 |
|
|
|
 |
geroin
Supreme tranceaddict

Registered: Nov 2003
Location:
|
|
|
Mar-18-2011 13:54
|
|
|
 |
 |
PivotTechno
senseless

Registered: Feb 2008
Location: Citizen, World
|
|
|
Mar-18-2011 14:23
|
|
|
 |
 |
srussell0018
Chaostician

Registered: Dec 2006
Location: Blumsberg
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by geroin
where did you read this information?
it was built to withstand an earthquake with a maximum surface magnitude of 7. This is the main concern. Most nuclear power plants are built on a location that has the least seismicity in the area, most are not even built if the possibility of magnitude 8 earthquake and if they are, they are built to withstand an 8. In Japan they don't have this privilege of choosing a very good location but still there is a possibility of an earthquake at any time including the tsunami hence they must have measures to prevent such a catasrophe. For a nation that is the most advanced in the world this was a massive fuck up on behalf of the whole engineering team + officials that are responsible for the safety and proper building codes. |
A massive fuck up in not anticipating a freak event that only happens about once every couple hundred years when the reactor was built like 35 years ago? The earthquake was not the problem. When the earthquake hit, the plant responded exactly how it's meant to. It was the tsunami that caused so much problems when it wiped out power to the backup generators. Japan is dependent on nuclear energy, and they live in an area that is at high risk for earthquakes. Everybody knows that there are risks that come with nuclear power plants, and they had taken every conceivable precaution to prevent anything like this from happening.
I mean come on, a fucking 9.0 earthquake and a 10 meter high tsunami? If the plant was unsafe, or they had any doubts as to its ability to withstand a natural disaster, it would have been shut down a long time ago. Reactors have melted down in the past without any natural disasters whatsoever. You're suggesting that they design a nuclear reactor that has 0% risk of failure, and that's simply not possible with the nature of nuclear energy.
Maybe oil refineries should make fireproof oil too
They did have measures to prevent a catastrophe like this. The thing you're forgetting is that the combination of an earthquake of that magnitude and a tsunami of that size and force is such a freak occurrence that what the reactor was built to withstand actually was reasonable. You can go on and on about "Oh well they should take every conceivable disaster into consideration" but if that's the case, there would be no nuclear power in the world because there's always a risk of something completely unexpected like this happening.
___________________
| quote: | Originally posted by OrangestO
This isn't about physics, this is about waves.
|
|
|
Mar-18-2011 15:58
|
|
|
 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:04.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|