that there is no such thing as a blind thrust fault.

No it wouldnt.

Just looking up Northridge on Google will put the lie to that contention.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

We've barely mapped surface faults

Another pig ignorant lie.

and even then, it's mostly in places that are known to be active.

Another pig ignorant lie.

Very little fault mapping is done in areas that haven't recently had earthquakes.

Another pig ignorant lie.

Those just happen to be the most metalurgically active geology, fool.

Especially deep faults lying "deep below the mantle."

They are irrelevant to most earthquakes.

I've read some explanations of the history of magnetic pole reversal
and there's an awful lot of "we believes" compared to the "we knows"

Sure, but thats an entirely different matter to fault lines.

Prove it.

You dont see that with fault lines.

We know so little about the processes in the earth's core
I say it's impossible, given how little we know about deep earth
processes, to conclude they're entirely different and unrelated.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

Common sense alone implies there's a relation because it's the
heat from the core that provides the energy to power vulcanism
and the core itself that allows plates to float and move around.

Doesnt mean its got a damned thing to do with magnetic pole reversal

The convection of the molten core determines magnetic pole
orientation (so they believe) and you want us to believe that
huge currents of molten metal at the center of the planet have
no relation to earthquakes?

Its completely trivial to compare the magnetic pole reversals
that have happened with the major eathquakes that have
happened and see that there is no correlation what so ever.

You can believe it if you like . . .

It aint about belief, its about evidence and rigorous science.

http://www.physorg.com/news159704651.html

""The quadrupolar field (it is likely to be a quadrupole
but another structure could be possible)"

"small fluctuations in convective flow in Earth's core can push the planet's
sensitive magnetic system away from one pole toward an intermediate
state, where the system becomes attracted to the opposite pole."

I can sort of understand that, but there seems to be a lot that's missing.

Not surprising given that its a bit hard to see whats going on in the center of the earth.

Strewth! Not being able to see usually means not being able
to include or exclude those unseen processes from processes
sitting right on top of them (like earthquakes) that we can see.

Its completely trivial to compare the magnetic pole reversals
that have happened with the major eathquakes that have
happened and see that there is no correlation what so ever.

Like how the process even starts itself up and why there's such
an immensely long time between changes, but a relatively quick
change from north to south, at least according to the rock records.

I wonder if the switch isn't associated with an increase in earthquakes.

No evidence that it is.

No evidence yet

Its completely trivial to compare the magnetic pole reversals
that have happened with the major eathquakes that have
happened and see that there is no correlation what so ever.

other than we seem to be going through an era of
increased earthquake activity of very serious intensity.

And no magnetic pole reversals whatever associated with that.

Understanding what's going on with processes in the earth's core is at its very infancy.

And just when we have seen magnetic pole reversals aint.

Right now, all we can do it look at the geological records
of both types of events to see if there's a concordance.

And there isnt.

As you might know from your own countryman's brilliant
deduction that microbes, not stress, causes ulcers,
science doesn't necessarily have all the answers.

It does know that there is no correlation whatever between magnetic
pole reversals and major earthquakes or bursts of earthquakes.

I think it's valid to conclude that convection currents in the molten core of the earth
can affect both magnetic pole reversals AND geological events like earthquakes.

Its completely trivial to compare the magnetic pole reversals
that have happened with the major eathquakes that have
happened and see that there is no correlation what so ever.


It's not like trying to prove astrology is meaningful, it's linking
two events that share a very fundamental component - the
entire, massive nickel-iron molten core of the earth.

And there is no link what so ever.

You get to like that or lump it.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

I'm thinking the formula is going to be changed after this,
especially in light of massive deception and fraud in how the
Japanese nuclear industry has handled safety. For a start different
agencies should review safety and promote the nuclear industry--not
one agency responsible for both. And it's not like nobody saw this
disaster coming.

My vote would be to require the 3 highest officials in charge of every
nuclear power plant to live, with their families, within 5 miles of
the plant.

No. The highest management of the utilities and the manufacturers should be
assigned cleanup duty.

Robert Green wrote:
"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

My point is that no matter where they are built in Japan
or California, they are very likely to end up being built over a
fault that has not yet revealed itself.

The many faults surrounding Diablo Canyon "revealed themselves" well
before the plant was built.

Well, yes, there's no accounting for some forms of stupidity. Diablo
was a "learning experience." (-:

I don't propose that it's a GOOD idea to locate on a fault. But I
contend that no matter WHERE you put them, a M9.0 earthquake should
be considered possible and should still result in them failing safe
and not melting down. Sure, luck has a lot to do with it. From what
I've read of quake damage, if your structure has exactly the right
resonance and exactly the wrong location, a strong earthquake might
still flatten the best of earthquake resistant designs. A large
enough quake will damage everything short of a solid steel ball.

I'm waiting to see what happens to the old nuke subs that have been
converted to training vessels. Built to withstand tremendous
pressures, they should survive quite nicely. IIRC, the Daniel
Webster is somewhere in the earthquake zone.

Earthquakes are a bit like lightning. You can survive all sorts of
near misses, but if a big bolt wants your butt, it's gonna fry you.
Add to that geological variables like cities built on reclaimed swamp
mud that shakes like a giant bowl of jello and well, yes, siting is
important. But we shouldn't feel too secure that by siting in an
area that had NO earthquakes that it will guarantee the site NEVER
has earthquakes.

I'll say this - the reactor itself seems more robust than I thought,
apparently surviving an M9.0 quake. It was spent rods and backup
generators that screwed this pooch, if news reports are credible.
The areas that need improvement (cooling systems) are not necessarily
going to be prohibitively expensive to heavy-up. It's probably far
easier to build a quake proof reactor than it is to build a quake
proof dam.

The lesson here is that at least some reactors in the world are not
up to surviving an M9.0 quake and some emergency procedures need
revision.

The potential costs of nuclear reactor failure need to be included in the
analysis of the cost of reactors. Removing the federal protections from liablity
in the US would be a good step towards makeing sure that happens. As long as
utilities know they are protected, they will scrimp to improve profits.

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

That, in my mind, means that siting is not as important as it seems.

By that logic you wouldn't step off the train tracks because you might be
hit by a bus instead. Ignoring a *known* threat would never be justified
because there might be an unknown threat too. In the case of Japan allowing
private industry to do its own geological studies and accepting the results
without question seems to have been a bad idea, likewise with allowing them
to locate and build nuclear plants with inadequate defenses against
earthquake and tsunami damage.

Hardening all reactors AT LEAST in areas known to be seismologically
active
is the better course of action

You are correct, the bar has to be raised. Cost-cutting cannot be allowed
to put the public's safety at such serious risk.

"Rod Speed"
Robert Green wrote

stuff snipped

RG but it's also no guarantee of not getting the M9.0
RG hell shaken out of you no matter where you build.

RS Thats just plain wrong.

RG How so?

RS If you build in the middle of one of the major plates,
RS you wont get the M9.0 hell shaken out of you.

RG Without any reasoning to support your statement, it's just your word.

RS Nope, its also a fact.

Oops. I guess you're really Rod Slow and haven't read the news. I'll quote
a geologist this time, so you don't get your underoo panties all in a "pig
ignorant" bunch about sources:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2027&page=11:

"As recently as 15 years ago, there was no geologic explanation for the four
magnitude 8 earthquakes that struck New Madrid, Missouri, in 1811-1812 and
devastated the area. Because they occurred in the middle of the North
American plate, ordinary concepts of plate interaction did not fit.
Geologists now understand that those earthquakes were caused by flexing
within the North American plate, causing reactivation of a rift in the crust
of the earth that formed over 500 million years ago. That rift has been
reactivated repeatedly."

His credentials: Dr. Robert M. Hamilton is with the USGS. Dr. Hamilton's
doctoral degree is in geophysics from the University of California at
Berkeley. He has been with the U.S. Geological Survey since 1968 in a
variety of roles, including Chief Geologist, Chief of the Office of
Earthquake Studies, and coordinator of the Deep Continental Studies program

What you want to linger on is "occurred in the middle of the North American
plate." Can you imagine that? You're dead wrong. And so would thousands
of people if there was a nuke plant sited over your supposedly earthquake
proof plate center.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Is+an...+earthquak es

"Ninety percent of the world's earthquakes occur along plate boundaries
where the rocks are usually weaker and yield more readily to stress than do
the rocks within a plate. The remaining 10 percent occur in areas away from
present plate boundaries -- like the great New Madrid, Missouri, earthquakes
of 1811 and 1812, felt over at least 3.2 million square kilometers, which
occurred in a region of southeast Missouri that continues to show seismic
activity today."

Source:

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/P...tectonics.html

That's not "any journo" as you implied, it's the USGS/Cascades Volcano
Observatory, Vancouver, Washington. In case you're totally ignorant, the
USGS stands for US Geological Survey - now slowly say it with me - run by
GEE-OL-O-GISTS. You may think simply saying "you're wrong" proves your
point, but it proves instead that your points are mostly pointless and
merely represent your own rather deluded opinions that you try to present as
fact via bluster with nothing by pixie dust to back your comical claims.

Of course, when you insist that a helicopter carrying water to a reactor
building that's burning isn't a fire-fighting helo, it's going to be hard to
convince you of even the most fundamental truth. The truth is that plates
are
subject to rotational stress and other forces that can cause severe seismic
activity smack dab in the middle of the plate, 100's of miles from any plate
boundary.

http://www.dnr.mo.gov/geology/geosrv...hbulletin1.htm

"Due to the harder, colder, drier and less fractured nature of the rocks in
the earth's crust in the central United States, earthquakes in this region
shake and damage an area approximately 20 times larger than earthquakes in
California and most other active seismic areas"

So, that pretty much shoots to **** your mistaken theory - let me quote you
so I get it righ. You said:

RS "If you build in the middle of one of the major plates, you wont get
the
RS M9.0 hell shaken out of you."

Go look on a map of the US. Tell me why one one of the largest quakes in
US history happened smack dab in the middle of the plate you say is a "safe
zone?" What tectonic plate do you claim is responsible for the New Madrid
quake, one of the largest on record, occuring far inland on the North
American continent? (Here's a Geography 101 plate map for you to check

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritt...roduction.html

RG I'll agree that some places are far more likely to pop 9.0 on the
RG Richter scale. However, I happen to know you're dead wrong
RG in this case because time and time again I've read that there's
RG no immunity to earthquakes anywhere in the world.

RS Just because some fool claims something repeatedly doesnt make it
gospel.

Sage advice, Rod, it's just that in this case, you're the "some fool." (-:
Beyond irony.

RG Do you have contrary information?

RS Yep.

Sure you do, Rod. There is NO earthquake proof area on earth. Do the
research instead of pulling "factoids" out of your Aussie arse and saying
things that are completely, demonstrably false.

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Robert Green wrote

but it's also no guarantee of not getting the M9.0
hell shaken out of you no matter where you build.

Thats just plain wrong.

How so?

If you build in the middle of one of the major plates,
you wont get the M9.0 hell shaken out of you.

Without any reasoning to support your statement, it's just your word.

Nope, its also a fact.

Oops. I guess you're really Rod Slow and haven't read the news.

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.

I'll quote a geologist this time, so you don't get your underoo
panties all in a "pig ignorant" bunch about sources:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2027&page=11:

Thats nothing even remotely resembling anything like the news.

Pity you cant actually cite even a single example of place in
the middle of a plate getting the M9.0 hell shaken out of it.

"As recently as 15 years ago, there was no geologic explanation for
the four magnitude 8 earthquakes that struck New Madrid, Missouri, in
1811-1812 and devastated the area.

Those arent getting the M9.0 hell shaken out of it.

Because they occurred in the middle of the North American plate,
ordinary concepts of plate interaction did not fit. Geologists now
understand that those earthquakes were caused by flexing within
the North American plate, causing reactivation of a rift

So it isnt the middle of a plate, fool.

in the crust of the earth that formed over 500 million
years ago. That rift has been reactivated repeatedly."

So it isnt the middle of a plate, fool.

His credentials: Dr. Robert M. Hamilton is with the USGS. Dr.
Hamilton's doctoral degree is in geophysics from the University
of California at Berkeley. He has been with the U.S. Geological
Survey since 1968 in a variety of roles, including Chief Geologist,
Chief of the Office of Earthquake Studies, and coordinator of the
Deep Continental Studies program

What you want to linger on is "occurred in the middle of the North American plate."

Right on a rift in that plate, fool.

Can you imagine that? You're dead wrong.

Nope, you are, on two counts.

And so would thousands of people if there was a nuke plant
sited over your supposedly earthquake proof plate center.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Is+an...+earthquak es

We were talking about getting the M9.0 hell shaken out of you,
not just earthquakes, fool.

"Ninety percent of the world's earthquakes occur along plate
boundaries where the rocks are usually weaker and yield more readily
to stress than do the rocks within a plate. The remaining 10 percent
occur in areas away from present plate boundaries -- like the great
New Madrid, Missouri, earthquakes of 1811 and 1812, felt over at
least 3.2 million square kilometers, which occurred in a region of
southeast Missouri that continues to show seismic activity today."

Pity that didnt get the M9.0 hell shaken out of it, fool.

Source:

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/P...tectonics.html

That's not "any journo" as you implied, it's the USGS/Cascades
Volcano Observatory, Vancouver, Washington.

Pity its nothing like what was actually being discussed, fool.

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

The truth is that plates are subject to rotational stress and
other forces that can cause severe seismic activity smack dab
in the middle of the plate, 100's of miles from any plate boundary.

But not from a rift in the plate, fool.

http://www.dnr.mo.gov/geology/geosrv...hbulletin1.htm

"Due to the harder, colder, drier and less fractured nature of the
rocks in the earth's crust in the central United States, earthquakes
in this region shake and damage an area approximately 20 times larger
than earthquakes in California and most other active seismic areas"

Pity its not getting the M9.0 hell shaken out of you, fool.

So, that pretty much shoots to **** your mistaken theory

Not if you consider rifts in the plates fool.

- let me quote you so I get it righ. You said:

"If you build in the middle of one of the major plates,
you wont get the M9.0 hell shaken out of you."

Yes, I should have included rifts in the plates, fool.

Go look on a map of the US. Tell me why one one of the largest
quakes in US history happened smack dab in the middle of the
plate you say is a "safe zone?" What tectonic plate do you claim
is responsible for the New Madrid quake, one of the largest on
record, occuring far inland on the North American continent?
(Here's a Geography 101 plate map for you to check

Pity it didnt get the M9.0 hell shaken out of you, fool.

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritt...roduction.html

I'll agree that some places are far more likely to pop 9.0 on the
Richter scale. However, I happen to know you're dead wrong
in this case because time and time again I've read that there's
no immunity to earthquakes anywhere in the world.

Just because some fool claims something repeatedly doesnt make it gospel.


reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

Do you have contrary information?

RS Yep.

Sure you do, Rod. There is NO earthquake proof area on earth.

There are plenty of areas that dont get the M9.0 hell shaken out of them, fool.

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs