In message , Basil Jet
writes
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.

It would only happen when their sisters weren't their mothers


--
geoff

In message
,
harry writes
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.


I have to save that one ...

Harry, you're a proper bellend (curve), no doubt about that

--
geoff

On Mar 18, 10:13*pm, geoff wrote:
In message
,
harry writes



On Mar 17, 6:31 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
This tsunami is now being rated as a 1 in 1,000 year event.
Realistically, nobody plans for events that rare.

Colin Bignell

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

I have to save that one ...

Harry, you're a proper bellend (curve), no doubt about that

Huge seems to be equally poor at stats, although probably just led
astray by a very poorly written article.

The seismologist said the last similar event happened 1000 years ago.
Spot the difference.

On 18 Mar,
Andy Champ wrote:

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?

My uncle had 12 (and got told off at school for lying. Apology when grandma
went in to complain). one of his sons also had 12.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On Mar 18, 9:14*am, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
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

If the figure was 1 in say 997, then yo would know it might be derived
from some statistics. But 1 in1000? Too round a number. Hence
invented. Pulledout of the air. Opinion.

On Mar 19, 9:24 am, harry wrote:
On Mar 18, 9:14 am, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

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

If the figure was 1 in say 997, then yo would know it might be derived
from some statistics. But 1 in1000? Too round a number. Hence
invented. Pulledout of the air. Opinion.

I don't know if you are serious or not!

Jim K

On Mar 18, 11:19*pm, Bolted wrote:
On Mar 18, 10:13*pm, geoff wrote:





In message
,
harry writes

On Mar 17, 6:31 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
This tsunami is now being rated as a 1 in 1,000 year event.
Realistically, nobody plans for events that rare.

Colin Bignell

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

I have to save that one ...

Harry, you're a proper bellend (curve), no doubt about that

Huge seems to be equally poor at stats, although probably just led
astray by a very poorly written article.

The seismologist said the last similar event happened 1000 years ago.
Spot the difference.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.

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?

On Mar 18, 11:19*pm, Bolted wrote:
On Mar 18, 10:13*pm, geoff wrote:





In message
,
harry writes

On Mar 17, 6:31 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
This tsunami is now being rated as a 1 in 1,000 year event.
Realistically, nobody plans for events that rare.

Colin Bignell

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

I have to save that one ...

Harry, you're a proper bellend (curve), no doubt about that

Huge seems to be equally poor at stats, although probably just led
astray by a very poorly written article.

The seismologist said the last similar event happened 1000 years ago.
Spot the difference.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You know, I was not aware of any nuclear reactors a thousand years
ago.
Unless you believe the Danikin man that is.

On Mar 19, 9:27*am, Jim K wrote:
On Mar 19, 9:24 am, harry wrote:





On Mar 18, 9:14 am, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

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

If the figure was 1 in say 997, then yo would know it might be derived
from some statistics. *But 1 in1000? *Too round a number. Hence
invented. Pulledout of the air. Opinion.

I don't know if you are serious or not!

Jim K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's the sort of thing no-one can know because earthquakes can't be
predicted. We have only been recording them for less than a thousand
years and scientifically for less than a hundred years. Not enought
time to establish statistics.
But experts like to be able to give out numbers. It adds to their
mystique and the money they can charge.
Never trust an expert. Only one step up from a consultant.

On Mar 19, 9:53 am, harry wrote:
On Mar 19, 9:27 am, Jim K wrote:



On Mar 19, 9:24 am, harry wrote:

On Mar 18, 9:14 am, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

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

If the figure was 1 in say 997, then yo would know it might be derived
from some statistics. But 1 in1000? Too round a number. Hence
invented. Pulledout of the air. Opinion.

I don't know if you are serious or not!

Jim K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's the sort of thing no-one can know because earthquakes can't be
predicted. We have only been recording them for less than a thousand
years and scientifically for less than a hundred years. Not enought
time to establish statistics.
But experts like to be able to give out numbers. It adds to their
mystique and the money they can charge.
Never trust an expert. Only one step up from a consultant.

???
would most sane people be bothered by the 0.3% error margin of a 1
in997 vs a 1 in1000 *prediction* though?

Jim K

On 18/03/2011 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?

What do you not understand about UK stations being of a different design
from the BWR in Japan and not needing the pumps that were the only
critical thing damaged by the tsunami?

Colin Bignell

On 18/03/2011 23:19, Bolted wrote:
On Mar 18, 10:13 pm, wrote:
In message
,
writes



On Mar 17, 6:31 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
This tsunami is now being rated as a 1 in 1,000 year event.
Realistically, nobody plans for events that rare.

Colin Bignell

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

I have to save that one ...

Harry, you're a proper bellend (curve), no doubt about that

Huge seems to be equally poor at stats, although probably just led
astray by a very poorly written article.

The seismologist said the last similar event happened 1000 years ago.
Spot the difference.


He actually said the evidence is that there had been three in 3,000 years.

Colin Bignell

On 19/03/2011 09:24, harry wrote:
On Mar 18, 9:14 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
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

If the figure was 1 in say 997, then yo would know it might be derived
from some statistics. But 1 in1000? Too round a number. Hence
invented. Pulledout of the air. Opinion.

Except that it is normal practice to rate the probability in decades for
under a century, centuries for under a millenium and millenia for longer
periods. Otherwise you get people who actually think it is possible to
be more accurate than that.

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?

What do you not understand about UK stations being of a different design
from the BWR in Japan and not needing the pumps that were the only
critical thing damaged by the tsunami?

The pumps and the standby generators. And when they did ship some generators
in the plugs weren't right.

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

On 19/03/2011 11:59, GB wrote:
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?

What do you not understand about UK stations being of a different design
from the BWR in Japan and not needing the pumps that were the only
critical thing damaged by the tsunami?

The pumps and the standby generators. And when they did ship some generators
in the plugs weren't right.

Strictly speaking, the pumps were not damaged, only the generators to
power them. The pumps ran for eight hours on battery backup. However, I
was trying to simplify things to make them easier for Harry to
understand and the point I was making is that our power stations do not
need the pumps in the first place.

Colin Bignell

In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" wrote

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.


But the point being made here is that it was not a 1 in a 1000 year
event. A few decades before the plant was built a tsunami of greater
height was recorded and the one previous to that was 30metres

Something of a similar or greater magnitude actually happening in the
same general area every couple of decades or so makes the likely hood of
it happening within the life of the plant very real.

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

In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" wrote

He actually said the evidence is that there had been three in 3,000 years.

Then surely, statistically, there are not enough occurrences to make any
meaningful prediction of it being a 1 in 1000 year occurrence? With so
few points you wouldn't know where you were on the curve. All it can be
said is that it happened before and it is probably that it will happen
again - and within the 40/50 year predicted life-span of the facility.

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

In message
,
harry writes
On Mar 18, 11:19*pm, Bolted wrote:
On Mar 18, 10:13*pm, geoff wrote:





In message
,
harry writes

On Mar 17, 6:31 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
This tsunami is now being rated as a 1 in 1,000 year event.
Realistically, nobody plans for events that rare.

Colin Bignell

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

I have to save that one ...

Harry, you're a proper bellend (curve), no doubt about that

Huge seems to be equally poor at stats, although probably just led
astray by a very poorly written article.

The seismologist said the last similar event happened 1000 years ago.
Spot the difference.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.

Well there was actually another one hit the south coast of Java in july
2006 (google Pangandaran Tsunami)


So where does this leave your 1 in a 1000?

It still doesn't mean that you can't have more than one event in 1000
years for it to be a statistical 1 in a thousand year event

go away and learn some maths

--
geoff

In message
,
harry writes
On Mar 18, 11:19*pm, Bolted wrote:
On Mar 18, 10:13*pm, geoff wrote:





In message
,
harry writes

On Mar 17, 6:31 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
This tsunami is now being rated as a 1 in 1,000 year event.
Realistically, nobody plans for events that rare.

Colin Bignell

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

I have to save that one ...

Harry, you're a proper bellend (curve), no doubt about that

Huge seems to be equally poor at stats, although probably just led
astray by a very poorly written article.

The seismologist said the last similar event happened 1000 years ago.
Spot the difference.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You know, I was not aware of any nuclear reactors a thousand years
ago.

Like this ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural...ission_reactor

Unless you believe the Danikin man that is.

--
geoff

In message , geoff
writes
In message
,
harry writes
On Mar 18, 11:19*pm, Bolted wrote:
On Mar 18, 10:13*pm, geoff wrote:





In message
,
harry writes

On Mar 17, 6:31 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
This tsunami is now being rated as a 1 in 1,000 year event.
Realistically, nobody plans for events that rare.

Colin Bignell

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

I have to save that one ...

Harry, you're a proper bellend (curve), no doubt about that

Huge seems to be equally poor at stats, although probably just led
astray by a very poorly written article.

The seismologist said the last similar event happened 1000 years ago.
Spot the difference.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.

Well there was actually another one hit the south coast of Java in july
2006 (google Pangandaran Tsunami)


So where does this leave your 1 in a 1000?

It still doesn't mean that you can't have more than one event in 1000
years for it to be a statistical 1 in a thousand year event

go away and learn some maths

r better still theory of probabilities.

Even better Murphy's law.
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

On 19/03/2011 13:42, Alan wrote:
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" wrote

He actually said the evidence is that there had been three in 3,000
years.

Then surely, statistically, there are not enough occurrences to make any
meaningful prediction of it being a 1 in 1000 year occurrence?With so
few points you wouldn't know where you were on the curve. All it can be
said is that it happened before and it is probably that it will happen
again - and within the 40/50 year predicted life-span of the facility.

Unlike you, apparently, I am willing to accept that the head of seismic
hazard at the British Geological Survey has a valid basis for making the
claim. However, without knowing all the facts he based it on, which I
would expect to involve comparing it to the known probabilities of other
events as well, I am not going to try to justify it.

Colin Bignell

On 19/03/2011 13:32, Alan wrote:
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" wrote

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.


But the point being made here is that it was not a 1 in a 1000 year
event. A few decades before the plant was built a tsunami of greater
height was recorded and the one previous to that was 30metres

Did they happen in exactly the same spot, or simply somewhere in the
general region? The height of a tsunami depends very strongly on the
shape of the sea bed offshore, so unless they hit exactly the same
stretch of shore, the height is not necessarily a measure of intensity.

Colin Bignell

Nightjar "cpb"@" wrote:
What do you not understand about UK stations being of a different
design from the BWR in Japan and not needing the pumps that were
the only critical thing damaged by the tsunami?

The pumps and the standby generators. And when they did ship some
generators in the plugs weren't right.

Strictly speaking, the pumps were not damaged, only the generators to
power them. The pumps ran for eight hours on battery backup. However,
I was trying to simplify things to make them easier for Harry to
understand and the point I was making is that our power stations do
not need the pumps in the first place.

I missed your post giving reasons why you think that the UK's reactors
wouldn't need pumps. What's your reference, please? I must say I'm
sceptical.

On Mar 19, 12:36*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
On 19/03/2011 11:59, GB wrote:

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?

What do you not understand about UK stations being of a different design
from the BWR in Japan and not needing the pumps that were the only
critical thing damaged by the tsunami?

The pumps and the standby generators. And when they did ship some generators
in the plugs weren't right.

Strictly speaking, the pumps were not damaged, only the generators to
power them. The pumps ran for eight hours on battery backup. However, I
was trying to simplify things to make them easier for Harry to
understand and the point I was making is that our power stations do not
need the pumps in the first place.

Colin Bignell

All nuclear reactors even when shut down and the spent fuel needs
cooling. When they are shut down the residual heat from the fission
products continues to be liberated and has to be dispersed for years
afterwards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressur...reactor#Safety
If they have to be scrammed through some emergency the need is even
greater.
I see you believe all the propaganda.

On Mar 19, 1:42*pm, Alan wrote:
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" wrote

He actually said the evidence is that there had been three in 3,000 years.

Then surely, statistically, there are not enough occurrences to make any
meaningful prediction of it being a 1 in 1000 year occurrence? With so
few points you wouldn't know where you were on the curve. All it can be
said is that it happened before and it is probably that it will happen
again - and within the 40/50 year predicted life-span of the facility.

Exactly correct. Insufficient data to establish any statistics. Random
events.
Maybe a curve could be established in 100,000 years.

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.

GB wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@" wrote:
What do you not understand about UK stations being of a different
design from the BWR in Japan and not needing the pumps that were
the only critical thing damaged by the tsunami?
The pumps and the standby generators. And when they did ship some
generators in the plugs weren't right.
Strictly speaking, the pumps were not damaged, only the generators to
power them. The pumps ran for eight hours on battery backup. However,
I was trying to simplify things to make them easier for Harry to
understand and the point I was making is that our power stations do
not need the pumps in the first place.

I missed your post giving reasons why you think that the UK's reactors
wouldn't need pumps. What's your reference, please? I must say I'm
sceptical.


PWR reactors are capabe of cooling the cores by convection alone in a
shutdown situation.

Think nuclear back boiler with gravity feed primary and aux pump when
its running hot.

In fact is remarkably crude is a nuclear reactor.

Its like a stove where if you open it up, it gets very hot.

If you shut off the air, it doesn't go out immediately. It's still hot.
However under those circs a gravity feed system is good enough to cool it.

And the water is heavily pressurised, so boiling wont happen at sane temps.

harry wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:36 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
On 19/03/2011 11:59, GB wrote:

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?
What do you not understand about UK stations being of a different design
from the BWR in Japan and not needing the pumps that were the only
critical thing damaged by the tsunami?
The pumps and the standby generators. And when they did ship some generators
in the plugs weren't right.
Strictly speaking, the pumps were not damaged, only the generators to
power them. The pumps ran for eight hours on battery backup. However, I
was trying to simplify things to make them easier for Harry to
understand and the point I was making is that our power stations do not
need the pumps in the first place.

Colin Bignell

All nuclear reactors even when shut down and the spent fuel needs
cooling. When they are shut down the residual heat from the fission
products continues to be liberated and has to be dispersed for years
afterwards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressur...reactor#Safety
If they have to be scrammed through some emergency the need is even
greater.
I see you believe all the propaganda.

No, but I see you believe all wikipedia.

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

On 19/03/2011 16:56, harry wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:36 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
On 19/03/2011 11:59, GB wrote:

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?

What do you not understand about UK stations being of a different design
from the BWR in Japan and not needing the pumps that were the only
critical thing damaged by the tsunami?

The pumps and the standby generators. And when they did ship some generators
in the plugs weren't right.

Strictly speaking, the pumps were not damaged, only the generators to
power them. The pumps ran for eight hours on battery backup. However, I
was trying to simplify things to make them easier for Harry to
understand and the point I was making is that our power stations do not
need the pumps in the first place.

Colin Bignell

All nuclear reactors even when shut down and the spent fuel needs
cooling.

Indeed, but it does not necessarily need power to achieve that cooling
and the trend for decades has been towards passively safe designs that
don't need it.

When they are shut down the residual heat from the fission
products continues to be liberated and has to be dispersed for years
afterwards.

Which is usually achieved by dumping them in large ponds of water.
Again, they do not necessarily require power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressur...reactor#Safety
If they have to be scrammed through some emergency the need is even
greater.

Not necessarily.

I see you believe all the propaganda.

Only if by propaganda you mean articles written by nuclear scientists in
specialist publications.

Colin Bignell

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
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.


Exactly. There are not that many BWR reactors left, and they will all be
facing a cost benefit analysis to make em safer, or shut down and build
something better.

You might as well say 'how come the Japanese dint have sea defences
against tsunamis for all those coast towns and villages, where loss of
life vastly exceeds anything Fukushima could ever conceivably do.

In short, compared with what Japan is now facing Fukushima is bloody
irrelevant. A sideshow. Is only because of the total panic the N word
brings, that the story is being covered at all.And of course from the
wind and solar lobby, who see this as a great way to make even more
money for nothing from consumers and governments.


Colin Bignell

On Mar 19, 5:19*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

PWR reactors are capabe of cooling the cores by convection alone in a
shutdown situation.

Firstly they're not. Only some recent designs, very few of which have
yet been built (at commercial sizes)

Secondly the reactors at Fukushima are BWRs, not PWRs.

In message
,
Andy Dingley writes
On Mar 19, 5:19*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

PWR reactors are capabe of cooling the cores by convection alone in a
shutdown situation.

Firstly they're not. Only some recent designs, very few of which have
yet been built (at commercial sizes)

Secondly the reactors at Fukushima are BWRs, not PWRs.
I was reading p on Windscale today having more than a passing interest
in that particular accident. It was air cooled and they put out the fire
by - switching off the fan!!
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

Andy Dingley wrote:
On Mar 19, 5:19 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

PWR reactors are capabe of cooling the cores by convection alone in a
shutdown situation.

Firstly they're not. Only some recent designs, very few of which have
yet been built (at commercial sizes)


I think you will find that any new plant is that way,

Secondly the reactors at Fukushima are BWRs, not PWRs.

Which was exactly my point.

BWRS are inherently more dangerous because the primary cooling circuit
goes through the turbine halls and that means any issues there are
outside the containment area. PWRS keep the primary circuit within a
containment.

They cat boil, because they are at pressure.

Under shutdown conditions the wont lose water for circulation, because
there is enough convection through the core to at least keep the primary
circulating.

You still need to get that heat out of the primary, yes, but if the tank
of secondary water is large enough, its no worse than getting the heat
out of spent fuel rods. I.e. natural evaporation and boiling can do
that. It wont go bang because there is no hydrogen in te secondary
circuit, or indeed in the primary, because thats still fill of
pressurized water.
..
Furthermore, the hotter that primary water gets, the more it damps down
the reactions as I understand it.


There are still some potential failure modes, but nothing like as likely
as a BWR.

And I am sure that we will see designs full able to cope with a
powerless shutdown emerge in due course.

After all, in the final analysis, its simply a means to et rid of heat
till nuclear reactions slow enough. A bloody great tank of water is in
principle, all it takes.

In message , Chris Hogg
writes
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:49:57 +0000, hugh ] wrote:

In message
,
Andy Dingley writes
On Mar 19, 5:19*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

PWR reactors are capabe of cooling the cores by convection alone in a
shutdown situation.

Firstly they're not. Only some recent designs, very few of which have
yet been built (at commercial sizes)

Secondly the reactors at Fukushima are BWRs, not PWRs.
I was reading p on Windscale today having more than a passing interest
in that particular accident. It was air cooled and they put out the fire
by - switching off the fan!!

errr...well, yes they did do that, but they also pumped in a very
large amount of water. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

That was to cool it, not to put out the fire.
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:19:05 -0700 (PDT), 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.

Wow! You lived near the Severn estuary in 1607. You must be old.

--
(\__/) 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.

In message , Mark
writes
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:19:05 -0700 (PDT), 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.

Wow! You lived near the Severn estuary in 1607. You must be old.

Read more carefully
"Live" not "lived"
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

In message , Chris Hogg
writes
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:24:56 +0000, hugh ] wrote:

In message , Chris Hogg
writes
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:49:57 +0000, hugh ] wrote:

In message
,
Andy Dingley writes
On Mar 19, 5:19*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

PWR reactors are capabe of cooling the cores by convection alone in a
shutdown situation.

Firstly they're not. Only some recent designs, very few of which have
yet been built (at commercial sizes)

Secondly the reactors at Fukushima are BWRs, not PWRs.
I was reading p on Windscale today having more than a passing interest
in that particular accident. It was air cooled and they put out the fire
by - switching off the fan!!

errr...well, yes they did do that, but they also pumped in a very
large amount of water. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

That was to cool it, not to put out the fire.

Well, whichever it was, it wasn't sufficient on its own. I've just
read Tuohy's account of his actions during the fire, see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...0_07_ukaea.pdf
Pages 22 to 25 of the PDF document, or 1.14 to 1.17 by the document's
own pagination.

Turning off the air was what made the difference, so in that sense
you're right, although Tuohy himself said that in his opinion it was
the combined effect of the water and cutting off the air that put out
the fire, and that cutting off the air alone wouldn't have been
sufficient.

Tuohy died in 2008, aged 90, so whatever level of radiation he
received didn't do him any long-term harm, but a remarkably brave man
under the circumstances.

Do you know if ALL the documents were released after 30 years? I have a
feeling some were not declassified but I can't find any reference to
them - maybe it's a secret :-(
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

hugh wrote:
In message , Mark
writes
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:19:05 -0700 (PDT), 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.

Wow! You lived near the Severn estuary in 1607. You must be old.

Read more carefully
"Live" not "lived"

So you are firmly stuck in the Renaissance?

Or just illiterate enough not to recognise what a lack of a comma, means?