CNN An 8.8-magnitude earthquake has struck Japan

[Beet]

I don't.

Not to mention the backup generators were taken out by the flood, not the earthquake or epic winds. I highly doubt a tornado would cause damage (at least where it matters) to a Nuclear reactor. There is a slight chance a Hurricane could send in a surge that could affect a nuclear plant by the ocean, but even then the strongest hurricanes don't send a surge anything remotely close to the Tsunami that ripped through Japan. And remember this is a part of the world that gets some of the most intense storms out there. I am pretty sure the plants were built to withstand them. Hell, I am sure a few have blown over them, though I can't say with certainty.

Of course the fact that I don't know that any hypothetical tornado or hurricane would necessarily destroy any power system it came across has no bearing on my point that it is a risk that must be accounted for. Why you asked that question is baffling. It would be the height of absurdity if I said I did know what would happen in a broad hypothetical scenario with no parameters specified.

Are you an expert on power generation, hurricanes, and nuclear plants? No? Then what is "I am pretty sure..." and "I highly doubt" worth? No one can responsibly put public safety at the hands of such amateur assertions and guesses.

Hurricanes and tornadoes pick up objects and fling them at extremely high speeds. It is not impossible to think they could damage a backup power generator enough to disable it. This is exactly what happened to an emergency communications system during Hurricane Katrina:

"Throughout the duration of Hurricane Katrina, the EDACS system remained operational. It wasnt until several hours after the storm had passed that the system experienced reduced operation. The system did not experience diminished capabilities due to an equipment failure, but rather the systems generator (on the roof of the forty-two story Energy Centre) was struck by a piece of debris, which damaged the generators radiator. "

http://govpro.com/technology/telecommunications/gov_imp_31441/

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But Beet, the New Madrid Fault Line has significantly less intense earthquakes.  They haven't had an earthquake that reached 6.0 magnitude in over 100 years.

As for asteroids... that could hit anything anywhere and blow it up.  Using that as an excuse would be like using that as an excuse against any plants that process explosives.  As for tornadoes, a strong concrete and steel building (which is what most, if not all, reactor buildings are constructed of) would survive most tornadoes, including most EF5s we've observed.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

 . . . and the map hoax gets more alarmist and elaborate.

[Middle-aged Europe]

. . . and the map hoax gets more alarmist and elaborate.

Well folks, it's over. Seems to me that America is doomed.

[GMantis]

Beet, they are already saying no risk in the US:  http://www.komonews.com/news/local/117860469.html

but that's no risk based on what has happened so far, not what could happen.  I wouldn't discount the map beet posted

You should.

discount it based on what, exactly, shua's blog link?  I used to write software for nuclear plants back in 94-95, and it was my understanding that a meltdown through the containment floor would send lethal doses of radiation 1000's of miles away.  I'm not sure the radiation levels of the map are correct, but the west coast would have to be evacuated

Why would an underground steam explosion send more radioactive material (thousands of times more, according to you) in the air than an open reactor fire? Could you give some source to confirm these rather outlandish claim?

[muon2]

I don't.

Not to mention the backup generators were taken out by the flood, not the earthquake or epic winds. I highly doubt a tornado would cause damage (at least where it matters) to a Nuclear reactor. There is a slight chance a Hurricane could send in a surge that could affect a nuclear plant by the ocean, but even then the strongest hurricanes don't send a surge anything remotely close to the Tsunami that ripped through Japan. And remember this is a part of the world that gets some of the most intense storms out there. I am pretty sure the plants were built to withstand them. Hell, I am sure a few have blown over them, though I can't say with certainty.

We have more nuclear power in northern IL than in any other part of the US. We also get a lot of tornadoes here. Many have passed near the nuke plants, but breaches were never a concern - the winds are not going to crack the thick concrete of the reactor. It's much stronger than any tornado shelter I've been in. There could be a lot of damage to the connecting grid outside, but the backup systems are safely within the building and an orderly shutdown would proceed until exterior repairs could be made.

As noted, it was the powerful tsunami right after an historic quake that combined to cripple Fukashima.

[J. J.]

Beet, they are already saying no risk in the US:  http://www.komonews.com/news/local/117860469.html

but that's no risk based on what has happened so far, not what could happen.  I wouldn't discount the map beet posted

You should.

discount it based on what, exactly, shua's blog link?  I used to write software for nuclear plants back in 94-95, and it was my understanding that a meltdown through the containment floor would send lethal doses of radiation 1000's of miles away.  I'm not sure the radiation levels of the map are correct, but the west coast would have to be evacuated

And the press reports, and the fact that the US mainland is more than 4,500 miles away.

We have had high levels of radiation for years, from air testing, and we never got these "lethal doses of radiation" even though some travel.  Likewise, we bombed Japan with nuclear weapons, twice, and we never had to evacuate LA or San Fransisco.

All that said, I wouldn't want be in Northeast Japan or the north western Pacific in the next few weeks.

[Beet]

But Beet, the New Madrid Fault Line has significantly less intense earthquakes.  They haven't had an earthquake that reached 6.0 magnitude in over 100 years.

When's the last time Japan had a 9.0 magnitude quake? The Great Kanto quake, e.g. Tokyo earthquake of 1923, was only 7.9 in magnitude, e.g. this quake was 10 times worse than that in amplitude.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But a nuclear meltdown could spread damage over a far greater area and longer time than an explosives plant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reactors are Fukushima were not knocked down and I'm not talking about reactors. I'm talking about the backup power generators. I've already posted an example where a hurricane took out a power generator above.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Beet, they are already saying no risk in the US:  http://www.komonews.com/news/local/117860469.html

but that's no risk based on what has happened so far, not what could happen.  I wouldn't discount the map beet posted

You should.

discount it based on what, exactly, shua's blog link?  I used to write software for nuclear plants back in 94-95, and it was my understanding that a meltdown through the containment floor would send lethal doses of radiation 1000's of miles away.  I'm not sure the radiation levels of the map are correct, but the west coast would have to be evacuated

Why would an underground steam explosion send more radioactive material (thousands of times more, according to you) in the air than an open reactor fire? Could you give some source to confirm these rather outlandish claim?

The Russia explosion only spread 3% of the nuke fissionable material and the available byproducts into the environment.   Explosions aren’t very efficient of spreading nuclear material because youre basically blowing the reactor apart and stopping the fission process.

A meltdown through the containment floor, on the other hand, is a continuation of an uncontrolled fission process, WITH ALL ITS NASTY BYPRODUCTS.  Once it hits the water table, the steam will provide a path to the surface and the atmosphere.   

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I refuse to believe that these quakes are unrelated.

Which ones? Obviously all earthquakes along the same plate boundary are related (at least to an extent) because the forces that cause them are the same. But it isn't as though there's an equilibrium that gets knocked out of balance or anything.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

They haven't had an earthquake that reached 6.0 magnitude in over 100 years.

A hundred years is nothing in geological time though.

[J. J.]

Beet, they are already saying no risk in the US:  http://www.komonews.com/news/local/117860469.html

but that's no risk based on what has happened so far, not what could happen.  I wouldn't discount the map beet posted

You should.

discount it based on what, exactly, shua's blog link?  I used to write software for nuclear plants back in 94-95, and it was my understanding that a meltdown through the containment floor would send lethal doses of radiation 1000's of miles away.  I'm not sure the radiation levels of the map are correct, but the west coast would have to be evacuated

Why would an underground steam explosion send more radioactive material (thousands of times more, according to you) in the air than an open reactor fire? Could you give some source to confirm these rather outlandish claim?

The Russia explosion only spread 3% of the nuke fissionable material and the available byproducts into the environment.   Explosions aren’t very efficient of spreading nuclear material because youre basically blowing the reactor apart and stopping the fission process.

A meltdown through the containment floor, on the other hand, is a continuation of an uncontrolled fission process, WITH ALL ITS NASTY BYPRODUCTS.  Once it hits the water table, the steam will provide a path to the surface and the atmosphere.   

And the steam does not get worldwide distribution, nor would all of radioactive materials be aerosolized.   Once in the cooler air temperature, any steam will quickly condense.  I doubt if dumping deep in the Pacific would case that.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

They haven't had an earthquake that reached 6.0 magnitude in over 100 years.

A hundred years is nothing in geological time though.

Or in any weather-related time.......ask New Orleans.

[GMantis]

Beet, they are already saying no risk in the US:  http://www.komonews.com/news/local/117860469.html

but that's no risk based on what has happened so far, not what could happen.  I wouldn't discount the map beet posted

You should.

discount it based on what, exactly, shua's blog link?  I used to write software for nuclear plants back in 94-95, and it was my understanding that a meltdown through the containment floor would send lethal doses of radiation 1000's of miles away.  I'm not sure the radiation levels of the map are correct, but the west coast would have to be evacuated

Why would an underground steam explosion send more radioactive material (thousands of times more, according to you) in the air than an open reactor fire? Could you give some source to confirm these rather outlandish claim?

The Russia explosion only spread 3% of the nuke fissionable material and the available byproducts into the environment.   Explosions aren’t very efficient of spreading nuclear material because youre basically blowing the reactor apart and stopping the fission process.

A meltdown through the containment floor, on the other hand, is a continuation of an uncontrolled fission process, WITH ALL ITS NASTY BYPRODUCTS.  Once it hits the water table, the steam will provide a path to the surface and the atmosphere.   

And the steam does not get worldwide distribution, nor would all of radioactive materials be aerosolized.   Once in the cooler air temperature, any steam will quickly condense.  I doubt if dumping deep in the Pacific would case that.

Not to mention that much of the radioactive material would be absorbed while traveling  between the water table and the surface.
There is also the question whether the reaction could continue for long when the material is in a dispersed state and not bundled together as in the reactor.

[Mechaman]

Alarmist much Beet and jmfsct?

[RI]

Alarmist much Beet and jmfsct?

It's pretty well established that Beet...gets concerned easily.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

. . . and the map hoax gets more alarmist and elaborate.

Pacific [ultra-low voice]DEADZONE[/ultra-low voice]

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Alarmist much Beet and jmfsct?

I'm simply relaying my training when I worked in nuke power plants in '94-95...which is probably more training than sum total of the rest of you yahoos, aside from muon.

the only action I have taken is to inform my wife back in Houston to keep the Excursion's fuel tank at least 3/4 full for the next week until this plays out

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But Beet, the New Madrid Fault Line has significantly less intense earthquakes.  They haven't had an earthquake that reached 6.0 magnitude in over 100 years.

When's the last time Japan had a 9.0 magnitude quake? The Great Kanto quake, e.g. Tokyo earthquake of 1923, was only 7.9 in magnitude, e.g. this quake was 10 times worse than that in amplitude.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But a nuclear meltdown could spread damage over a far greater area and longer time than an explosives plant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reactors are Fukushima were not knocked down and I'm not talking about reactors. I'm talking about the backup power generators. I've already posted an example where a hurricane took out a power generator above.

But the mid-U.S. hasn't had close to even a 7.9 in a long time.  The earthquakes there are generally weaker.  Your argument against the spreading damage would go for anything that can spread damage over a wide area... at the point we have a large asteroid strike, the nuclear impacts won't matter as much.  And the likeliness of a meteorite hitting and damaging it is so small.

As for tornadoes/hurricanes, if we're just talking about back-up generators failing, plants have contingency plans for what to do when severe weather approaches, and the generators have worked in the 2 instances I know of.  And, there's always the option to take a plant offline temporarily when a hurricane approaches (not quite as much warning time with a tornado, but the likeliness of that is smaller).

[GMantis]

Alarmist much Beet and jmfsct?

I'm simply relaying my training when I worked in nuke power plants in '94-95...which is probably more training than sum total of the rest of you yahoos, aside from muon.

the only action I have taken is to inform my wife back in Houston to keep the Excursion's fuel tank at least 3/4 full for the next week until this plays out

You would be better received if you actually gave some confirmation this supposed effects of a meltdown. I'm sorry, but your claims simply do not seem plausible

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

They haven't had an earthquake that reached 6.0 magnitude in over 100 years.

A hundred years is nothing in geological time though.

It is for a power plant.  If a plant is built, it's not still going to be running in 100 years... they'll be in different locations, and by that point, who knows what power sources we'll have.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Alarmist much Beet and jmfsct?

I'm simply relaying my training when I worked in nuke power plants in '94-95...which is probably more training than sum total of the rest of you yahoos, aside from muon.

the only action I have taken is to inform my wife back in Houston to keep the Excursion's fuel tank at least 3/4 full for the next week until this plays out

if dangerous radiation were to actually go all the way from Japan to east of the rockies, driving a few more hundred miles wouldn't make a difference.

[Beet]

But Beet, the New Madrid Fault Line has significantly less intense earthquakes.  They haven't had an earthquake that reached 6.0 magnitude in over 100 years.

When's the last time Japan had a 9.0 magnitude quake? The Great Kanto quake, e.g. Tokyo earthquake of 1923, was only 7.9 in magnitude, e.g. this quake was 10 times worse than that in amplitude.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But a nuclear meltdown could spread damage over a far greater area and longer time than an explosives plant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reactors are Fukushima were not knocked down and I'm not talking about reactors. I'm talking about the backup power generators. I've already posted an example where a hurricane took out a power generator above.

But the mid-U.S. hasn't had close to even a 7.9 in a long time.  The earthquakes there are generally weaker.

That doesn't mean anything. In fact, quite the opposite... the longer a plate has gone without a large earthquake, the more likely a large earthquake will occur, because it means that pressure has had more time to build up.

According to modern estimates, the New Madrid fault had a 7.7 earthquake in 1811, 7.7 and a 7.5 in 1812.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which excludes alternate sources of power, like non-nuclear, coal-fired plants, or solar plants, or wind farms. Yeah, the windmills can fall down, but that spreading damage over such a wide area as a nuclear catastrophe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's like saying, 50,000 people died, so another 10,000 people dying "won't matter as much." It'll matter when it happens.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Take the plant offline? That's not an option for a nuclear reactor, which is the entire point. Just because something worked in 2 instances doesn't mean it's safe. Obviously I'm talking about highly abnormal and stronger-than-normal phenomenal, not your typical "severe weather" or tornado or hurricane.

----

Also, I'd like to add, since we are far from finding out what exactly the problems are in Fukushima & what precisely was the cause, anyone declaring "everything is safe/could never happen here" is premature.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Alarmist much Beet and jmfsct?

I'm simply relaying my training when I worked in nuke power plants in '94-95...which is probably more training than sum total of the rest of you yahoos, aside from muon.

the only action I have taken is to inform my wife back in Houston to keep the Excursion's fuel tank at least 3/4 full for the next week until this plays out

You would be better received if you actually gave some confirmation this supposed effects of a meltdown. I'm sorry, but your claims simply do not seem plausible

First, let it be noted that earlier in this thread I made no claim to the resulting radiation levels in the US.  Rather I simply said at least portions of the West Coast would have to evacuate in a worst case scenario.

If you listen closely, you can hear the officials allude to the possibility:  “at this time there is no threat to the US, but we are monitoring the situation carefully”…”there is no threat, right now, of this getting into the jet stream”.

The capability of the jet stream over Japan to carry things over the western US has been know from decades, for it is what Japan used to send balloon bombs to the US during WWII.

 But I am still a HUGE proponent of nuclear power.  The plant in question is old and the newer designs would not have had this problem.

[phk]

But apparently you are not, O wise one (yes, you know that I would catch this post).

Of course you would *hughughug*

The cognitive-scientists-are-cognitive-so-if-we-believe-them-we-can't-trust-them argument has always been a bit strange to me, but whatever—I think the rest of my post still stands.  Your excellency, am I allowed to say I find it inconsistent for environmentalists to (rightfully, I believe) shriek in alarm about the deleterious effects of fossil fuels but forget about that whenever a nuclear plant does something vaguely negative, despite the fact that the worst nuclear power accident in history has resulted/will result in, oh, 4,000-ish deaths, which is probably wildly less than the number of deaths that will be attributable to global warming over the next century?

After this and the New Zealand quakes... I'm sure this has been covered earlier in the thread somewhere, but is there any indication as to which fault lines are the most likely next events?

Such things are not predictable

"Around fault lines"... that's about it.

Acknowledgment doesn't necessarily cure fallacies or "judgmental errors".

We went through the dot-com and housing bubble at the same time.

Of course it makes one more aware but avoiding the fallacy certainly seems less natural as it takes more time and is less automatic.