Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
|
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 16/12/16 20:21, harry wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. .......once harry has written the regulatins.... |
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On Friday, 16 December 2016 18:59:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 20:21, harry wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. ......once harry has written the regulatins.... But I didn't. |
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 16/12/16 21:12, harry wrote:
On Friday, 16 December 2016 18:59:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 16/12/16 20:21, harry wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. ......once harry has written the regulatins.... But I didn't. Your chums did. Other wise nuclear would be 2c a unit. |
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 16/12/2016 18:21, harry wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Not when you build the reactor in an earthquake zone. -- mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 16/12/16 21:31, alan_m wrote:
On 16/12/2016 18:21, harry wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Not when you build the reactor in an earthquake zone. earthquake didn't touch that reactor. It was a wave 2 meters higher than designed that dun it. Even then bugger all radiation got out. No need to evacuate anyone. |
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 16/12/2016 19:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 21:31, alan_m wrote: On 16/12/2016 18:21, harry wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Not when you build the reactor in an earthquake zone. earthquake didn't touch that reactor. It was a wave 2 meters higher than designed that dun it. A wave caused by an earthquake, and not for the first time in that area. -- mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk |
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 16/12/2016 18:21, harry wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. After the Tsunami that killed 15,000 people and devastated several major towns that have had to be rebuilt in the same tsunami zone... remind me, how many people have been killed by the radiation leak? Not the evacuation for fear of it, but the radiation itself? There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. Andy |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
harry wrote
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff like sighting it where a tsunami can be a problem. |
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 16/12/2016 19:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote: earthquake didn't touch that reactor. It was a wave 2 meters higher than designed that dun it. Your usual sophistry. The tsunami that knocked out emergency power to the cooling systems at Fukushima was caused by an earthquake. Did your 40-year old theoretical degree have an "evasive ****" module? -- (\_/) (='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10 (")_(") |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
En el artículo , Vir
Campestris escribió: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. Some of the analysis of the events post-Chernobyl concluded that more harm was done to the surrounding population by evacuation than would have been by allowing them to remain. But then hindsight is a wonderful thing. -- (\_/) (='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10 (")_(") |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 16-Dec-16 8:10 PM, alan_m wrote:
On 16/12/2016 19:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 16/12/16 21:31, alan_m wrote: On 16/12/2016 18:21, harry wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Not when you build the reactor in an earthquake zone. earthquake didn't touch that reactor. It was a wave 2 meters higher than designed that dun it. A wave caused by an earthquake, and not for the first time in that area. Neither the wave nor the earthquake did any damage to the nuclear reactors themselves. What caused the problem was not being able to get external power back on line within the next eight hours and the cooling pumps then shutting down. The design dates back to the 1960s and more modern designs would have survived. Reactors of similar design have also since been modified since to avoid the same problems. -- -- Colin Bignell |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On Saturday, 17 December 2016 03:53:48 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff like sighting it where a tsunami can be a problem. That's exactly where Hinkley Point is sited. |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
Yes, I was just thinking that. However, I never did understand how people
put price tags on such things accurately. It ins only going to be known when its done what complications there might be. You, after all don't want to cut corners to stay in budget on something highly dangerous, do you? Unless his implication is that some kind of fraud to screw more money from the job then it costs what it costs to be safe. Half way through building a bridge you don't suddenly decide to l use lower grade materials to keep it in budget as sooner or later lots of people will fall into the river! Brian -- ----- - This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from... The Sofa of Brian Gaff... Blind user, so no pictures please! "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message news On 16/12/16 20:21, harry wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. ......once harry has written the regulatins.... |
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
En el artículo , Chris Hogg
escribió: Technology does progress, Harry. Good enough until La Palma falls in half! just got back from a week there. This caught my eye though: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...4/110412-most- dangerous-nuclear-plant-armenia/ -- (\_/) (='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10 (")_(") |
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
En el artículo , Nightjar
escribió: Neither the wave nor the earthquake did any damage to the nuclear reactors themselves. What caused the problem was not being able to get external power back on line within the next eight hours and the cooling pumps then shutting down. What was interesting was that Tepco had actually built new diesel backup generators in a more secure location and these weren't affected, but they didn't relocate the switchgear from the basement of the reactor building, so when that flooded with tsunami seawater the generators were effectively disabled. wikipedia: "In the late 1990s, three additional backup generators for Units 2 and 4 were placed in new buildings located higher on the hillside, to comply with new regulatory requirements. All six units were given access to these generators, but the switching stations that sent power from these backup generators to the reactors' cooling systems for Units 1 through 5 were still in the poorly protected turbine buildings. The switching station for Unit 6 was protected inside the only GE Mark II reactor building and continued to function.[63] All three of the generators added in the late 1990s were operational after the tsunami. If the switching stations had been moved to inside the reactor buildings or to other flood-proof locations, power would have been provided by these generators to the reactors' cooling systems" -- (\_/) (='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10 (")_(") |
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:21:47 -0800, harry wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Jeff Rense's site has done an amazingly thorough job of keeping track of the alarming spread of pollution from Fukishima: www.rense.com |
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:21:47 -0800, harry wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Jeff Rense's site has done an amazingly thorough job of keeping track of the alarming spread of pollution from Fukishima: www.rense.com The site also tells us that the CIA is "Muslim run" -- from KT24 in Surrey, England |
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 12/17/2016 12:35 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Nightjar escribió: Neither the wave nor the earthquake did any damage to the nuclear reactors themselves. What caused the problem was not being able to get external power back on line within the next eight hours and the cooling pumps then shutting down. What was interesting was that Tepco had actually built new diesel backup generators in a more secure location and these weren't affected, but they didn't relocate the switchgear from the basement of the reactor building, so when that flooded with tsunami seawater the generators were effectively disabled. wikipedia: "In the late 1990s, three additional backup generators for Units 2 and 4 were placed in new buildings located higher on the hillside, to comply with new regulatory requirements. All six units were given access to these generators, but the switching stations that sent power from these backup generators to the reactors' cooling systems for Units 1 through 5 were still in the poorly protected turbine buildings. The switching station for Unit 6 was protected inside the only GE Mark II reactor building and continued to function.[63] All three of the generators added in the late 1990s were operational after the tsunami. If the switching stations had been moved to inside the reactor buildings or to other flood-proof locations, power would have been provided by these generators to the reactors' cooling systems" Thanks, I didn't know that. Seems an odd oversight. I'd like to think the UK operators would not have made such an error, and that it would certainly have been picked up by the Regulator. |
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 12/17/2016 12:22 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Chris Hogg escribió: Technology does progress, Harry. Good enough until La Palma falls in half! just got back from a week there. This caught my eye though: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...4/110412-most- dangerous-nuclear-plant-armenia/ Not terribly tsunami-prone though. And designed for magnitude 9 earthquake, according to Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metsam...ar_Power_Plant Slightly lazy journalism I thought, centred on "lack of primary containment". The other point, of course, is that at any time some plant has to be the "most dangerous". Quite reassuring that it is 40 years old and unlikely to continue operating for much longer. Also, not unreasonable for plant in poorer countries to be built to lower standards. |
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 12/17/2016 1:37 PM, charles wrote:
In article , Cursitor Doom wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:21:47 -0800, harry wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Jeff Rense's site has done an amazingly thorough job of keeping track of the alarming spread of pollution from Fukishima: www.rense.com The site also tells us that the CIA is "Muslim run" Nice! :-) |
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 17/12/2016 09:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 16-Dec-16 8:10 PM, alan_m wrote: On 16/12/2016 19:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 16/12/16 21:31, alan_m wrote: On 16/12/2016 18:21, harry wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Not when you build the reactor in an earthquake zone. earthquake didn't touch that reactor. It was a wave 2 meters higher than designed that dun it. A wave caused by an earthquake, and not for the first time in that area. Neither the wave nor the earthquake did any damage to the nuclear reactors themselves. What caused the problem was not being able to get external power back on line within the next eight hours and the cooling pumps then shutting down. The design dates back to the 1960s and more modern designs would have survived. Reactors of similar design have also since been modified since to avoid the same problems. The really stupid thing is they had generators available but nobody wanted to say fly them in and fix the problem. It wasn't an earthquake that caused the melt down it was the Japanese culture. In the UK someone would have said sod this, take the bloody generators in and nothing would have happened. |
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 13:37:12 +0000, charles wrote:
In article , Cursitor Doom wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:21:47 -0800, harry wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Jeff Rense's site has done an amazingly thorough job of keeping track of the alarming spread of pollution from Fukishima: www.rense.com The site also tells us that the CIA is "Muslim run" Actually, I preferred this bit of the site: begin quote World-Renowned Talk Show Host, Producer And Broadcast Journalist Jeff Rense Says... "I have taken BioSuperfood virtually every day since the Fukushima catastrophe of March 2011. Of all the nutritional approaches to dealing with the effects of radiation and radiation exposure only ONE has been PROVEN to be effective€¦BioSuperfood. Developed by doctors and scientists after the Chernobyl disaster, countless lives were saved and protected by this powerhouse 100% all natural product. The proof of BioSuperfood's protective and rehabilitating effects are now beyond question. I implore you to consider adding this potentially life-saving, life-enhancing algae food to your daily diet. BioSuperfood will strengthen your immune system and enhance your energy and stamina like no other single product I have ever encountered. It's well past time to get serious about the ever-increasing radiation in our environment€¦radiation that doesn't stop at the West Coast. BioSuperfood is priceless in that regard." -- Jeff Rense end quote |
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 12/17/2016 3:16 PM, dennis@home wrote:
On 17/12/2016 09:21, Nightjar wrote: On 16-Dec-16 8:10 PM, alan_m wrote: On 16/12/2016 19:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 16/12/16 21:31, alan_m wrote: On 16/12/2016 18:21, harry wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Not when you build the reactor in an earthquake zone. earthquake didn't touch that reactor. It was a wave 2 meters higher than designed that dun it. A wave caused by an earthquake, and not for the first time in that area. Neither the wave nor the earthquake did any damage to the nuclear reactors themselves. What caused the problem was not being able to get external power back on line within the next eight hours and the cooling pumps then shutting down. The design dates back to the 1960s and more modern designs would have survived. Reactors of similar design have also since been modified since to avoid the same problems. The really stupid thing is they had generators available but nobody wanted to say fly them in and fix the problem. It wasn't an earthquake that caused the melt down it was the Japanese culture. In the UK someone would have said sod this, take the bloody generators in and nothing would have happened. To be fair, I don't think it would have been a trivial fix, and you have to remember the difficulty of access to coastal sites in the immediate aftermath. |
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 17-Dec-16 12:35 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Nightjar escribió: Neither the wave nor the earthquake did any damage to the nuclear reactors themselves. What caused the problem was not being able to get external power back on line within the next eight hours and the cooling pumps then shutting down. What was interesting was that Tepco had actually built new diesel backup generators in a more secure location and these weren't affected, but they didn't relocate the switchgear from the basement of the reactor building, so when that flooded with tsunami seawater the generators were effectively disabled. wikipedia: "In the late 1990s, three additional backup generators for Units 2 and 4 were placed in new buildings located higher on the hillside, to comply with new regulatory requirements. All six units were given access to these generators, but the switching stations that sent power from these backup generators to the reactors' cooling systems for Units 1 through 5 were still in the poorly protected turbine buildings. The switching station for Unit 6 was protected inside the only GE Mark II reactor building and continued to function.[63] All three of the generators added in the late 1990s were operational after the tsunami. If the switching stations had been moved to inside the reactor buildings or to other flood-proof locations, power would have been provided by these generators to the reactors' cooling systems" My understanding was that they could still have got at least one backup generator back on line if the fuel tanks had not been washed away. -- -- Colin Bignell |
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 12/17/2016 3:37 PM, Mark Allread wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 13:37:12 +0000, charles wrote: In article , Cursitor Doom wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:21:47 -0800, harry wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Jeff Rense's site has done an amazingly thorough job of keeping track of the alarming spread of pollution from Fukishima: www.rense.com The site also tells us that the CIA is "Muslim run" Actually, I preferred this bit of the site: begin quote World-Renowned Talk Show Host, Producer And Broadcast Journalist Jeff Rense Says... "I have taken BioSuperfood virtually every day since the Fukushima catastrophe of March 2011. Of all the nutritional approaches to dealing with the effects of radiation and radiation exposure only ONE has been PROVEN to be effective€¦BioSuperfood. Developed by doctors and scientists after the Chernobyl disaster, countless lives were saved and protected by this powerhouse 100% all natural product. The proof of BioSuperfood's protective and rehabilitating effects are now beyond question. I implore you to consider adding this potentially life-saving, life-enhancing algae food to your daily diet. BioSuperfood will strengthen your immune system and enhance your energy and stamina like no other single product I have ever encountered. It's well past time to get serious about the ever-increasing radiation in our environment€¦radiation that doesn't stop at the West Coast. BioSuperfood is priceless in that regard." -- Jeff Rense end quote Must be what harry is on.... |
#27
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote harry wrote http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff like siting it where a tsunami can be a problem. That's exactly where Hinkley Point is sited. Dont get tsunamis there, stupid. And even with Fukushima, it would be trivial to ensure that a tsunami is never a problem too. |
#28
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote:
There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? |
#29
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:45:03 +0200, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
No need to evacuate anyone. What, until the melt-down? |
#30
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote: There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to their homes and get on with their lives as before? Given that most of the "exclusion zone" is less radioactive than many populated British towns, perhaps its not such a bad idea. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#31
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
En el artículo , Nightjar
escribió: My understanding was that they could still have got at least one backup generator back on line if the fuel tanks had not been washed away. Mine had been that the backup generators were in the basement of the main building, i.e. several metres below sea level, that the basement rooms weren't watertight, and that the generators basically were underwater. That wikipedia paragraph, assuming it's accurate, puts an interesting slant on things. -- (\_/) (='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10 (")_(") |
#32
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
En el artículo ,
newshound escribió: Slightly lazy journalism I thought Yes, agreed. , centred on "lack of primary containment" Chernobyl had no primary containment; that incident would have been nowhere near as bad with PC. The other point, of course, is that at any time some plant has to be the "most dangerous" Aye. . Quite reassuring that it is 40 years old and unlikely to continue operating for much longer. Also, not unreasonable for plant in poorer countries to be built to lower standards 40-year-old standards, yes. At least it'll hopefully not be online much longer. I couldn't help wondering why they didn't restart reactor 1 as well. -- (\_/) (='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10 (")_(") |
#33
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
En el artículo , Mark
Allread escribió: rense implore you to consider adding this potentially life-saving, life-enhancing algae food to your daily diet /rense Noocular does tend to bring out the swivel-eyed brigade, doesn't it -- (\_/) (='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10 (")_(") |
#34
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 17-Dec-16 7:13 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Nightjar escribió: My understanding was that they could still have got at least one backup generator back on line if the fuel tanks had not been washed away. Mine had been that the backup generators were in the basement of the main building, i.e. several metres below sea level, that the basement rooms weren't watertight, and that the generators basically were underwater. The original ones were. That is why they added more that were high enough to survive. Unfortunately, their fuel tanks were about 1m lower than the highest water level and a tank full of diesel floats. That wikipedia paragraph, assuming it's accurate, puts an interesting slant on things. It is consistent with informed articles that I read at the time. -- -- Colin Bignell |
#35
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
En el artículo , Nightjar
escribió: It is consistent with informed articles that I read at the time. Thanks. Wikipedia is a lovely resource but one has to be aware that it can be edited by anyone with an axe to grind. And with the current vogue for "fake news"... -- (\_/) (='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10 (")_(") |
#36
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 17-Dec-16 7:43 PM, Nightjar wrote:
On 17-Dec-16 7:13 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote: En el artículo , Nightjar escribió: My understanding was that they could still have got at least one backup generator back on line if the fuel tanks had not been washed away. Mine had been that the backup generators were in the basement of the main building, i.e. several metres below sea level, that the basement rooms weren't watertight, and that the generators basically were underwater. The original ones were. That is why they added more that were high enough to survive. Unfortunately, their fuel tanks were about 1m lower than the highest water level and a tank full of diesel floats. I should, perhaps, add that they would have been just above the water, if the earthquake had not caused the land to drop by about 1m. -- -- Colin Bignell |
#37
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On 12/17/2016 7:18 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , newshound escribió: Slightly lazy journalism I thought Yes, agreed. , centred on "lack of primary containment" Chernobyl had no primary containment; that incident would have been nowhere near as bad with PC. The other point, of course, is that at any time some plant has to be the "most dangerous" Aye. . Quite reassuring that it is 40 years old and unlikely to continue operating for much longer. Also, not unreasonable for plant in poorer countries to be built to lower standards 40-year-old standards, yes. At least it'll hopefully not be online much longer. I couldn't help wondering why they didn't restart reactor 1 as well. No, also lower standards. Partly to reflect different risk levels in less populated countries, but also cost benefit. We've always been very critical of the Chernobyl design, a UK review in the early 70's concluded that RBMK wasn't licensable here, in part because of controllablity. But the Soviet republics were behind the west in site welding technology for large pressure vessels. The RBMK allows more factory manufacturing, with field assembly using relatively conventional welding. Also, it was scaleable. And their regional economy was even more held back by lack of electricity than the UK one was. I am less familiar with the VVER, but see no reason to doubt that the Soviet designers looked at trade-offs in the same way that we did. After all, they seemed to have designed Metsamor against an appropriate level of earthquake for the Armenia. |
#38
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
In article , Mark
Allread scribeth thus On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 13:37:12 +0000, charles wrote: In article , Cursitor Doom wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:21:47 -0800, harry wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Jeff Rense's site has done an amazingly thorough job of keeping track of the alarming spread of pollution from Fukishima: www.rense.com The site also tells us that the CIA is "Muslim run" Actually, I preferred this bit of the site: begin quote World-Renowned Talk Show Host, Producer And Broadcast Journalist Jeff Rense Says... "I have taken BioSuperfood virtually every day since the Fukushima catastrophe of March 2011. Of all the nutritional approaches to dealing with the effects of radiation and radiation exposure only ONE has been PROVEN to be effective€¦BioSuperfood. Developed by doctors and scientists after the Chernobyl disaster, countless lives were saved and protected by this powerhouse 100% all natural product. The proof of BioSuperfood's protective and rehabilitating effects are now beyond question. I implore you to consider adding this potentially life-saving, life-enhancing algae food to your daily diet. BioSuperfood will strengthen your immune system and enhance your energy and stamina like no other single product I have ever encountered. It's well past time to get serious about the ever-increasing radiation in our environment€¦radiation that doesn't stop at the West Coast. BioSuperfood is priceless in that regard." -- Jeff Rense end quote He the same copywriter for Russ Andrews perchance;?.... -- Tony Sayer |
#39
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
On Saturday, 17 December 2016 18:43:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote Rod Speed wrote harry wrote http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff like siting it where a tsunami can be a problem. That's exactly where Hinkley Point is sited. Dont get tsunamis there, stupid. You really are a thicko aren't you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristo...l_floods,_1607 |
#40
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
"harry" wrote in message ... On Saturday, 17 December 2016 18:43:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote: harry wrote Rod Speed wrote harry wrote http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047 Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option. Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff like siting it where a tsunami can be a problem. That's exactly where Hinkley Point is sited. Dont get tsunamis there, stupid. You really are a thicko aren't you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristo...l_floods,_1607 That's not a tsunami, stupid. Trivial to make it immune to floods like that. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
No longer worth it to plug in Electric Cars or Plug-In Hybrids inAreas wit High Electricity Costs and Low Gasoline Costs | Home Repair | |||
A Clear Explaination of Exposed Rods At Fukushima Number 4 Reactor | Metalworking | |||
boiler costs - rough costs / options | UK diy | |||
Ozone generator to clear mold, will it clear termites too? | Home Ownership | |||
draining CH after Fernox Restorer - how clear is clear? | UK diy |