On 17/03/2011 09:57, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...
On 17/03/2011 05:56, 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)?

It survived, virtually unscathed,

Maybe those 24 hour TV pictures we see of helicopters trying to pour
water on it and the British and French evacuating their citizens is all
a mirage.


So, you are now reduced to cherry picking bits from my posts, so that
you can criticise them out of context.

Colin Bignell

On 17/03/2011 09:52, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...
On 17/03/2011 09:34, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...

It is because, as I have, in another thread, given figures that
clearly show nuclear power to be the safest method of power generation
by far

You are barking.

Disprove the figures, if you can.

You are a simpleton.

If so, you should have no problem disproving the figures.

Colin Bignell

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:59:12 +0000, Doctor Drivel wrote:
You are barking.

Disprove the figures, if you can.

An international body with teeth

You really need to stop discriminating against those who are dentally
challenged, you know.

On 17/03/2011 10:10, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...
On 17/03/2011 09:34, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...

It is because, as I have, in another thread, given figures that
clearly show nuclear power to be the safest method of power generation
by far

You are barking.

If the rods overheat they will melt down into the concrete below causing
a chemical explosion that will push radioactive materials and dust 50
metres into the air. The best is yet to come.


This incident would need to kill three times as many people as the 4,000
it is thought might, one day, die as a result of Chernobyl for nuclear
power to be no more safe than wind power. At worst, it might kill a few
dozen plant workers.

Colin Bignell

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:54:43 +0000, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

On 17/03/2011 09:50, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...

I am not saying we are all doomed. I am advocating an international body
to control all this with planning permission and building regs attached.

Do you think such a body would have required greater precautions than
the Japanese put in place?

Yes. All plants that do not conform to new regs set down by such a body
should be updated or closed down. New plants to conform to the strictest
regs.

That is not an answer to the question.


He who argues with a fool risks confusing the onlookers as to who is the
fool.......

--
The Wanderer

The future isn't what it used to be.

In article ,
says...
Putting nukes far inland in big cities and using the waste heat for
district heating and cooling is the only solution. Who could really
object to a nuke in Birmingham?

If it came to a public enquiry I suspect most of the country would be in
favour of nuking Birmingham.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,


You will note that Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are inhabited today.

And also that wildlife is flourishing in the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
It's only humans that aren't there.

Well, most animals don't live long enough to die of thyroid cancer :-)

Chernobyl was pretty bad and a lot of stuff go carried a long way. Wild
boar that eat truffles and other fungi, that collect and concentrate
heavy meals like plutonium..are in Germany, under scrutiny...cant
remember where I read that.

Chernobyl was bad. very bad. In fact its about as bad as it can get for
a nuclear power station, sort of blowing one up deliberately.

HOWEVER So was Bhopal. So was Macondo. So was 911. More people died in
911, arguably casualties of the oil industry, as all the money that
funds all the Islamic fundamentalists comes out of oil rich
countries..than have EVER died as a result of nuclear power.

Ok the oil industry is perhaps 20 times more energy wise than the
nuclear industry is.

Japan right now is about as bad as it gets for a generation II reactor
(Chernobyl being generation I). It's bad, but not AS bad. Gen II
reactors are even better.

And we haven't even moved on to Gen IV technology.

Unlike oil coal and gas, which have vile safety records, and are running
out, and are deeply polluting, or renewables that are plagued by
insoluble *in principle* problems of scale and intermittency, nuclear
power is only plagued by SOLUBLE problems of safety and pollution.


Nuclear reactors don't make the world a more radioactive place overall:
They take long term low level radioactive elements and make short lived
but highly radioactive ones instead. Arguably just scatter them thinly
enough, and no one will know the difference:-)

Or construct different reactors that can burn those down to inert junk.

You have more chance of lung cancer from living near a road with a lot
of diesel traffic spewing carbon and benzene particles into the air,
than from a well controlled nuclear power station up the coast somewhere.

The Other Mike wrote:
On 17 Mar 2011 10:48:20 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Tim Streater gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

His point is that for the stations proposed here, such a tsunami and
earthquake would be of no consequence because:

1) they'd withstand the earthquake, as the japanese ones did
It might also be worth pointing out that there are no nuclear reactors in
the UK lying in the direct path of a tsunami originating from a massive
earthquake with an epicentre barely more than 40 miles away.

In fact, as far as a quick google finds, the only almost certain tsunami
to affect the UK was the result of a massive Norwegian landslip in about
6,000bc.

Just such an event could quite easily take out the vast majority of
coal fired generation in Yorkshire and the Trent Valley that is 30 or
more miles from the open sea. Torness, Hartlepool and Sizewell would
be toast too.

Putting nukes far inland in big cities and using the waste heat for
district heating and cooling is the only solution. Who could really
object to a nuke in Birmingham?

ITYM Nuke ON Birmingham?

I prefer Battersea. Ideal place.

It could scarcely even under total meltdown make Sarf Lunnun any more
uninhabitable than it already is.

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 17/03/2011 09:50, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...

I am not saying we are all doomed. I am advocating an international
body
to control all this with planning permission and building regs
attached.

Do you think such a body would have required greater precautions than
the Japanese put in place?

Yes. All plants that do not conform to new regs set down by such a body
should be updated or closed down. New plants to conform to the strictest
regs.

That is not an answer to the question.


No, its drivel. A question, or questions, without an answer, on balance.

Why is Drivel?
Who is Drivel?
How can anyone who can actually almost read and write, be so completely
lacking in the ability to think rationally?
Who is Maxie, and why does he feature so large in Drivel Land?
Why Plantpots?

These remain, along with who really shot JFK?, as the most unsolved
controversial and utterly irrelevant Great Unanswered Questions of our time.

The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

More people died in 911 ... than have EVER died as a result of nuclear
power.

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

Estimates of the total number of deaths attributable to the accident vary
enormously, from possibly 4,000 to close to a million.[4][5]

On 17/03/2011 13:20, The Wanderer wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:54:43 +0000, Nightjar"cpb"@ wrote:

On 17/03/2011 09:50, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Nightjar"cpb"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...

I am not saying we are all doomed. I am advocating an international body
to control all this with planning permission and building regs attached.

Do you think such a body would have required greater precautions than
the Japanese put in place?

Yes. All plants that do not conform to new regs set down by such a body
should be updated or closed down. New plants to conform to the strictest
regs.

That is not an answer to the question.


He who argues with a fool risks confusing the onlookers as to who is the
fool.......


The alternative is doing some work.

Colin Bignell

Doctor Drivel ) wibbled on Thursday 17 March 2011
10:10:


"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...
On 17/03/2011 09:34, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...

It is because, as I have, in another thread, given figures that
clearly show nuclear power to be the safest method of power generation
by far

You are barking.

If the rods overheat they will melt down into the concrete below causing a
chemical explosion that will push radioactive materials and dust 50 metres
into the air. The best is yet to come.

No they won't. The last resort of the Fukushima and similar BWR is the 3rd
level containment. Rods melt, captured and dispersed by graphite and held in
concrete designed to cope with the heat until the now dispersed fuel cools.

It's not ideal as the core is now ruined but it is the backup of last resort
and it should be foolproof.

--
Tim Watts

On Mar 17, 3:44*pm, "Doctor Drivel" wrote:

..He is not natural
..A philosopher he is not
..He went to a uni
..A uni of snot

You've missed a rather obvious rhyme for "plant pot".

Have another go.

Adrian wrote:
The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

More people died in 911 ... than have EVER died as a result of nuclear
power.

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

Estimates of the total number of deaths attributable to the accident vary
enormously, from possibly 4,000 to close to a million.[4][5]

Well yes, we are all going to die eventually, and of course it it is
from cancer, it must be because of Chernobyl, right?


In the same way that all the people that die in Iraq have done so
because of 911, right?

When it comes down to hot issues, wiki is taken out by die hard axe
grinders. I wont use it for info on alternative energy or nuclear power,
without checking the facts independently.

IIRC 56 people beyond a shadow of a doubt died from radiation poisoning.

4000 people got thyroid cancer, but are still alive.

|The rest is total guess work. Id say perhaps 500 deaths directly from
cancers or birth defects. beyond that it tails into the noise.
..

Andy Dingley wrote:
On Mar 17, 3:44 pm, "Doctor Drivel" wrote:

..He is not natural
..A philosopher he is not
..He went to a uni
..A uni of snot

You've missed a rather obvious rhyme for "plant pot".

Have another go.
Golly is Drivel ad hom-ing me? Good ole killfile!

At least he admits I did go to a university. NOT 'Uni' drivel, those
are common vulgar places for common vulgar people. This was a real
University that taught real stuff like How To Do Sums and Calculations
and Think Things Out For YourSelf.

The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

More people died in 911 ... than have EVER died as a result of nuclear
power.

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

Estimates of the total number of deaths attributable to the accident
vary enormously, from possibly 4,000 to close to a million.[4][5]

Well yes, we are all going to die eventually, and of course it it is
from cancer, it must be because of Chernobyl, right?

Ah, now it all depends on the credibility of those sources, doesn't it?

[4] ^ a b "IAEA Report". In Focus: Chernobyl. Archived from the original
on 2007-12-17. http://web.archive.org/web/20071217112720/http://
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus...yl/index.shtml. Retrieved
2006-03-29.
[5] ^ a b Alexey V. Yablokov; Vassily B. Nesterenko; Alexey V. Nesterenko
(2009). Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the
Environment (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences) (paperback ed.).
Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1573317573.

You'll excuse me for finding the IAEA & the New York Academy of Sciences
a little more credible than "some bloke on a newsgroup"? (BTW, yes, I
will readily agree that I haven't actually followed up the references)

On 17/03/2011 13:30, Adrian wrote:
The Natural gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

More people died in 911 ... than have EVER died as a result of nuclear
power.

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

Estimates of the total number of deaths attributable to the accident vary
enormously, from possibly 4,000 to close to a million.[4][5]

According to this, the lower figure is the most probable:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/.../en/index.html

Colin Bignell

On Mar 17, 11:15*am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*The Natural Philosopher wrote:





Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 17/03/2011 01:02, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
newspKdnUy856E5ah3QnZ2dnUVZ8mednZ2d@giganews .com...
On 16/03/2011 17:25, harry wrote:
...
It was the tsunami really f***d things up. We have had tsunamis in
the
UK. We have nuclear power stations on the coast. too. Don't think it
couldn't happen here.

So what? If we build more stations they will be third generation
and will not need the generators that were the critical things
destroyed by the tsunami.

This man is barking mad.

Errm, could you kindly explain why? I don't see it myself.

"We have nuclear power stations on the coast. too. Don't think it
couldn't happen here." He replies: "So what?"

Clearly barking.

Perhaps, instead of waving your hands in the air and shouting we are all
doomed, you would like to provide a detailed anaylsis of the effects on
any of our existing or projected nuclear power plants of a tsunami such
as those reported in the Wikipedia article. You could also describe the
effects of the much more probable event of a tidal surge, such as hit
the Sounth Coast about 30 years ago or as devastated the East Coast in
1953.

The Safety and Reliability Directorate of the AEA has, of course,
already done this, along with such other unlikely events as the risk of
being hit by a meteorite.

If that happens its Goodnight, Vienna an never mind a puddle of radiation.

You will note that Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are inhabited today.

And also that wildlife is flourishing in the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
It's only humans that aren't there.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" *-- *Bill of Rights 1689- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's because most wildlife is short lived.

On Mar 17, 11:45*am, The Other Mike
wrote:
On 17 Mar 2011 10:48:20 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Tim Streater gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

His point is that for the stations proposed here, such a tsunami and
earthquake would be of no consequence because:

1) they'd withstand the earthquake, as the japanese ones did

It might also be worth pointing out that there are no nuclear reactors in
the UK lying in the direct path of a tsunami originating from a massive
earthquake with an epicentre barely more than 40 miles away.

In fact, as far as a quick google finds, the only almost certain tsunami
to affect the UK was the result of a massive Norwegian landslip in about
6,000bc.

Just such an event could quite easily take out the vast majority of
coal fired generation in Yorkshire and the Trent Valley that is 30 or
more miles from the open sea. *Torness, Hartlepool and Sizewell would
be toast too.

Putting nukes far inland in big cities and using the waste heat for
district heating and cooling is the only solution. *Who could really
object to a nuke in Birmingham?

--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami...United_Kingdom

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?
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:56:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:56:01 +0000, 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)?
If an earthquake of this magnitude had a one-in-a-thousand-years
probability (not sure if that's actually the case in this instance),
and the plant is 40 years old (1970's vintage IIRC), dose that bring
the probability of it being hit by a really bad earthquake down to 1
in 25? If so, they seem rather short odds, bearing in mind the
potential consequences.

No. Your maths is wrong. There would have to be a one in a thousand
yearchance of the earthquake being *exactly where it was*.

Maths wasn't far out, see AW's post. What you're questioning is my
assumption that this quake had a one-in-a-thousand-years probability
at that site. I thought this had been said somewhere. If not
one-in-a-thousand-years probability at that site, then what is it?
Really big quakes (eg Richter 8) anywhere seem more frequent than
that, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale.

Richter 9. The site could have stood an 8 pretty easily.

On 17/03/2011 16:59, harry wrote:
....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami...United_Kingdom

You still haven't answered my question from the last time you posted
that. So what?

Colin Bignell

Yes. All plants that do not conform to new regs set down by such a body
should be updated or closed down. New plants to conform to the strictest
regs.

How would that have been enforced on Chernobyl? Invade the USSR?
Or enforced on Iran now?

JGH

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 17/03/2011 13:30, Adrian wrote:
The Natural gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

More people died in 911 ... than have EVER died as a result of nuclear
power.

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

Estimates of the total number of deaths attributable to the accident vary
enormously, from possibly 4,000 to close to a million.[4][5]

According to this, the lower figure is the most probable:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/.../en/index.html


Indeed. It doesn't stop green**** extrapolating from untested theories ,
adding in a large pinch of conspiracy to cover up, and arriving at
figures greater than the entire population of that part of
Russia/Belarus, though.

Colin Bignell

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?
Yes, but not on this scale.

The thing could have shrugged of a 7.5 or 8 Richter event.. it was
designed for a 6.5 meter tsunami.

What they got was a Richer 9, and a 10 meter tsunami.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ...
Adrian wrote:
The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

More people died in 911 ... than have EVER died as a result of nuclear
power.

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

Estimates of the total number of deaths attributable to the accident vary
enormously, from possibly 4,000 to close to a million.[4][5]

Well yes, we are all going to die eventually, and of course it it is
from cancer, it must be because of Chernobyl, right?


In the same way that all the people that die in Iraq have done so
because of 911, right?

When it comes down to hot issues, wiki is taken out by die hard axe
grinders. I wont use it for info on alternative energy or nuclear power,
without checking the facts independently.

IIRC 56 people beyond a shadow of a doubt died from radiation poisoning.

4000 people got thyroid cancer, but are still alive.

|The rest is total guess work. Id say perhaps 500 deaths directly from
cancers or birth defects. beyond that it tails into the noise.

Heard two items on the radio this afternoon. One pointing out that the nuclear power stations in Japan had fared better than the conventional power stations and that people will very probably die because of lack of power over the ensuing weeks. So far so good (from the rational thinking point of view).

Unfortunately this was followed later by a UK government spokesman perpetuating the myth of the attainability of absoute safety (a concept that only small children, the dumb, the ill informed and Dribble believe in).

Tim

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.

Colin Bignell

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.

It's obvious that the UK Government don't think it safe to visit placed
like Tokyo and are chartering planes to get British nationals away from
the danger area.


--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

I am not saying we are all doomed. I am advocating an international body
to control all this with planning permission and building regs attached.

You are just barking.


the present ones don't work against simpler nuisances

http://content.comicskingdom.net/Bet...0317_small.gif

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.

On Mar 17, 6:31*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere 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.

Colin Bignell- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have no grasp of statistics. There have been three major tsunamis
in the last ten years.

On 18/03/2011 07:35, harry wrote:
On Mar 17, 6:31 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 17/03/2011 17:07, Alan wrote:





In , The Natural Philosopher
wrote
Alan wrote:
In , "Nightjar
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.

Colin Bignell- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have no grasp of statistics. There have been three major tsunamis
in the last ten years.

It is you who have no idea about statistics if you think that this
tsunami being a 1 in 1000 year event would mean that there cannot be
other, more frequent, events that lead to less severe tsunamis.

Colin Bignell

On 18/03/2011 07:33, harry wrote:
....
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....

The head of seismic hazard at the British Geological Survey disagrees
with you:

http://dalje.com/en-world/japan-quak...r-event/346034

I know which of you two I would accept knoes what he is talking about.

Colin Bignell

In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" wrote
On 16/03/2011 17:25, harry wrote:
...
It was the tsunami really f***d things up. We have had tsunamis in the
UK. We have nuclear power stations on the coast. too. Don't think it
couldn't happen here.

So what? If we build more stations they will be third generation and
will not need the generators that were the critical things destroyed by
the tsunami.


In the UK a facility being hit by an aircraft full of fuel or a ****ed
off military pilot (being told he is redundant by email) firing a
missile is a more likely scenario.

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:59:50 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 17/03/2011 09:32, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...
On 17/03/2011 01:02, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
news On 16/03/2011 17:25, harry wrote:
...
It was the tsunami really f***d things up. We have had tsunamis in
the
UK. We have nuclear power stations on the coast. too. Don't
think it
couldn't happen here.

So what? If we build more stations they will be third generation
and will not need the generators that were the critical things
destroyed by the tsunami.

This man is barking mad.

Errm, could you kindly explain why? I don't see it myself.

"We have nuclear power stations on the coast. too. Don't think it
couldn't happen here." He replies: "So what?"

Clearly barking.

Perhaps, instead of waving your hands in the air and shouting we are
all doomed,

I am not saying we are all doomed. I am advocating an international body
to control all this with planning permission and building regs attached.

Do you think such a body would have required greater precautions than
the Japanese put in place? If so, please justify that claim with facts
that would have been known at the time it was built.

I note you feel unable to answer my question about exactly what you
think would happen to a UK plant if hit by a tsunami or tidal surge.


Well probably nothing for the east coast plans, since the north sea at
most might provide a couple of meters.

Probably wipe all the wind turbines out of course.

If a wind turbine hit a nucleur power station would that count against
nucleur or wind power?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

Mark wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:59:50 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 17/03/2011 09:32, Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...
On 17/03/2011 01:02, Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
news On 16/03/2011 17:25, harry wrote:
...
It was the tsunami really f***d things up. We have had tsunamis in
the
UK. We have nuclear power stations on the coast. too. Don't
think it
couldn't happen here.
So what? If we build more stations they will be third generation
and will not need the generators that were the critical things
destroyed by the tsunami.

This man is barking mad.
Errm, could you kindly explain why? I don't see it myself.
"We have nuclear power stations on the coast. too. Don't think it
couldn't happen here." He replies: "So what?"

Clearly barking.
Perhaps, instead of waving your hands in the air and shouting we are
all doomed,
I am not saying we are all doomed. I am advocating an international body
to control all this with planning permission and building regs attached.
Do you think such a body would have required greater precautions than
the Japanese put in place? If so, please justify that claim with facts
that would have been known at the time it was built.

I note you feel unable to answer my question about exactly what you
think would happen to a UK plant if hit by a tsunami or tidal surge.

Well probably nothing for the east coast plans, since the north sea at
most might provide a couple of meters.

Probably wipe all the wind turbines out of course.

If a wind turbine hit a nucleur power station would that count against
nucleur or wind power?

Obviously nuclear. It would be a stupid place to put a nuclear power
station, as the planners should have foreseen that someone was going to
put a wind turbine upwind of it. Not only that, as we all know, wind
power is 100% safe and so on and so forth....(1)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.
(1) You may consider my tongue to be firmly in my cheek, if that halps.

Alan wrote:

In the UK a facility being hit by an aircraft full of fuel or a ****ed
off military pilot (being told he is redundant by email) firing a
missile is a more likely scenario.

I haven't seen any discussion of the effect of a flood like that of 1953
on Sizewell nuclear power station.
The main problem in Japan seems to have arisen from the failure
of the pumping stations, which I would have thought
could fail for many reasons.

Did power fail in East Anglia in 1953?
I was living in Suffolk at the time, and don't recall any blackouts,
but I was some way from the coast (Bury St Edmunds).


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

On Mar 17, 5:18*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 17/03/2011 16:59, harry wrote:
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami...United_Kingdom

You still haven't answered my question from the last time you posted
that. So what?

Colin Bignell

There was a tsunami in the Severn estuary near where I live in 1607.
There are two nuclear power stations there now. Apparently there are
two possible reasons for the tsunami & it could happen again.
?????????
Are they tsunami proof?

On 2011\03\18 19:19, harry wrote:
On Mar 17, 5:18 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 17/03/2011 16:59, harry wrote:
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami...United_Kingdom

You still haven't answered my question from the last time you posted
that. So what?

Colin Bignell

There was a tsunami in the Severn estuary near where I live in 1607.
There are two nuclear power stations there now. Apparently there are
two possible reasons for the tsunami& it could happen again.
?????????
Are they tsunami proof?

Imagine all the little Somerset children being born with ten toes.

On 18/03/2011 19:35, Basil Jet wrote:

Imagine all the little Somerset children being born with ten toes.

What, instead of the usual twelve?