| Pages:
1
..
3
4
5
6 |
Bajahowodd
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9274
Registered: 12-15-2008
Location: Disneyland Adjacent and anywhere in Baja
Member Is Offline
|
|
Huh?
| Quote: | Originally posted by Woooosh
I'm starting to give credence to the "world ends on 12/21/2012 people". Between escalating natural disasters, north Africa and Mid-East political
instability and the teetering world economy I'm almost willing to give that Mayan calendar thing the benefit of the doubt. It seems everything is
percolating. |
Not so certain you ought to be giving the Mayans so much credit.
Fact is that there have been a number of nutty, fringy groups, and even not so fringy.
A case can be made that so much of the anti-evolution movement, and those fighting against the environmentalists, do so because they are c-cksure that
the world will be ending soon. Or at least, the rapture is nigh.
http://contenderministries.org/prophecy/endtimes.php
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Insensitive ? Moi ?
As somebody once said, I Resemble THAT Remark.
Liberals (mostly) and others WASTE a lot of time with Heart-Rending expressions of "supposed" sympathies they likely don't mean and which accomplish
nothing even if sincere..
Not having had anything to do with the event and mostly powerless to have anything to do with the recovery, expressing some sort of "Me Feel Good"
sympathy is a waste of time and contrary to good sense. IMHO.
What I ventured was simply a statement of factual analysis. I wasn't taking a philosophical position pro or con. I prefer to look at these things
with an actuarial eye. Sort of like those at Ford who made the "Pinto" decision.
Made sense to me.
Given the poor Financial shape that Japan is currently in (prior debt at 200 percent of GNP according to one analyst) this loss of resource, without a
corresponding reduction of human liability, is going to be a difficult hurdle.
The MOST unfortunate aspect of the whole business is the extent to which this is likely to set back Nuclear Energy development.
We'll regret that when everything else is cleaned up and buried.
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Spot on .....
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
When the costs of cleaning up the destroyed reactors is added to the cost of building them it is likely to be many times the value of the power that
was generated by them. I'll be thinking about that the next time I hear a politician bloviating about safe nuclear power.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
To be fair you should compare the money generated by ALL reactors to the cost of repairing one reactor. It seems to me.
|
|
|
DENNIS
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 29510
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
|
|
Possible 10,000 dead in one district?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42056235/ns/world_news-asia-paci...
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
To be fair you should compare the money generated by ALL reactors to the cost of repairing one reactor. It seems to me. |
It's likely that all 6 reactors on that stretch of coastline have been rendered useless.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
Yeah, I'm rethinking the whole nuclear thing. Things could have been a lot worse for all of us. Nuclear power in that region was probably a bad idea.
I wonder if they will reassess their decisions. They have fewer choices than we do.
|
|
|
KurtG
Super Nomad
Posts: 1205
Registered: 1-27-2004
Location: California Central Coast
Member Is Offline
Mood: Press On Regardless!!
|
|
It was reported this morning that the surge at Port San Luis was 6.6 ft. Since the forecast had been 5-7 ft it was quite accurate for this part of
the coast.
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Drawing Incorrect Parallels
I could care less how they arrive at a cost ratio provided it's "Honestly" arrived at.
The danger is that parallels will be drawn where none exist in order to make points AGAINST the use of Nuclear Power.
They "Should" look at WHAT EXACTLY went wrong and COMPARE that to U.S. procedures and conditions followed and address any weaknesses in design which
appear as a result. Conditions which are NOT similar have NO IMPORTANCE in that debate vis-a-vis U.S. production. From what I've seen, the coastal
siting conditions in the affected locations were quite different than siting in the U.S.
Just as Chernobyl was immaterial to the question of Nuclear Power in the U.S., no doubt, many of the conditions in Japan will also be immaterial.
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18398
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Yeah, I'm rethinking the whole nuclear thing. Things could have been a lot worse for all of us. Nuclear power in that region was probably a bad idea.
I wonder if they will reassess their decisions. They have fewer choices than we do. |
most everywhere in CA is potentially near a magnitude 7+ quake. Why would anyone want to live near a reactor that gets shaken by a quake? Engineers
tell you they engineer for such events, but truth is: it is hard to predict what will fail if you subject a structure to high acceleration and
several minutes of intense shaking. engineers only learn by analyzing failure. do you think that engineers will tell you about problems they may
have learnt about since san onofre and diablo canyon were constructed 20+ years ago?
conservatives argue for nuclear power, but you won't find any conservatives that want to site a nuke plant in their neighborhood.
unless a conservative lives within 2 miles of a nuke plant, don't believe his/her support of nuke power! (perhaps such support would be reason to
question their intelligence)
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64857
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
"conservatives argue for nuclear power, but you won't find any conservatives that want to site a nuke plant in their neighborhood.
unless a conservative lives within 2 miles of a nuke plant, don't believe his/her support of nuke power! (perhaps such support would be reason to
question their intelligence)"
Wow, I guess you never heard of San Clemente, CA and the Western White House of President Nixon... just as close to San Onofre as a house could get???
Liberals argue for wind turbines, but you won't find any near where they live! (Cape Cod, for example)
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
In the Neighborhood
While I never "Lived" next door to a Nuclear Power Plant, I WOULD have if the locale on the coast was one which appealed to me and I could afford it.
I DID spend a LOT of time surfing and swimming adjacent to San Onofre and never gave it a second-thought.
And, I'm still here. Not glowing in the dark.
As far as an Earthquake Location goes, wasn't the "Problem" that crippled the Nip-Nukes, due to the Tsunami ?
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18398
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
"conservatives argue for nuclear power, but you won't find any conservatives that want to site a nuke plant in their neighborhood.
unless a conservative lives within 2 miles of a nuke plant, don't believe his/her support of nuke power! (perhaps such support would be reason to
question their intelligence)"
Wow, I guess you never heard of San Clemente, CA and the Western White House of President Nixon... just as close to San Onofre as a house could get???
Liberals argue for wind turbines, but you won't find any near where they live! (Cape Cod, for example) |
hard to understand the motives and words of a crook and liar. i can't explain nixon, as i am not a crook or liar and don't understand how you
crooks/liars think
|
|
|
toneart
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4901
Registered: 7-23-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skeptical
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
To be fair you should compare the money generated by ALL reactors to the cost of repairing one reactor. It seems to me. |
Nuclear power plants on seismic faults, whether in Japan or the California Coastline, is NOT a good idea. Then there is the double whammy of the quake
intensity and the potential for a Tsunami.
As to comparing, "you should compare the money generated by ALL reactors to the cost of repairing one reactor"...(and now it appears that several,
not one, are involved in partial meltdowns). Yes the statement is fair, but the greatest factor of all is the human element. When considering any
energy source, people come first! Money isn't everything.
This tragedy in Japan is hard to watch. 
|
|
|
theBajabum
Junior Nomad
Posts: 36
Registered: 2-13-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
Not seeing much of a change in Ensenada right now.
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
Nuclear power is a good deal. Regarding living next to a power plant. Some of those cooling ponds have excellent fishing. I'd rather not live next to
any type "plant" other than live oaks, palms, cedars, etc.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
The news bulletins say that the potential meltdown occurred because the quake disrupted the electrical power that runs the cooling systems and the
diesel powered backup failed due to being inundated by the tsunami waters. Radiation didn't escape because the pressure never got high enough to blow
the outer structure.
But what would have happened it this were an 11 pt quake? Just because they haven't happened - they could. We know that major geologic events happen
to this planet. We're sitting on a ball of fire.
The process of reengineering based upon the last event that current standards didn't meet doesn't appeal to me as each new 'accident' exceeds the
damage of any previous one. The prudent thing is to ban these plants along the 'ring of fire' and use safer regions.
To compare it to baja: after two recent disasters at Mulege you don't built sturdier walls. You leave the flood plain and move to higher ground.
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
To compare it to baja: after two recent disasters at Mulege you don't built sturdier walls. You leave the flood plain and move to higher ground.
|
|
|
|
landyacht318
Nomad
Posts: 247
Registered: 7-28-2007
Member Is Offline
|
|
According to NHK World English,
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/
The toll is likely in the tens of thousands.
Your political squabblings belong elsewhere.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
3
4
5
6 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
