Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,081 Year: 5,338/9,624 Month: 363/323 Week: 3/204 Day: 3/21 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Japan
Inactive Member

Message 50 of 175 (608988)
03-15-2011 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by dronestar
03-15-2011 4:06 PM

Re: for Rahvin . . .
dronester writes:
The New Orleans coastal/dam system was designed for a rated 3-4 hurricane because historically that area could expect a 3-4 hurricane.
Not so. New Orleans was not designed to withstand the storms that were expected based on history. A similar hurricane had reached New Orleans in 1947. Hurricane Camille in 1969 was a category 5 hurricane at landfall, but missed New Orleans.
It was well know that the levee system in New Orleans was woefully inadequate. Further, Hurricane Katrina was a mere category 3 storm at the time it arrived at New Orleans.
At 7:10 a.m. EDT on August 29, Hurricane Katrina made landfall in southern Plaquemines Parish Louisiana, just south of Buras, as a Category 3 hurricane. Maximum winds were estimated near 125 mph to the east of the center.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by dronestar, posted 03-15-2011 4:06 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by dronestar, posted 03-16-2011 9:21 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Inactive Member

Message 60 of 175 (609007)
03-15-2011 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Rahvin
03-15-2011 7:43 PM

Re: "Worst case scenario"
Do modern reactors use carbon in their control rods?
Rahvin writes:
They don't typically explain the mechanism by which so many people would be exposed to actually-dangerous levels of radiation.
I don't believe the worst case scenario involves exposures to acute doses of radiation. Relatively few people are exposed to that danger.
I always thought that the worst case scenario was the release of fission products from the fuel into the atmosphere and ground water. What that would take would be some mechanism for damaging containment coupled with a meltdown that destroyed the integrity of the fuel system so that the fission products are no longer retained in the fuel cladding.
In particular things like Strontium 90, radioactive isotopes of iodine, radon, and other short lived radionucides are life threatening hazzards in relatively small amounts and some are very difficult/impossible to remove from the body.
Even in our wildest nightmares, we are not looking at another Chernobyl. Not even close.
Probably not, but we don't know yet if the worst is over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2011 7:43 PM Rahvin has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 67 of 175 (609071)
03-16-2011 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Buzsaw
03-15-2011 8:07 PM

Re: Risk And Energy
Buzsaw writes:
In America it's an oddity for government to intervene in the risk factor relative to creating energy from anything. Since our republic was founded, it's been up to citizens and companies as to whether risk should be a factor in any kind of mining industry.
Coal mining is heavily regulated. We've had government regulation of mines since the 1890s. You have heard of MSHA haven't you?
Coal mine operators appear to be adept at evading safety regulations and the inspection/enforcement of the regulations is woefully underfunded. We don't live in 1849 anymore.
Buzzer writes:
What people forget is how many millions have lost their lives due to the loss of freedom or trying to regain lost freedom. Let freedom ring and let people decide whether the risk of death or injury is worth the venture.
Your freedom ends where my nose begins.
Buzszaw writes:
There's been no end in these last decades to the restrictive policies of government which have left us beholden to the oppressive Muslim nations of the Middle East
No rant is ever complete without a Muslim slam.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 03-15-2011 8:07 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 134 of 175 (609445)
03-20-2011 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Huntard
03-20-2011 4:54 AM

Unexpected Tsunami??
Huntard writes:
So, even though an earthquake that was about 33 x 33 times more powerful than what it was designed to withstand hit it, it still got through rather unscathed. It was only after it was hit by a wall of water, that it got into some problems. And so far it seems they might even be able to control the current situation as well.
This is a little bit naive. Earthquakes of the magnitude that occurred were not unexpected and given such an earthquake, wasn't the tsunami inevitable? Surely the wall of water was no huge surprise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Huntard, posted 03-20-2011 4:54 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Rahvin, posted 03-21-2011 12:55 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024