Japanese N-Plant Explosion

[Captain Kremmen]

Check this out, Radiation dosage units in relation to bananas, or the "Banana equivalent dose"

Thanks for the opportunity to clear up a possible misunderstanding.
I thought I was being very clear, but obviously not.

I'm not saying American milk has radioactive iodine in it.
I'm saying that it has everyday good American nutritious iodine in it.
Moreover that iodine will prevent any uptake of radioactive iodine.

It's probably not even necessary, but if you are even slightly worried, have a pint of good American Milk once a day.

If this is misunderstood, I just give up!

 

[ElectricFetus]

Probably more people will now die from iodine allergies than from radioactive iodine!

Thanks for the opportunity to clear up a possible misunderstanding.
I thought I was being very clear, but obviously not.

I'm not saying American milk has radioactive iodine in it.

I wasn't talking to you then, or saying anything about milk.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Sorry then, it was my misunderstanding.
I thought your post was a reply to mine.
By coincidence it mentioned milk.

Great. We are in agreement.
Yes you are right.
Some people will be overdosing on iodine and damaging their health.

The people on eBay who are trying to profit from this are despicable.

 

[iceaura]

Not neccessarily, because not all parts of the upper mississippi are going to be susceptable to the effects of an M8.1-8.3 earthquake, or are likely to to experience an earthquake of that magnitude.

All parts of the entire Mississippi River are within range of the same basic fault system that hit New Madrid. It's central to the lower continent of North America. In particular, faults potentially linke exist more or less directly under both of the northern nuclear power plants - at Monticello and Prairie Island - and their waste fule storage facilities, recently packed more densely than originally designed to avoid shutdown of the plants.

And by that same reasoning, any Japanese plants should be able to handle all the consequences of a 9 - an 8.6 being part of their recent regional history.
”
No, because the saftey margin of a plant designed to survive an 8.5 in a region peppered by 8.3's would not be capable of protecting a 9 in a region peppered by 8.5's (because a 9 is 4 times as strong as an 8.5, but an 8.5 is only twice as strong as an 8.3).

What? We are comparing an 8.1/8.5 margin of safety to an 8.6/9 margin of safety.

And note that the a better and more reasonable safety base for Fukushima would be from the 9.2 that hit near Anchorage recently.

There's a logical fallacy in here, just because A follows from B (All Magnitude 9 earthquakes occur on convergent plate boundaries) does not imply that B follows from A (All convergent plate boundaries are capable of generating a magnitude 9 earthquake).

We have a stretch of a convergent plate boundary that has been generating mid 8 level quakes with some regularity. Other stretches of the boundaries of that same plate have generated 9.2 within the past 50 years. The type of boundary involved is the main source of very large earthquakes, in general. The argument is that the edges of that plate anywhere near these events are dangerous places with respect to earthquake risk. The problem is not a logical fallacy, but uncertainties surrounding somebody's physical assessment of the risks of a specific site along that boundary.

And once again you prove you don't actually know what you're talking about. It's entirely pertinent.

It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

More bullshit.
Yes, it's true that big earthquakes happen in Japan.
Yes it's true that destructive tsunamis happen in Japan.
But it's not true that destructive tsunamis happen everywhere in Japan.

It is true that nuclear power plants built near coastlines and low to the water are at some risk from destructive tsunamis everywhere along a moving, active, convergent plate boundary. True or false?

The simple fact of the matter is that if there's no evidence to suggest that a thing is possible in one part of Japan, then there's no reason to assume that it can happen there,

The difficulty is in getting people who think they have a better handle on a situation than they do, to recognize the nature of "evidence" in this kind of situation. Part of the evidence is their thoroughly demonstrated ignorance and logical errors, and the consequent uncertainty considerations necessary; that seems to be very difficult for them to handle.

We had all kinds of evidence, really threatening stuff, for the 9+ earthquake and consequent tsunami risk at Fukushima. We have quite a bit of evidence for a mid-8 risk, at least, everyhwere in the central North American continent. These are (or were) long odds, perhaps, but the risk being run is monstrous. Long odds come into play - reasonable, sober, standard consideration - when the risk is that big.

We are instead treated to a kind of reasoning more suitable to analyzing elevator failure or airplane accidents.

We are also being treated to a reprise of the secrecy, communication "problems", suddenly realized vulnerability to the whims of corporate scofflaws, and demonstration of the serial falsity of the serial reassurances in their interests from the compromised and corrupt, that we have experienced in all of these major disasters. The silly deflections about coal and bananas and whatnot, the faux-reasonable tone of the ubiquitous pundits explaining that getting angry or accusing them of anything is a sign of panic (sensible people would understand that these things just sort of happen, and the experts are doing all they can - meanwhile, let's talk about how safe we've all been since Three Mile Island, and how dangerous coal is) is pretty familiar by now.

 

[Trippy]

All parts of the entire Mississippi River are within range of the same basic fault system that hit New Madrid. It's central to the lower continent of North America. In particular, faults potentially linke exist more or less directly under both of the northern nuclear power plants - at Monticello and Prairie Island - and their waste fule storage facilities, recently packed more densely than originally designed to avoid shutdown of the plants.

No.
Here's what I originally said:

Generally large intracontinetal earthquakes in the US are related to the failed New Madrid rift zone. There is a rift zone in the US which has failed, I believe, on three seperate occasions.

The New Madrid Seimic Zone does not extend into Minnesotta. Even if we include the Wabash Valley seismic zone in the equation, and assume that it's all tied into the Reelfoot Rift (which is more or less what I implied earlier), and the entire rift system is capable of generating earthquakes, then it's still not an issue at Monticello of very dubious relevance at Prairie Island. Most of the Seismic activity takes place in the swathe from Arkansas through Tennessee, Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky and into Indiana.

The available evidence suggests that the NMSZ generates a series of large earthquakes - like the 1811/1812 sequence every 400-600 years. According to the Missouri Department of natural resources the reccurence interval for an M8+ event is 550-1200 years.

What? We are comparing an 8.1/8.5 margin of safety to an 8.6/9 margin of safety.

No.
I said 8.1-8.3, therefore we're comparing 8.3/8.5

And note that the a better and more reasonable safety base for Fukushima would be from the 9.2 that hit near Anchorage recently.

Wrooooooooong.

We have a stretch of a convergent plate boundary that has been generating mid 8 level quakes with some regularity. Other stretches of the boundaries of that same plate have generated 9.2 within the past 50 years. The type of boundary involved is the main source of very large earthquakes, in general.

Anchorage is not in Japan, The two situations are different.

The argument is that the edges of that plate anywhere near these events are dangerous places with respect to earthquake risk. The problem is not a logical fallacy...

Not everywhere on the ring of fire is capable of generating an M9+ earthquake.

...but uncertainties surrounding somebody's physical assessment of the risks of a specific site along that boundary.

An assessment based on the physical evidence available at that time.

It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

It has everything to do with what you're talking about.

It is true that nuclear power plants built near coastlines and low to the water are at some risk from destructive tsunamis everywhere along a moving, active, convergent plate boundary. True or false?

There should have been a caveat in there regarding size, but false, on a number of accounts.

The difficulty is in getting people who think they have a better handle on a situation than they do, to recognize the nature of "evidence" in this kind of situation.

No, the problem is armchair experts like you prognosticating and pontificating without understanding the vile foulness that spews forth from their mouths as they take advantage of a developing situation to try and push their political agenda.

Part of the evidence is their thoroughly demonstrated ignorance and logical errors, and the consequent uncertainty considerations necessary; that seems to be very difficult for them to handle.

LOL
You can't even understand why differences in plate motion matter.

We had all kinds of evidence, really threatening stuff, for the 9+ earthquake and consequent tsunami risk at Fukushima. We have quite a bit of evidence for a mid-8 risk, at least, everyhwere in the central North American continent.

Bullshit, and I'm not addressing the rest of your paranoid rambling politically motivated bullshit either.

 

[iceaura]

What? We are comparing an 8.1/8.5 margin of safety to an 8.6/9 margin of safety.
”
No.
I said 8.1-8.3, therefore we're comparing 8.3/8.5

. Well, I wasn't. You might take another look at the actual status of the things you say, in real life - you don't set the terms of my discussions. I was taking the more conservative, generally agreed upon number for each actually tranpsired earthquake, to avoid appearing sensational and to keep the comparison honest.

The New Madrid Seimic Zone does not extend into Minnesotta.

You can go explain that to the faults underlying the Prairie Island plant, and those extending to quite near the Monticello plant.

You tell them that they are not part of the New Madrid Seismic Zone, and are therefore not allowed to behave as if they were midcontinent faults near other midcontinent faults that have recently delivered 8+ level quakes. They won't listen to me, maybe they will listen to people who think they're experts.

Not everywhere on the ring of fire is capable of generating an M9+ earthquake.

So? When somebody has figured out how to tell for sure that some place right next to a recent 8.6, on top of a convergent plate boundary, on a boundary that has elsewhere delivered 9+, is not going to hit hard itself, that truism will become relevant.

Until then, it isn't.

And note that the a better and more reasonable safety base for Fukushima would be from the 9.2 that hit near Anchorage recently.
”
Wrooooooooong.

Nope. Absolutely and quite obviously right. Not even a judgment call now - the thing already hit.

...but uncertainties surrounding somebody's physical assessment of the risks of a specific site along that boundary.
”
An assessment based on the physical evidence available at that time.

Which is malpractice. The assessment needs to include the physcial ignorance available at the time, and the physical uncertainty available at the time, and some humble common sense available at all times - which would include a careful and sober consideration of a wide range of related situations, in time and in location.

It is true that nuclear power plants built near coastlines and low to the water are at some risk from destructive tsunamis everywhere along a moving, active, convergent plate boundary. True or false?
”
There should have been a caveat in there regarding size, but false, on a number of accounts.

There lies the issue.

How do we convince technocrats that the statement, there, is not only true, but blindingly obvious? That their level of knowledge and expertise in these matters is not good enough to rely on in place of such simple and obvious judgments?

If being surprised, once again, by an unpredicted and unconsidered and unprepared for mishap (or near miss) is not enough to make them reconsider their approach, what is?

And if we can't persuade them to be reasonable, how do we prevent them from creating these ridiculous scenes of disaster? Do we have to forbid them from building nuclear reactors altogether, because they can't get their collective heads out of their asses and look around?

 

[Trippy]

Well, I wasn't. You might take another look at the actual status of the things you say, in real life - you don't set the terms of my discussions. I was taking the more conservative, generally agreed upon number for each actually tranpsired earthquake, to avoid appearing sensational and to keep the comparison honest.

Well, i've told you before, be more precise in what you say, and you'll avoid conclusions. I have repeatedly, in this discussion stated that the maximum earthquake we can expect is 8.1-8.3, therefore the saftey margin is based against the average (8.2) or the maximum (8.3) expected. According to you, anything less is irresponsible.

You can go explain that to the faults underlying the Prairie Island plant, and those extending to quite near the Monticello plant.

You tell them that they are not part of the New Madrid Seismic Zone, and are therefore not allowed to behave as if they were midcontinent faults near other midcontinent faults that have recently delivered 8+ level quakes. They won't listen to me, maybe they will listen to people who think they're experts.

Now you're just being stupid.

So? When somebody has figured out how to tell for sure that some place right next to a recent 8.6, on top of a convergent plate boundary, on a boundary that has elsewhere delivered 9+, is not going to hit hard itself, that truism will become relevant.

Until then, it isn't.

Bullshit.

Nope. Absolutely and quite obviously right. Not even a judgment call now - the thing already hit.

Oh the miracle of Hindsight :Yawn:
It hapened, therefore we should have anticpated it (which is bullshit) :Yawn:

Which is malpractice. The assessment needs to include the physcial ignorance available at the time, and the physical uncertainty available at the time, and some humble common sense available at all times - which would include a careful and sober consideration of a wide range of related situations, in time and in location.

More bullshit.

There lies the issue.

How do we convince technocrats that the statement, there, is not only true, but blindingly obvious? That their level of knowledge and expertise in these matters is not good enough to rely on in place of such simple and obvious judgments?

It isn't. It's patently false.
There's a logical fallacy in here, I forget the specific name for it, but your argument amounts to "I can't imagine how this could be true, therefore it isn't.

If being surprised, once again, by an unpredicted and unconsidered and unprepared for mishap (or near miss) is not enough to make them reconsider their approach, what is?

Presumably here you're refering to the Sunda fault and the fact that before 2004, it wasn't expected to be able to generate an M9+ earthquake?

And if we can't persuade them to be reasonable, how do we prevent them from creating these ridiculous scenes of disaster? Do we have to forbid them from building nuclear reactors altogether, because they can't get their collective heads out of their asses and look around?

Now you're just talking like an idiot.

 

[Trippy]

No, the problem is armchair experts like you prognosticating and pontificating without understanding the vile foulness that spews forth from their mouths as they take advantage of a developing situation to try and push their political agenda.

If anybody is wondering where this came from I've had six months of arm chair experts spouting soporific vitriol such as some of the comments that have been made in this comments about what should have been done, on topics ranging from Seismology, to Mine engineering, to structural engineering and earthquake standards, to now nuclear saftey standards.

 

[iceaura]

Well, i've told you before, be more precise in what you say, and you'll avoid conclusions.

And as we see again, precision has nothing to do with your inability to respond intelligently and in good faith.

For example:

Oh the miracle of Hindsight :Yawn:
It hapened, therefore we should have anticpated it (which is bullshit) :Yawn:

and we see that once again precision has nothing to do with that kind of obtuse misconstrual of what is perfectly plain.

To expand on the simple observation made: We - the naive and inexpert - did in fact notice and complain about the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to earthquakes (including specifically the Japanese ones built in major quake zones), and did in fact over many decades now quite forcefully complain about the misleading and mistaken and far too optimistic "expert" estimations of their safety and likelihood of destruction by earthquake as well as a variety of other causes. This event in general, at some plant or another in one of these fault zones, has been anticipated for many years now.

Just not by the "experts". It's only hindsight for them, not us.

Nothing about this situation, not the discovery that the backup systems weren't going to work as planned, not the failure to prepare for the effects of large earthquakes in a large earthquake region, not the sudden realization that lining up six reactors in one place has a downside, not the hazards of the MOX fuel and chosen waste storage setup, not the garbage and secrecy bollixing the media reports, not any of this, is a surprise to anyone following the nuclear power industry from the outside for the past few decades.

There's no hindsight here, for anyone but the industry and the technocrats - the rest of us have been living with this situation our whole lives. This mess you're looking at? That's the nuclear power industry, all the time.

Now you're just being stupid.

I'm trying to respond to your nonsense, without being too sarcastic. What could you possibly have been thinking of, with your little (and entirely unnecessary, btw) lecture about the official boundaries of the New Madrid Seismic zone? Did you intend to exemplify so clearly exactly what I am talking about as the major flaw in the technocrat's nuclear safety approach?

So? When somebody has figured out how to tell for sure that some place right next to a recent 8.6, on top of a convergent plate boundary, on a boundary that has elsewhere delivered 9+, is not going to hit hard itself, that truism will become relevant.

Until then, it isn't.
”
Bullshit.

Try arguing against the point made. You'll find it difficult. And that should tell you something about the attitude that leads you to dismiss it without thought or honest consideration.

 

[Trippy]

And as we see again, precision has nothing to do with your inability to respond intelligently and in good faith.

Give me something intelligent to respond to in good faith, and I will.

and we see that once again precision has nothing to do with that kind of obtuse misconstrual of what is perfectly plain.

Bullshit.

To expand on the simple observation made: We - the naive and inexpert - did in fact notice and complain about the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to earthquakes (including specifically the Japanese ones built in major quake zones), and did in fact over many decades now quite forcefully complain about the misleading and mistaken and far too optimistic "expert" estimations of their safety and likelihood of destruction by earthquake as well as a variety of other causes. This event in general, at some plant or another in one of these fault zones, has been anticipated for many years now.

Have you ever looked at the Japanese regulations around reactor construction and siting?
I have.
They're required to withstand a ground shaking three times higher than that modeled based on movements in the last 126,000 years, with more than a certain probability of occuring during the expected lifetime of the reactor. So in terms of margins, a reactor in a part of Japan that frequently experiences M8.6 earthquakes Should be able to withstand up to a M8.9-9 Earthquake before it begins to suffer structural failures. Same goes with Tsunamis - which are specifically mentioned in the legislation, the same legislation requires effects such as resonance (which can happen during an earthquake) and ammplification to be taken into account. This legislation was in place before construction of Fukushima Daiichi was begun, and Fukushima Daini and Onagawa, both of which went through the same earthquake, and the same Tsunami are both safely in a state of cold shut down.

I can not, at this time, find any information about what it was designed to withstand in terms of forces and depth of water for Tsunamis, and frankly, I can't be bothered looking for them to prove a point. Instead I will simply point to the fact that Onagawa and Fukushimi Daini were designed to the same standards, and presumably the same, or similar expectations, given their geographic proximity to each other, and so whatever led to the flooding of the diesel generators at Fukushima Daiichi was something 'unique' to that plant, or the topography of that area, or the Bathymetry of that area that lead to the Tsunami exceeding design limits.

Just not by the "experts". It's only hindsight for them, not us.

Bullshit.

Nothing about this situation, not the discovery that the backup systems weren't going to work as planned, not the failure to prepare for the effects of large earthquakes in a large earthquake region, not the sudden realization that lining up six reactors in one place has a downside, not the hazards of the MOX fuel and chosen waste storage setup, not the garbage and secrecy bollixing the media reports, not any of this, is a surprise to anyone following the nuclear power industry from the outside for the past few decades.

More bullshit.

There's no hindsight here, for anyone but the industry and the technocrats - the rest of us have been living with this situation our whole lives. This mess you're looking at? That's the nuclear power industry, all the time.

Vapid soporific vitriol.

I'm trying to respond to your nonsense, without being too sarcastic. What could you possibly have been thinking of, with your little (and entirely unnecessary, btw) lecture about the official boundaries of the New Madrid Seismic zone? Did you intend to exemplify so clearly exactly what I am talking about as the major flaw in the technocrat's nuclear safety approach?

:yawn:
None of which changes the fact that you were being stupid.
The approach is facts based.
Not all of us take safety lessons from Chicken Little.

Try arguing against the point made. You'll find it difficult. And that should tell you something about the attitude that leads you to dismiss it without thought or honest consideration.

Try making a point worth arguing against rather than waisting my time.

 

[Trippy]

Oh yeah.

Geologists had expected the portion of the Pacific "Ring of Fire" that produced this quake to yield a temblor on the order of magnitude 8 or perhaps 8.5, she said. "Something as big as an 8.9 is a bit of a surprise," she said.

A quake that big usually requires a long, relatively straight fault line that can rupture, such as those found in Peru and along the eastern coast of South America. Friday's quake occurred in the Japan Trench, where the Pacific tectonic plate slides under the Japan plate.

Scientists did not expect such a big quake in the area because the plate boundary is not straight, but is fairly irregular. According to Lucile Jones of the U.S. Geological Survey, a quake of that size would require rupturing a zone at least 300 miles long.

(Source)

Wait a minute. Isn't that just what I've said, in this very thread, that there was no reason to expect an M9 Earthquake could be generated in this part of Japan? Earthquakes that big require special conditions, and before last week it was not believed that those conditions existed in that area.

 

[DwayneD.L.Rabon]

Well as far as saftey is concerned in managing Nuclear Reactor sites, it is appearnt that supplies of aerogel, or chemicals that can gel in atmosphere are a nesscity, in order to trap and eliminate radioactive gases from traveling abroad and locally.

Here are some general ranges for uranium travel, and intreaction of uranium.the below scale is in Feet.
32
102
322
1,018
3,219
10,175
101,603
321,068

DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

[iceaura]

Wait a minute. Isn't that just what I've said, in this very thread, that there was no reason to expect an M9 Earthquake could be generated in this part of Japan? Earthquakes that big require special conditions, and before last week it was not believed that those conditions existed in that area.

Yep.

And that's the problem. A bunch of techies thought they knew something that anyone could (and many, in fact, did) easily see they didn't know with enough confidence to take the kind of risk they took.

The approach is facts based.
Not all of us take safety lessons from Chicken Little.

You should. Your confidence in your grasp of the facts is badly mistaken. You would make fewer gross errors, and risk killing fewer people, and risk creating fewer gigantic messes and thousand year disaster zones, if you quit dismissing perfectly sound reasoning and many times borne out warnings from people who have a proven better understanding of the nature of your expertise than you have.

The question is how to plant greater wisdom in that bunch of narrowminded, presumptuous experts. Failing that, how to keep them from involving us all in these horrible disasters.

Because this:

Just not by the "experts". It's only hindsight for them, not us.
”
Bullshit.

is not bullshit. It's a simple statement of fact. This disaster is long foreseen, and predicted, and expected, by a whole lot of people who have now had several decades of experience with the consequences of relying on these experts in the face of an observable and prudently assessable common reality - a reality which includes the consequences of quite a bit of this kind of expertise in action. What's happening here is not "hindsight", but "we told you so, dozens of times, for many many years".

 

[Trippy]

Yep.

And that's the problem. A bunch of techies thought they knew something that anyone could (and many, in fact, did) easily see they didn't know with enough confidence to take the kind of risk they took.

You should. Your confidence in your grasp of the facts is badly mistaken. You would make fewer gross errors, and risk killing fewer people, and risk creating fewer gigantic messes and thousand year disaster zones, if you quit dismissing perfectly sound reasoning and many times borne out warnings from people who have a proven better understanding of the nature of your expertise than you have.

Your reasoning is not sound.
You have not proven that you have a better grasp of anything than me (or anyone else for that matter).
The only thing that you have proven is that occasionally paranoid people are right. Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

The question is how to plant greater wisdom in that bunch of narrowminded, presumptuous experts. Failing that, how to keep them from involving us all in these horrible disasters.

So your argument amounts to this:
"I don't like the implications of the use of Nuclear Energy, so Geologists should throw out everything they've learned in 100+ years of emperical science to make me feel better."

No doubt, as a result of this, once the dust settles, they'll get out there boats, and they'll get some reflection profiles, maybe some core samples, and we'll figure out what actually happened, and the real reason things played out the way they did, and that will enable them to build better models of seismic risk, and provide the information that the engineers need to design safer plants, meanwhile the Industry continues researching better designs, just so that you can have your cake and eat it to.

Science.
It gets it wrong some times.
Until it gets it wrong, we have to assume it's right.
That's the way it works.

You develop a model, make a prediction, and use that model until something happens that provides you with more information, or contradicts your model.

It's a bitch aint it?

 

[iceaura]

Science.
It gets it wrong some times.
Until it gets it wrong, we have to assume it's right.

This alleged "science" already got it wrong, again. It's been getting it wrong for several decades now. Better scientists, with more sensible approaches, have been correcting its presumptions to omniscience for fifty years and more. The types of errors it routinely makes are very familiar now, and until we get some kind of assurance that it is going to stop making them, the reasonable assumption is that it won't.

You develop a model, make a prediction, and use that model until something happens that provides you with more information, or contradicts your model.

It's a bitch aint it?

The bitch is that people design and site nuclear power plants with those fucking models, as if the only thing at risk were the accuracy of their assessments.

You want to do science, refine models, investigate these fascinating topics? Fine - go for it. You want to build nuclear power plants? You need better judgment, and more reasonable approaches.

No doubt, as a result of this, once the dust settles, they'll get out there boats, and they'll get some reflection profiles, maybe some core samples, and we'll figure out what actually happened, and the real reason things played out the way they did, and that will enable them to build better models of seismic risk,

Talk about hindsight.

That's good science. We approve. But then, will they once again ignore prudence and obvious caveats, once again put their stamp of approval on this kind of utterly irresponsible, goofball risk taking at other people's expense? Because that's not science. That is politics. That is money talking, and experts bullshitting, one more time around the tilt a whirl.

 

[Trippy]

This alleged "science" already got it wrong, again. Better scientists, with more sensible approaches, have been correcting its presumptions to omniscience for fifty years and more. It's been getting it wrong for several decades now. The types of errors it routinely makes are very familiar now, and until we get some kind of assurance that it is going to stop making them, the reasonable assumption is that it won't.

This is the second time you've made this statement, I've asked you to clarify it, and you haven't.

The bitch is that people design and site nuclear power plants with those fucking models, as if the only thing at risk were the accuracy of their assessments.

And I suppose you have a better model - beyond inane paranoid assumptions, something that's, you know, verifiable, repeatable and refutable?

You want to do science, refine models, investigate these fascinating topics? Fine - go for it. You want to build nuclear power plants? You need better judgment, and more reasonable approaches.

:Sigh:
what part of my stating the oppoosite (that I live in a nuclear free country, and am generally opposed to Nuclear power) makes you think I have any interest in building more nuclear reactors?

Although, come to think of it, if it weren't for paranoia such as you're promulgating here, these reactors might have been decomissioned when they were supposed to be, and replaced with reactors designed according to more recent, more accurate science, that might have better withstood what happened, and the Japanese might not be in the situation they find themselves in now.

Anyway, this cake is great.
It's so delicious and moist.
Look at me still talking
when there's Science to do.
When I look out there, it makes me GLaD I'm not you.
I've experiments to run.
There is research to be done.
On the people who are still alive.

 

[iceaura]

And I suppose you have a better model - beyond inane paranoid assumptions, something that's, you know, verifiable, repeatable and refutable?

Model for what?

The geology of earthquake faults, that kind of thing? Of course not. That's what experts are for.

Making decisions about the prudent level of safety necessary in designing and siting nukes? Sure. For starters, include the historically obvious and the "human factor" in your "expected" risk, and then make your safety margins much larger than that "expected" risk. Shut down even "safely operating" plants that don't meet that obvious requirement, rather than rely on good luck. If it turns out you can't build to that standard economically, don't build.

This isn't rocket science - and it's very important that the rocket scientists involved realize that it isn't. This is political evaluation of the role of rocket science in projects that impose these kinds of risks. Part of the judgment is how and to what degree scientifically assessed risk is to be included.

According to the Japanese standards you posted, for example, reactors were to be assessed as "safe" if they could withstand a 126,000 year event. The first problem there is that the assessed risk is uncertain - there's a chance it's wrong, and that chance is not known scientifically. The second problem is that that's far too much risk for a setup of six reactors in a major earthquake zone. That decision, to run that risk, was political, not scientific.

 

[chimpkin]

occasionally paranoid people are right

Yes...yes, we are...In fact, one of the things that makes us so screechy is how often we're right.

The universe...seems to have an alarming tendency to run on Murphy's Law...and I'm given to understand Murphy was a structural engineer.

The thing is...the thing is with nuclear power, because of the threat of radioactivity and toxic heavy metals contamination...paranoia is a good thing.

For instance...someone might have said it was paranoid to have multiple redundant backup generators for pumps to cool the reactors...or some way to drop the reactors into a cooling pond in case of utter disaster...or overdesigning the entire site such that it could withstand a 9.2 quake or 40-foot tsunami

All that would have driven up the cost, yes. But we would not be having this convo now, as the reactors would have gone into safe mode just fine.

I still advocate for overdesign, very conservative siting, and for designing for the inevitable psychological complacency that results from a long history of problem-free operation.

Well, actually, I advocate for nuclear being a choice on par with coal, perhaps worse, and that we ought to be practicing efficiency and working on maturing the utility of renewables before we use nuclear.

 

[DwayneD.L.Rabon]

Well, Currently it appears that some wind controll would be nice, given the escape of radioactive gaseous elements.

It seems that their are several roads just wide enough to land some Jet liners at the Nuclear Facility. at least Three of them, such a effort would give some directional wind controll right at the structure. Most likly just enough to grasp the smoke and emmissions from the top of the facility and direct area.

This would allow a central location where gases could be spayed and dowsed (wetted down) with a gelatin and suppressed from traveling any great distance.

Spraying the area now would be in the best long term intrest of clean up efforts it can wait much longer to act as a prevention from ineffective clean up. Certainly in addition Spraying a ink marker would be the best in defining the path of gas plumes traveling in the wind.

Dwayne D.L.Rabon

 

[Trippy]

Model for what?

The geology of earthquake faults, that kind of thing? Of course not. That's what experts are for.

What, you mean those same experts that you just got through saying were wrong?

Making decisions about the prudent level of safety necessary in designing and siting nukes? Sure. For starters, include the historically obvious and the "human factor" in your "expected" risk, and then make your safety margins much larger than that "expected" risk. Shut down even "safely operating" plants that don't meet that obvious requirement, rather than rely on good luck. If it turns out you can't build to that standard economically, don't build.

This is precisely the approach which the Japanese used - I've already explained some of the legislation to you, investigate the faults in the area, investigate the maximum ground shaking expected from them, multiply it by three, and build to that standard.

But you just got through saying that this approach isn't good enough.

This isn't rocket science - and it's very important that the rocket scientists involved realize that it isn't. This is political evaluation of the role of rocket science in projects that impose these kinds of risks. Part of the judgment is how and to what degree scientifically assessed risk is to be included.

According to the Japanese standards you posted, for example, reactors were to be assessed as "safe" if they could withstand a 126,000 year event. The first problem there is that the assessed risk is uncertain - there's a chance it's wrong, and that chance is not known scientifically. The second problem is that that's far too much risk for a setup of six reactors in a major earthquake zone. That decision, to run that risk, was political, not scientific.

Risks can be evaluated based on the state of the scientific knowledge at the time. They key point here is that mother nature is a bitch, and she's always got something else up her sleeve that may be both unanticipated, and uninticipatable. Yes, yes, you keep going on and on and on about Alaska and some of the big quakes further south, but the point that you keep missing, and I have endeavoured to explain repeatedly is that up until last week, the kinds of faults that were expected to create a M9 earthquake were simply not known to exist in this area, and were not expected to pose a credible risk.

By the Logic you're espousing here, We should plan on a 20km fault with half a meter of displacement on it, that ruptured once a million years ago producing an M8+ shake.

That's not a credible risk, and it's not a justifiable assumption.