On Mar 16, 3:34*am, "Ala" wrote:
"Bram" wrote in ....

But looking at the footage, when the No.3 building exploded, the fallout
didn't appear to be going out to sea. *Also, if it was a hydrogen
explosion, why was the flame orange?

Also, notice that there has been no video footage of the No.2 reactor
building exploding? *Or of the No.4 reactor on fire?

The explosions appear to be quite sequential, and therefore quite possibly
planned, as opposed to an accidental explosion, so it's more than likely
that they know what they are doing and making do with a worst case
scenario. But, the situation only escalated after all three working
reactors (out of the six) have now suffered explosions.

I don't doubt the the Japanese for their technical ability, but I also
don't feel that they are giving people the facts.

as of tonight they'd evacuated workers- Hide quoted text -


IMHO, a better way to fix it, now it seems to have got completely out
of hand, thanks to the usual 'incompetence of engineers' who designed
emergency systems that don't work in an emergency, would be:

1. Get everybody out of the plant, tell all local residents to stay
inside and close the windows, 'Protect and Survive' stylee (much
better than the daft policy of evacuating the surrounding area, which
is going to cause major problems with housing evacuees)

2. Induce intentional meltdowns in all reactors, by precision-bombing
them from the air, so that the cooling systems are completely smashed
and all coolant escapes. This would cause the fuel to melt down into
the layer of graphite provided beneath the reactors for just this
scenario, you then monitor the situation from the air with thermal
cameras etc.

3. Once the graphite has absorbed all the fuel, you really let the
site have it with large bombs, so that the graphite layer is buried
under rubble and displaced soil etc.

4. Finally you finish the job by sending men and machines in, with
appropriate NBC precautions, to entomb the whole thing in concrete.

On Mar 16, 1:24*pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 16, 3:34*am, "Ala" wrote:





"Bram" wrote in ....

But looking at the footage, when the No.3 building exploded, the fallout
didn't appear to be going out to sea. *Also, if it was a hydrogen
explosion, why was the flame orange?

Also, notice that there has been no video footage of the No.2 reactor
building exploding? *Or of the No.4 reactor on fire?

The explosions appear to be quite sequential, and therefore quite possibly
planned, as opposed to an accidental explosion, so it's more than likely
that they know what they are doing and making do with a worst case
scenario. But, the situation only escalated after all three working
reactors (out of the six) have now suffered explosions.

I don't doubt the the Japanese for their technical ability, but I also
don't feel that they are giving people the facts.

as of tonight they'd evacuated workers- Hide quoted text -

IMHO, a better way to fix it, now it seems to have got completely out
of hand, thanks to the usual 'incompetence of engineers' who designed
emergency systems that don't work in an emergency, would be:

1. Get everybody out of the plant, tell all local residents to stay
inside and close the windows, 'Protect and Survive' stylee (much
better than the daft policy of evacuating the surrounding area, which
is going to cause major problems with housing evacuees)

2. Induce *intentional meltdowns in all reactors, by precision-bombing
them from the air, so that the cooling systems are completely smashed
and all coolant escapes. This would cause the fuel to melt down into
the layer of graphite provided beneath the reactors for just this
scenario, you then monitor the situation from the air with thermal
cameras etc.

3. Once the graphite has absorbed all the fuel, you really let the
site have it with large bombs, so that the graphite layer is buried
under rubble and displaced soil etc.

4. Finally you finish the job by sending men and machines in, with
appropriate NBC precautions, to entomb the whole thing in concrete.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BTW, does the 'exploding reactor' footage remind anybody of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW6OrdLkCLU

( 1 min 28 sec in)

Somebody who knows how to do this sort of thing should mash the two
up...

wrote:
On Mar 16, 1:24 pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 16, 3:34 am, "Ala" wrote:





"Bram" wrote in ...
But looking at the footage, when the No.3 building exploded, the fallout
didn't appear to be going out to sea. Also, if it was a hydrogen
explosion, why was the flame orange?
Also, notice that there has been no video footage of the No.2 reactor
building exploding? Or of the No.4 reactor on fire?
The explosions appear to be quite sequential, and therefore quite possibly
planned, as opposed to an accidental explosion, so it's more than likely
that they know what they are doing and making do with a worst case
scenario. But, the situation only escalated after all three working
reactors (out of the six) have now suffered explosions.
I don't doubt the the Japanese for their technical ability, but I also
don't feel that they are giving people the facts.
as of tonight they'd evacuated workers- Hide quoted text -
IMHO, a better way to fix it, now it seems to have got completely out
of hand, thanks to the usual 'incompetence of engineers' who designed
emergency systems that don't work in an emergency, would be:

1. Get everybody out of the plant, tell all local residents to stay
inside and close the windows, 'Protect and Survive' stylee (much
better than the daft policy of evacuating the surrounding area, which
is going to cause major problems with housing evacuees)

2. Induce intentional meltdowns in all reactors, by precision-bombing
them from the air, so that the cooling systems are completely smashed
and all coolant escapes. This would cause the fuel to melt down into
the layer of graphite provided beneath the reactors for just this
scenario, you then monitor the situation from the air with thermal
cameras etc.

3. Once the graphite has absorbed all the fuel, you really let the
site have it with large bombs, so that the graphite layer is buried
under rubble and displaced soil etc.

4. Finally you finish the job by sending men and machines in, with
appropriate NBC precautions, to entomb the whole thing in concrete.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BTW, does the 'exploding reactor' footage remind anybody of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW6OrdLkCLU

( 1 min 28 sec in)

Somebody who knows how to do this sort of thing should mash the two
up...


What surprised me, was the apparent vulnerability of the standby power,
unless there was more to the loss of coolant circulation than I've
understood!

On 16/03/2011 14:28, Andy Cap wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 16, 1:24 pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 16, 3:34 am, "Ala" wrote:





"Bram" wrote in
...
But looking at the footage, when the No.3 building exploded, the
fallout
didn't appear to be going out to sea. Also, if it was a hydrogen
explosion, why was the flame orange?
Also, notice that there has been no video footage of the No.2 reactor
building exploding? Or of the No.4 reactor on fire?
The explosions appear to be quite sequential, and therefore quite
possibly
planned, as opposed to an accidental explosion, so it's more than
likely
that they know what they are doing and making do with a worst case
scenario. But, the situation only escalated after all three working
reactors (out of the six) have now suffered explosions.
I don't doubt the the Japanese for their technical ability, but I also
don't feel that they are giving people the facts.
as of tonight they'd evacuated workers- Hide quoted text -
IMHO, a better way to fix it, now it seems to have got completely out
of hand, thanks to the usual 'incompetence of engineers' who designed
emergency systems that don't work in an emergency, would be:

1. Get everybody out of the plant, tell all local residents to stay
inside and close the windows, 'Protect and Survive' stylee (much
better than the daft policy of evacuating the surrounding area, which
is going to cause major problems with housing evacuees)

2. Induce intentional meltdowns in all reactors, by precision-bombing
them from the air, so that the cooling systems are completely smashed
and all coolant escapes. This would cause the fuel to melt down into
the layer of graphite provided beneath the reactors for just this
scenario, you then monitor the situation from the air with thermal
cameras etc.

3. Once the graphite has absorbed all the fuel, you really let the
site have it with large bombs, so that the graphite layer is buried
under rubble and displaced soil etc.

4. Finally you finish the job by sending men and machines in, with
appropriate NBC precautions, to entomb the whole thing in concrete.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BTW, does the 'exploding reactor' footage remind anybody of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW6OrdLkCLU

( 1 min 28 sec in)

Somebody who knows how to do this sort of thing should mash the two
up...


What surprised me, was the apparent vulnerability of the standby power,
unless there was more to the loss of coolant circulation than I've
understood!

The emergency systems withstood an earthquake five times as powerful as
they were designed for and worked perfectly afterwards. The reactors
shut down exactly as planned. However, the core remains hot for some
days afterwards and, on this design, that needs pumped coolant. To
provide that, there were generators, backup generators and backup
battery power. The generators worked as planned, until the tsunami hit.
They were designed to withstand a wave the height of a house, but the
one that hit was too high. It knocked out the generators and the backup
generators, but the batteries continued to run the systems for eight
hours, as planned. The problem came in getting the fourth level of
backup - mobile generators - into operation within the eight hours the
batteries gave them. Given the circumstances, it is more surprising
everything worked as well as it did.

Colin BIgnell

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 16/03/2011 14:28, Andy Cap wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 16, 1:24 pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 16, 3:34 am, "Ala" wrote:





"Bram" wrote in
...
But looking at the footage, when the No.3 building exploded, the
fallout
didn't appear to be going out to sea. Also, if it was a hydrogen
explosion, why was the flame orange?
Also, notice that there has been no video footage of the No.2 reactor
building exploding? Or of the No.4 reactor on fire?
The explosions appear to be quite sequential, and therefore quite
possibly
planned, as opposed to an accidental explosion, so it's more than
likely
that they know what they are doing and making do with a worst case
scenario. But, the situation only escalated after all three working
reactors (out of the six) have now suffered explosions.
I don't doubt the the Japanese for their technical ability, but I
also
don't feel that they are giving people the facts.
as of tonight they'd evacuated workers- Hide quoted text -
IMHO, a better way to fix it, now it seems to have got completely out
of hand, thanks to the usual 'incompetence of engineers' who designed
emergency systems that don't work in an emergency, would be:

1. Get everybody out of the plant, tell all local residents to stay
inside and close the windows, 'Protect and Survive' stylee (much
better than the daft policy of evacuating the surrounding area, which
is going to cause major problems with housing evacuees)

2. Induce intentional meltdowns in all reactors, by precision-bombing
them from the air, so that the cooling systems are completely smashed
and all coolant escapes. This would cause the fuel to melt down into
the layer of graphite provided beneath the reactors for just this
scenario, you then monitor the situation from the air with thermal
cameras etc.

3. Once the graphite has absorbed all the fuel, you really let the
site have it with large bombs, so that the graphite layer is buried
under rubble and displaced soil etc.

4. Finally you finish the job by sending men and machines in, with
appropriate NBC precautions, to entomb the whole thing in concrete.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BTW, does the 'exploding reactor' footage remind anybody of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW6OrdLkCLU

( 1 min 28 sec in)

Somebody who knows how to do this sort of thing should mash the two
up...


What surprised me, was the apparent vulnerability of the standby power,
unless there was more to the loss of coolant circulation than I've
understood!

The emergency systems withstood an earthquake five times as powerful as
they were designed for and worked perfectly afterwards. The reactors
shut down exactly as planned. However, the core remains hot for some
days afterwards and, on this design, that needs pumped coolant. To
provide that, there were generators, backup generators and backup
battery power. The generators worked as planned, until the tsunami hit.
They were designed to withstand a wave the height of a house, but the
one that hit was too high. It knocked out the generators and the backup
generators, but the batteries continued to run the systems for eight
hours, as planned. The problem came in getting the fourth level of
backup - mobile generators - into operation within the eight hours the
batteries gave them. Given the circumstances, it is more surprising
everything worked as well as it did.

Colin BIgnell

Thanks for that explanation. I couldn't believe there was only one level
of backup. Looks like a higher location is in order then. Can't see us
abandoning the nuclear option whatever the present concerns.

On Mar 16, 3:33*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 16/03/2011 14:28, Andy Cap wrote:





wrote:
On Mar 16, 1:24 pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 16, 3:34 am, "Ala" wrote:

"Bram" wrote in
...
But looking at the footage, when the No.3 building exploded, the
fallout
didn't appear to be going out to sea. Also, if it was a hydrogen
explosion, why was the flame orange?
Also, notice that there has been no video footage of the No.2 reactor
building exploding? Or of the No.4 reactor on fire?
The explosions appear to be quite sequential, and therefore quite
possibly
planned, as opposed to an accidental explosion, so it's more than
likely
that they know what they are doing and making do with a worst case
scenario. But, the situation only escalated after all three working
reactors (out of the six) have now suffered explosions.
I don't doubt the the Japanese for their technical ability, but I also
don't feel that they are giving people the facts.
as of tonight they'd evacuated workers- Hide quoted text -
IMHO, a better way to fix it, now it seems to have got completely out
of hand, thanks to the usual 'incompetence of engineers' who designed
emergency systems that don't work in an emergency, would be:

1. Get everybody out of the plant, tell all local residents to stay
inside and close the windows, 'Protect and Survive' stylee (much
better than the daft policy of evacuating the surrounding area, which
is going to cause major problems with housing evacuees)

2. Induce intentional meltdowns in all reactors, by precision-bombing
them from the air, so that the cooling systems are completely smashed
and all coolant escapes. This would cause the fuel to melt down into
the layer of graphite provided beneath the reactors for just this
scenario, you then monitor the situation from the air with thermal
cameras etc.

3. Once the graphite has absorbed all the fuel, you really let the
site have it with large bombs, so that the graphite layer is buried
under rubble and displaced soil etc.

4. Finally you finish the job by sending men and machines in, with
appropriate NBC precautions, to entomb the whole thing in concrete.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BTW, does the 'exploding reactor' footage remind anybody of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW6OrdLkCLU

( 1 min 28 sec in)

Somebody who knows how to do this sort of thing should mash the two
up...

What surprised me, was the apparent vulnerability of the standby power,
unless there was more to the loss of coolant circulation than I've
understood!

The emergency systems withstood an earthquake five times as powerful as
they were designed for and worked perfectly afterwards. The reactors
shut down exactly as planned. However, the core remains hot for some
days afterwards and, on this design, that needs pumped coolant.

Longer than days, given that reactor 5 (which was shut down for
maintenance way before the earthquake) appears to be boiling off its
coolant.

To provide that, there were generators, backup generators and backup
battery power. The generators worked as planned, until the tsunami hit.
They were designed to withstand a wave the height of a house, but the
one that hit was too high.

Not much of an excuse, given that there is evidence of a similar size
tsunami there within the last 1000 years.

It's all very well saying that it worked to its design criteria, but
right now they aren't looking like the right design criteria.

It knocked out the generators and the backup
generators, but the batteries continued to run the systems for eight
hours, as planned. The problem came in getting the fourth level of
backup - mobile generators - into operation within the eight hours the
batteries gave them. Given the circumstances, it is more surprising
everything worked as well as it did.

Oh right, well that's ok then.

I'm pro-nuke generally, but this isn't a good advert for it. There's
a risk of complacent hubris, especially as this incident isn't over or
even seemingly coming under control yet.

On 16/03/2011 15:47, Andy Cap wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 16/03/2011 14:28, Andy Cap wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 16, 1:24 pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 16, 3:34 am, "Ala" wrote:





"Bram" wrote in
...
But looking at the footage, when the No.3 building exploded, the
fallout
didn't appear to be going out to sea. Also, if it was a hydrogen
explosion, why was the flame orange?
Also, notice that there has been no video footage of the No.2
reactor
building exploding? Or of the No.4 reactor on fire?
The explosions appear to be quite sequential, and therefore quite
possibly
planned, as opposed to an accidental explosion, so it's more than
likely
that they know what they are doing and making do with a worst case
scenario. But, the situation only escalated after all three working
reactors (out of the six) have now suffered explosions.
I don't doubt the the Japanese for their technical ability, but I
also
don't feel that they are giving people the facts.
as of tonight they'd evacuated workers- Hide quoted text -
IMHO, a better way to fix it, now it seems to have got completely out
of hand, thanks to the usual 'incompetence of engineers' who designed
emergency systems that don't work in an emergency, would be:

1. Get everybody out of the plant, tell all local residents to stay
inside and close the windows, 'Protect and Survive' stylee (much
better than the daft policy of evacuating the surrounding area, which
is going to cause major problems with housing evacuees)

2. Induce intentional meltdowns in all reactors, by precision-bombing
them from the air, so that the cooling systems are completely smashed
and all coolant escapes. This would cause the fuel to melt down into
the layer of graphite provided beneath the reactors for just this
scenario, you then monitor the situation from the air with thermal
cameras etc.

3. Once the graphite has absorbed all the fuel, you really let the
site have it with large bombs, so that the graphite layer is buried
under rubble and displaced soil etc.

4. Finally you finish the job by sending men and machines in, with
appropriate NBC precautions, to entomb the whole thing in concrete.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BTW, does the 'exploding reactor' footage remind anybody of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW6OrdLkCLU

( 1 min 28 sec in)

Somebody who knows how to do this sort of thing should mash the two
up...


What surprised me, was the apparent vulnerability of the standby power,
unless there was more to the loss of coolant circulation than I've
understood!

The emergency systems withstood an earthquake five times as powerful
as they were designed for and worked perfectly afterwards. The
reactors shut down exactly as planned. However, the core remains hot
for some days afterwards and, on this design, that needs pumped
coolant. To provide that, there were generators, backup generators and
backup battery power. The generators worked as planned, until the
tsunami hit. They were designed to withstand a wave the height of a
house, but the one that hit was too high. It knocked out the
generators and the backup generators, but the batteries continued to
run the systems for eight hours, as planned. The problem came in
getting the fourth level of backup - mobile generators - into
operation within the eight hours the batteries gave them. Given the
circumstances, it is more surprising everything worked as well as it did.

Colin BIgnell

Thanks for that explanation. I couldn't believe there was only one level
of backup. Looks like a higher location is in order then. Can't see us
abandoning the nuclear option whatever the present concerns.

The reason the plant was near the sea was so that any tsunami that hit
would only be water, not water plus bits of building, cars and other
assorted debris. More modern designs have, in any case, done away with
the need for pumped coolant and, hence, for the generators that were
knocked out.

Colin Bignell

On Mar 16, 4:05*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 16/03/2011 15:47, Andy Cap wrote:





Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 16/03/2011 14:28, Andy Cap wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 16, 1:24 pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 16, 3:34 am, "Ala" wrote:

"Bram" wrote in
...
But looking at the footage, when the No.3 building exploded, the
fallout
didn't appear to be going out to sea. Also, if it was a hydrogen
explosion, why was the flame orange?
Also, notice that there has been no video footage of the No.2
reactor
building exploding? Or of the No.4 reactor on fire?
The explosions appear to be quite sequential, and therefore quite
possibly
planned, as opposed to an accidental explosion, so it's more than
likely
that they know what they are doing and making do with a worst case
scenario. But, the situation only escalated after all three working
reactors (out of the six) have now suffered explosions.
I don't doubt the the Japanese for their technical ability, but I
also
don't feel that they are giving people the facts.
as of tonight they'd evacuated workers- Hide quoted text -
IMHO, a better way to fix it, now it seems to have got completely out
of hand, thanks to the usual 'incompetence of engineers' who designed
emergency systems that don't work in an emergency, would be:

1. Get everybody out of the plant, tell all local residents to stay
inside and close the windows, 'Protect and Survive' stylee (much
better than the daft policy of evacuating the surrounding area, which
is going to cause major problems with housing evacuees)

2. Induce intentional meltdowns in all reactors, by precision-bombing
them from the air, so that the cooling systems are completely smashed
and all coolant escapes. This would cause the fuel to melt down into
the layer of graphite provided beneath the reactors for just this
scenario, you then monitor the situation from the air with thermal
cameras etc.

3. Once the graphite has absorbed all the fuel, you really let the
site have it with large bombs, so that the graphite layer is buried
under rubble and displaced soil etc.

4. Finally you finish the job by sending men and machines in, with
appropriate NBC precautions, to entomb the whole thing in concrete.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BTW, does the 'exploding reactor' footage remind anybody of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW6OrdLkCLU

( 1 min 28 sec in)

Somebody who knows how to do this sort of thing should mash the two
up...

What surprised me, was the apparent vulnerability of the standby power,
unless there was more to the loss of coolant circulation than I've
understood!

The emergency systems withstood an earthquake five times as powerful
as they were designed for and worked perfectly afterwards. The
reactors shut down exactly as planned. However, the core remains hot
for some days afterwards and, on this design, that needs pumped
coolant. To provide that, there were generators, backup generators and
backup battery power. The generators worked as planned, until the
tsunami hit. They were designed to withstand a wave the height of a
house, but the one that hit was too high. It knocked out the
generators and the backup generators, but the batteries continued to
run the systems for eight hours, as planned. The problem came in
getting the fourth level of backup - mobile generators - into
operation within the eight hours the batteries gave them. Given the
circumstances, it is more surprising everything worked as well as it did.

Colin BIgnell

Thanks for that explanation. I couldn't believe there was only one level
of backup. Looks like a higher location is in order then. Can't see us
abandoning the nuclear option whatever the present concerns.

The reason the plant was near the sea was so that any tsunami that hit
would only be water, not water plus bits of building, cars and other
assorted debris. More modern designs have, in any case, done away with
the need for pumped coolant and, hence, for the generators that were
knocked out.

Colin Bignell- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

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.

Colin Bignell

If enough uranium / plutonium
gets together in the same place, you get critical mass, and
BOOOOOOOOMMMMM!

No, you dont.

You get a red or white hot stinking highly radioactive mess, but you do
NOT EVER get a BOOM!

And atomic bomb is enormously difficult to make, even with the right
fuel purity - which a reactr simpy does not have, and requires some form
of conventional detonator- usually TNT - to force enough mass in one
place to get a BOOM.

harry wrote:
On Mar 16, 4:05 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 16/03/2011 15:47, Andy Cap wrote:





Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 16/03/2011 14:28, Andy Cap wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 16, 1:24 pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 16, 3:34 am, "Ala" wrote:
"Bram" wrote in
...
But looking at the footage, when the No.3 building exploded, the
fallout
didn't appear to be going out to sea. Also, if it was a hydrogen
explosion, why was the flame orange?
Also, notice that there has been no video footage of the No.2
reactor
building exploding? Or of the No.4 reactor on fire?
The explosions appear to be quite sequential, and therefore quite
possibly
planned, as opposed to an accidental explosion, so it's more than
likely
that they know what they are doing and making do with a worst case
scenario. But, the situation only escalated after all three working
reactors (out of the six) have now suffered explosions.
I don't doubt the the Japanese for their technical ability, but I
also
don't feel that they are giving people the facts.
as of tonight they'd evacuated workers- Hide quoted text -
IMHO, a better way to fix it, now it seems to have got completely out
of hand, thanks to the usual 'incompetence of engineers' who designed
emergency systems that don't work in an emergency, would be:
1. Get everybody out of the plant, tell all local residents to stay
inside and close the windows, 'Protect and Survive' stylee (much
better than the daft policy of evacuating the surrounding area, which
is going to cause major problems with housing evacuees)
2. Induce intentional meltdowns in all reactors, by precision-bombing
them from the air, so that the cooling systems are completely smashed
and all coolant escapes. This would cause the fuel to melt down into
the layer of graphite provided beneath the reactors for just this
scenario, you then monitor the situation from the air with thermal
cameras etc.
3. Once the graphite has absorbed all the fuel, you really let the
site have it with large bombs, so that the graphite layer is buried
under rubble and displaced soil etc.
4. Finally you finish the job by sending men and machines in, with
appropriate NBC precautions, to entomb the whole thing in concrete.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
BTW, does the 'exploding reactor' footage remind anybody of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW6OrdLkCLU
( 1 min 28 sec in)
Somebody who knows how to do this sort of thing should mash the two
up...
What surprised me, was the apparent vulnerability of the standby power,
unless there was more to the loss of coolant circulation than I've
understood!
The emergency systems withstood an earthquake five times as powerful
as they were designed for and worked perfectly afterwards. The
reactors shut down exactly as planned. However, the core remains hot
for some days afterwards and, on this design, that needs pumped
coolant. To provide that, there were generators, backup generators and
backup battery power. The generators worked as planned, until the
tsunami hit. They were designed to withstand a wave the height of a
house, but the one that hit was too high. It knocked out the
generators and the backup generators, but the batteries continued to
run the systems for eight hours, as planned. The problem came in
getting the fourth level of backup - mobile generators - into
operation within the eight hours the batteries gave them. Given the
circumstances, it is more surprising everything worked as well as it did.
Colin BIgnell
Thanks for that explanation. I couldn't believe there was only one level
of backup. Looks like a higher location is in order then. Can't see us
abandoning the nuclear option whatever the present concerns.
The reason the plant was near the sea was so that any tsunami that hit
would only be water, not water plus bits of building, cars and other
assorted debris. More modern designs have, in any case, done away with
the need for pumped coolant and, hence, for the generators that were
knocked out.

Colin Bignell- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

Well it couldn't, because we have no reactors that require pumped
coolant of water.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember (greenaum)
saying something like:

If enough uranium / plutonium
gets together in the same place, you get critical mass,

Only for an instant.

and
BOOOOOOOOMMMMM!

No... pop! A really dirty loud and big pop, but just a pop you wouldn't
want to be anywhere near.

Not even a pop I am afraid.

Just a white hot pile of stinking crud.

On 16/03/2011 13:24, wrote:

IMHO, a better way to fix it, now it seems to have got completely out
of hand, thanks to the usual 'incompetence of engineers' who designed
emergency systems that don't work in an emergency, would be:

1. Get everybody out of the plant, tell all local residents to stay
inside and close the windows, 'Protect and Survive' stylee (much
better than the daft policy of evacuating the surrounding area, which
is going to cause major problems with housing evacuees)

2. Induce intentional meltdowns in all reactors, by precision-bombing
them from the air, so that the cooling systems are completely smashed
and all coolant escapes. This would cause the fuel to melt down into
the layer of graphite provided beneath the reactors for just this
scenario, you then monitor the situation from the air with thermal
cameras etc.

3. Once the graphite has absorbed all the fuel, you really let the
site have it with large bombs, so that the graphite layer is buried
under rubble and displaced soil etc.

4. Finally you finish the job by sending men and machines in, with
appropriate NBC precautions, to entomb the whole thing in concrete.


I've read this through and I find myself completely unable to decide if
this is a spoof of some sort - or you really mean it.

Andy

On Mar 16, 9:35 pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 16/03/2011 13:24, wrote:





IMHO, a better way to fix it, now it seems to have got completely out
of hand, thanks to the usual 'incompetence of engineers' who designed
emergency systems that don't work in an emergency, would be:

1. Get everybody out of the plant, tell all local residents to stay
inside and close the windows, 'Protect and Survive' stylee (much
better than the daft policy of evacuating the surrounding area, which
is going to cause major problems with housing evacuees)

2. Induce intentional meltdowns in all reactors, by precision-bombing
them from the air, so that the cooling systems are completely smashed
and all coolant escapes. This would cause the fuel to melt down into
the layer of graphite provided beneath the reactors for just this
scenario, you then monitor the situation from the air with thermal
cameras etc.

3. Once the graphite has absorbed all the fuel, you really let the
site have it with large bombs, so that the graphite layer is buried
under rubble and displaced soil etc.

4. Finally you finish the job by sending men and machines in, with
appropriate NBC precautions, to entomb the whole thing in concrete.

I've read this through and I find myself completely unable to decide if
this is a spoof of some sort - or you really mean it.

Andy

+1
check his profile......

Jim K

" wrote in
message
...
On Mar 16, 3:34 am, "Ala" wrote:
"Bram" wrote in
...

But looking at the footage, when the No.3 building exploded, the
fallout
didn't appear to be going out to sea. Also, if it was a hydrogen
explosion, why was the flame orange

er, it is by the sea, and has just been innundated by a tsunami more than
6.5 metres high. So there is a bit of salt around. Sodium Chloride?

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:37:52 -0700, Jim K wrote:

On Mar 16, 9:35 pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 16/03/2011 13:24, wrote:





IMHO, a better way to fix it, now it seems to have got completely out
of hand, thanks to the usual 'incompetence of engineers' who designed
emergency systems that don't work in an emergency, would be:

1. Get everybody out of the plant, tell all local residents to stay
inside and close the windows, 'Protect and Survive' stylee (much
better than the daft policy of evacuating the surrounding area, which
is going to cause major problems with housing evacuees)

2. Induce intentional meltdowns in all reactors, by
precision-bombing them from the air, so that the cooling systems are
completely smashed and all coolant escapes. This would cause the fuel
to melt down into the layer of graphite provided beneath the reactors
for just this scenario, you then monitor the situation from the air
with thermal cameras etc.

3. Once the graphite has absorbed all the fuel, you really let the
site have it with large bombs, so that the graphite layer is buried
under rubble and displaced soil etc.

4. Finally you finish the job by sending men and machines in, with
appropriate NBC precautions, to entomb the whole thing in concrete.

I've read this through and I find myself completely unable to decide if
this is a spoof of some sort - or you really mean it.

Andy

+1
check his profile......

Jim K

What 'profile'? Do you mean Google Groups? Most of us don't use it...



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:14:21 GMT, (greenaum)
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 06:24:50 -0700 (PDT),
" sprachen:

and all coolant escapes. This would cause the fuel to melt down into
the layer of graphite provided beneath the reactors for just this
scenario,

Then the surface of the Earth, all the way through to Tennessee or
wherever.

Not Tennesse, it's just off the coat of Argentina, but it's not going
to get anywhere near that far.

--

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:05:37 +0000, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@"
"insertmysurnamehere wrote:

The reason the plant was near the sea was so that any tsunami that hit
would only be water, not water plus bits of building, cars and other
assorted debris.

So where did that golden snippet of a basic design parameter come
from?

Inside a Christmas Cracker?

Viz?

The Daily Mail?

The Beano?

The Observers Book of Nuclear Reactor Design?

Some posting on the internet by an expert?


--

On 16/03/2011 22:29, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:05:37 +0000, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@"
"insertmysurnamehere wrote:

The reason the plant was near the sea was so that any tsunami that hit
would only be water, not water plus bits of building, cars and other
assorted debris.

So where did that golden snippet of a basic design parameter come
from?

Is it that hard to understand that a wall of water is a lot less
destructive than a wall of water loaded with debris? A nuclear plant has
to be within a reasonable distance of a large body of water, so, if that
body is liable to giant waves, it is good design to ensure that the wave
will do the least damage when it hits.

Colin Bignell

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 16/03/2011 22:29, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:05:37 +0000, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@"
"insertmysurnamehere wrote:

The reason the plant was near the sea was so that any tsunami that hit
would only be water, not water plus bits of building, cars and other
assorted debris.

So where did that golden snippet of a basic design parameter come
from?

Is it that hard to understand that a wall of water is a lot less
destructive than a wall of water loaded with debris? A nuclear plant has
to be within a reasonable distance of a large body of water, so, if that
body is liable to giant waves, it is good design to ensure that the wave
will do the least damage when it hits.

Colin Bignell


However they are near the sea because of cooling issues

The tsunami aspect was considered, but not such a big one. The design
wave spec was IIRC 6m later raised to 7m. What hit was rather larger
than that.

Basically that buggered *all* the backup systems.

Tell me where anyone ever predicted a quake this big, offshore but close?

On 16/03/2011 23:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 16/03/2011 22:29, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:05:37 +0000, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@"
"insertmysurnamehere wrote:

The reason the plant was near the sea was so that any tsunami that hit
would only be water, not water plus bits of building, cars and other
assorted debris.

So where did that golden snippet of a basic design parameter come
from?

Is it that hard to understand that a wall of water is a lot less
destructive than a wall of water loaded with debris? A nuclear plant
has to be within a reasonable distance of a large body of water, so,
if that body is liable to giant waves, it is good design to ensure
that the wave will do the least damage when it hits.

Colin Bignell


However they are near the sea because of cooling issues

I assumed that was self-evident.

The tsunami aspect was considered, but not such a big one. The design
wave spec was IIRC 6m later raised to 7m. What hit was rather larger
than that.

Basically that buggered *all* the backup systems.

Except the batteries.

Tell me where anyone ever predicted a quake this big, offshore but close?

Exactly. The sixth largest earthquake ever recorded in probably the
worst place it could happen.

Colin Bignell

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:57:56 +0000, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@"
"insertmysurnamehere wrote:

On 16/03/2011 22:29, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:05:37 +0000, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@"
"insertmysurnamehere wrote:

The reason the plant was near the sea was so that any tsunami that hit
would only be water, not water plus bits of building, cars and other
assorted debris.

So where did that golden snippet of a basic design parameter come
from?

Is it that hard to understand that a wall of water is a lot less
destructive than a wall of water loaded with debris? A nuclear plant has
to be within a reasonable distance of a large body of water, so, if that
body is liable to giant waves, it is good design to ensure that the wave
will do the least damage when it hits.

A Tsunami can move in and out many times (as it did during the one on
Boxing Day 2004) Any loose debris / houses or anything not anchored
in concrete behind the plant could quite easily cause as much damage
to the installation as the side that just faced the sea.

But the sole reason the plant was near the sea, just like hundreds of
other power stations worldwide both conventionally fueled and nuclear
fueled was to permit a suitable supply of cooling water for the
condensers. Nothing more, nothing less.

--

Tim Streater wrote:
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.

Sigh. Its drivel, back on parole, and not taking his meds again. What
else did you expect?

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "newshound"
saying something like:

But looking at the footage, when the No.3 building exploded, the
fallout
didn't appear to be going out to sea. Also, if it was a hydrogen
explosion, why was the flame orange

er, it is by the sea, and has just been innundated by a tsunami more than
6.5 metres high. So there is a bit of salt around. Sodium Chloride?

I knew those Bunsen displays would come in handy, some day.

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)?


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

On Mar 17, 5:56*am, 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)?

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

It wasn't the earthquake nobbled it. It was the tsunami.

On 16/03/2011 23:41, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:57:56 +0000, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@"
"insertmysurnamehere wrote:

On 16/03/2011 22:29, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:05:37 +0000, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@"
"insertmysurnamehere wrote:

The reason the plant was near the sea was so that any tsunami that hit
would only be water, not water plus bits of building, cars and other
assorted debris.

So where did that golden snippet of a basic design parameter come
from?

Is it that hard to understand that a wall of water is a lot less
destructive than a wall of water loaded with debris? A nuclear plant has
to be within a reasonable distance of a large body of water, so, if that
body is liable to giant waves, it is good design to ensure that the wave
will do the least damage when it hits.

A Tsunami can move in and out many times (as it did during the one on
Boxing Day 2004) Any loose debris / houses or anything not anchored
in concrete behind the plant could quite easily cause as much damage
to the installation as the side that just faced the sea.

But the sole reason the plant was near the sea, just like hundreds of
other power stations worldwide both conventionally fueled and nuclear
fueled was to permit a suitable supply of cooling water for the
condensers. Nothing more, nothing less.


I will accept that it was badly worded for the strange world of Usenet,
where it is necessary to articulate every step of every train of
thought. I was replying to the suggestion 'Looks like a higher location
is in order then'

If you prefer, I will reword it:

Nuclear plants need to be near large bodies of water, because they need
huge amounts for cooling. While it might be possible to relocate further
inland on rather higher ground, that would create the problem that any
tsunami that hits it will be loaded with debris and this plant was built
as close as it was to the sea to avoid that.

As an addendum to answer your point:

If the tsunami defences work, the retreating wave does not carry debris
with it to bring back if it returns.

Colin Bignell

On 16/03/2011 23:20, Tim Streater wrote:
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.


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
and pointed out that a more modern design would not have had the same
problems as the plant in Japan, it is the only response he has left.

Colin Bignell

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, 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.

Colin Bignell

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, an earthquake that was five times as
strong as it was designed for. It was the tsunami defences that let it
down. They were designed for around 7m, rather than the 10m that hit.

If you want them to build for the worst case, rather than the worst
probable case, the tsunami defences should have been built for 25m - the
largest tsunami ever to have hit Japan.

Colin Bignell

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.

Colin Bignell

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.

Colin Bignell

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.

The 1607 Bristol Channel floods might have been an earthquake tsunami. Or
might not have been. Either way, it wasn't exactly on the same scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol...l_floods,_1607

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.

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*.

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
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, 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.


Colin Bignell

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.


Colin Bignell

On 17/03/2011 08:20, Chris Hogg wrote:

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?

Not quite, although it doesn't alter your conclusion. If the 'quakes
are randomly distributed in time the Poisson distribution will apply to
finding the probability of any given number of occurrences in a
specified time interval.

P(k,lambda) = (lambda^k) * exp(-lambda) / k!

where lambda is the average no. of occurrences in the interval and k is
the particular no. of occurrences.

Here lambda is 0.04, so exp(-lambda) = 0.961, so the probabilities work
out as:

- no occurrences, P(0,0.04) = 0.961
- one occurrence, P(1,0.04) = 0.038 (1 in 26)
- two occurrences, P(2,0.04) = 0.00077 (1 in 1301)


--
Andy

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?

--

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.

Colin Bignell