The following is correct: the word "Mississippi" does not mean "Great River" or "Big River" or "anything River", in any language.
So "Mississsippi River" is not a "tautology", as you label things.
My interest in having this conversation with you is approximately 0, I have no reason to accept your word for it over anything else I have read, and I have no reason to pursue this further with you here, or on the linguistics board.
I made no such inference, and came to no such conclusion.
Yes you did, by virtue of this statement.
I lumped your statements downplaying the explosion, etc, in with the others downplaying and minimizing all other threatening aspects of this event, because they fit right in - they were all evidence supporting my assertion, which was and remains that minimizing and reassuring (much of it invalid) have played a more important role than panic mongering in the public discussion.
It was wrongly "known", badly misquantified, and - this is the key -> increasingly so as time went on and the erosions failed to produce disaster.
Instead of taking warning from the unexpected problems, they took comfort from the lack of dire consequences each time.
And?
It was still a known risk.
I only said it had been quantified, not that it had been quantified correctly, in fact it wasn't that long ago that I stated that engineers had quantified it wrongly.
Earthquakes and tsunamis of all sizes are not unprecedented, and there is plenty of physical evidence of them having occasionally occurred in Japan.
But that isn't what I said, was it.
I will grant you that it might have been a reasonable inference though - even if it does contradict what I've said elsewhere in this thread.
There was supposed to be a caveat in that sentence limiting the scope (or it should have been implicit) to a regional one, rather than being a national statement.
There is evidence for three tsunami deposits in the last 3,000 years on the Sendai plains, the most recent one being 869 AD, with a height of that Tsunami was around 2m. And yes, there is evidence for Much larger Tsunamis elsewhere in Japan, but then again, the Tsunami that was 10m in Sendai was <2 in other partd of the Japanese pacific coast.
Tell me, are houses in Minnesota built to the Californian building code?
Surely the big ones in Alaska, right across the ocean involving the same plate etc, recently - since WWII and the invention of nuclear power - provided all the reminder necessary? if the big one that hit Kobe in the 60s was not enough, or the many preWar ones over history.
The Aleutian eartquakes and Tsunamis, and the 1869 Sanriku earthquake involve (potentially) different mechanisms from what you expect even from a megathrust. Kobe was also a different mechanism.
And if the possibility was overlooked, that doesn't change my argument at all - that is still evidence that the safety ascribed to nuclear power operations is not accurately assessed in general, and the arguments used to support the complacency are seriously and obviously flawed.
So once again we come back to your point that you think that the power industry should build to a standard where if something that happens that we have no reason to suspect can happen or will happen, happens it will survive?
In 2007, it was estimated that there was a 99% chance of an M[sub]w[/sub]8.1-8.3 earthquake occuring in the next 30 years.
Where do you draw the line iceaura?
1 in 100 years? I live within cooey of a major faultline that has a reccurrence period of 160 years.
1 in 1000 years? Banqiao dam was built to this standard, and it still failed. Tsunamis are estimated to inundate the Sendai plains once every 1100 years.
1 in 2000 years? It's estimated that the Aleutian Islands earthquake was a 1 in 2000 year event because of the type of earthquake it involves. The storm that caused the Banqiao dam to fail was a 1 in 2000 year event.
1 in 15,000 years? Siesmologists estimate it's been at least 15,000 years since the greendale fault ruptured.
