Dubstepforum.com

Hey, so, in your estimation, how long do you think the land around the plant will be unusable/uninhabitable? At what radius?

i think the big thing that is lost in comparing chernobyl and 3 mile island to this situation is that this wasn't caused by neglect. It was caused by one of the most powerful forces known to man hitting this station.

Cherynobyl and 3 Mile Island were caused by human error, this was caused by a facility damaged by one of the biggest disasters we've ever seen.

Also the amount of land made uninhabitable and irreverseable damage that can be done by say a coal power planet or lets say a damaged dam, are comparable.

The risk/reward worldwide for nuclear power is simply, worth it.

i'd say that as soon as the releases are fully under control the land outside of a 5km radius should be fine to inhabit shortly after, anything inside that i wouldnt really wanna live anyway, nuclear power stations are a fucking eyesore.

pkay wrote:i think the big thing that is lost in comparing chernobyl and 3 mile island to this situation is that this wasn't caused by neglect. It was caused by one of the most powerful forces known to man hitting this station.

Cherynobyl and 3 Mile Island were caused by human error, this was caused by a facility damaged by one of the biggest disasters we've ever seen.

Also the amount of land made uninhabitable and irreverseable damage that can be done by say a coal power planet or lets say a damaged dam, are comparable.

The risk/reward worldwide for nuclear power is simply, worth it.

again, makes sense, compare nukes to any other power stations using natural resources and it doesnt really compare, look at disasters at hydroelectric dams that have collapsed, or coal fire stations that have blown, you'll soon realise nuclear has a far worse rep than it deserves.

id imagine some of the dams in the states could potentially kill tens of thousands instantly and take years to repair

Designing a plant unable to withstand reasonably foreseeable forces is human error. Not saying this magnitude of quake was reasonably foreseeable but lesser foreseeable quakes exceeded the design specs which likely would have produced the same results as this major^2 quake.

pkay wrote:years to repair

900?

altho i have no fact for this comment so could be hearsay.
i heard that the person who designed chenoble also designed the japan reacter and that it was the cheaper model on offer.

You buy the cheaper noodles when you have to but nuclear power plants? youd think youd want at least mid-range quality.... thank god gemini dont do Nuclear power.

nowaysj wrote:Designing a plant unable to withstand reasonably foreseeable forces is human error. Not saying this magnitude of quake was reasonably foreseeable but lesser foreseeable quakes exceeded the design specs which likely would have produced the same results as this major^2 quake.

well the question now is how long has the fracture line been known about?

also the after shocks, at a magnitude of 6 on the richter scale caused very little further damage to the reactors.

you do know that the richter scale is exponential as well yeah? meaning a 2 isnt twice as bad as a 1, its worse by a given factor, so a 7 is pretty fucking mega.

It is my understanding that either that plant or another nearby plant was designed to withstand sub 6.5 quakes. Here in Cali, over the last... 15, 20 years, I've been in two quakes well over that. To my knowledge, Japan is even more geologically unstable (and that this has been generally understood to be the case for quite some time). That leads me to the conclusion that this type of disaster was reasonably foreseeable. Purely from an armchair nuclear engineer/geologist's point of view.

To be fair, Chernobyl didn't melt down because it was cheap. It biffed because of a combination of human interactions and ultimately an experiment that went very very poorly

nowaysj wrote:It is my understanding that either that plant or another nearby plant was designed to withstand sub 6.5 quakes. Here in Cali, over the last... 15, 20 years, I've been in two quakes well over that. To my knowledge, Japan is even more geologically unstable (and that this has been generally understood to be the case for quite some time). That leads me to the conclusion that this type of disaster was reasonably foreseeable. Purely from an armchair nuclear engineer/geologist's point of view.

you remember the 89 quake? The one that fucked san fran all sorts of crazy? This earthquake was exponentially stronger than that quake. There were something like 7 quakes that strong in japan in about 15 days.

this was a 9.0 earthquake. We have almost no historical reference to compare this to outside of the indian ocean quake which ultimately resulted in a tsunami.

in recorded history we are only aware of 3 earthquakes stronger than this one.

Yeah I remember that '89 quake, I was pretty close to Loma Prieta when it hit. Saw a minitsunami empty half of my homie's pool into his back yard. Like a giant fist of water just rose up out of his pool. Looked like 3d animation.

And in fact the Loma Prieta quake would of exceeded either this plant's or the one near its design specs. So what is the point? A quake of that magnitude is very foreseeable. I also had the displeasure of being close to the Northridge quake in LA, in what, 95? That size quake is not uncommon.

theyve just set the standard radiation level for school kids when playing outside to the same level given to the radiation workers at fukushima

Sheff wrote:theyve just set the standard radiation level for school kids when playing outside to the same level given to the radiation workers at fukushima

Yeah, notice how everone is raising the levels? Kind of interesting.

nowaysj wrote:Yeah I remember that '89 quake, I was pretty close to Loma Prieta when it hit. Saw a minitsunami empty half of my homie's pool into his back yard. Like a giant fist of water just rose up out of his pool. Looked like 3d animation.

And in fact the Loma Prieta quake would of exceeded either this plant's or the one near its design specs. So what is the point? A quake of that magnitude is very foreseeable. I also had the displeasure of being close to the Northridge quake in LA, in what, 95? That size quake is not uncommon.

sigh

I'm going to type this very largely in hopes it sticks with you

THE EARTHQUAKE DID NOT DAMAGE THE REACTOR.... IT WAS A FUCKING TUSNAMI. EARTHQUAKE STRENGTH DOESN'T ALWAYS EQUAL TSUNAMI AND NOTHING ON THIS PLANET CAN BE RATED TO SURVIVE THE FORCE OF WATER. NOTHING

You really are tiresome, bro. ^

nowaysj wrote:You really are tiresome, bro. ^

the indian ocean tsunami was rated at the force of 23,000 times the strength of the hiroshima bomb. there is nothing you can do about a tsunami, bro

Well... maybe you can not put a nuclear reactor directly in its foreseeable path? Just an idea...

nowaysj wrote:Well... maybe you can not put a nuclear reactor directly in its foreseeable path? Just an idea...

you are aware Japan is an island correct?