BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

I_am_Tosk

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:14:17 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 22:27:58 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:19:08 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:21:02 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:01:27 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:50:46 -0400, wrote:

I would have the plant very close to the lake... just down hill from
it.

The problem is most lakes are at the bottom of the hill. That is why
survival training teaches you, when in doubt, walk down hill. That is
where the water is and people congregate around the water.

It's a tough problem... we do have lakes formed by dams. Those spill
into rivers. There are several around here.

You would certainly want to be sure your spillway was not going
towards the plant or you could have a man made tsunami if the dam
broke

Yep... perhaps it's time to rethink my great idea.

It is not a bad idea, it will just have to be used in a carefully
selected spot.
I think the lesson we will take away from this is to be more careful
where we put our new nuke plants. We probably should be picking sites
and building the plant to suit the site.

I just heard on tv that the most dangerous one is just outside of
NY... even more dangerous than the ones in California.

That is based on the fact that they just found a previously
undiscovered fault but it has not shown any proof that it is
particularly active or that it will be causing a massive earthquake.
The Pacific rim is moving all the time. The biggest danger for these
eastern faults is that we really have no seismic building code
provisions. The people on the coast may be in better shape, simply
because hurricane code and seismic codes overlap somewhat.
(assuming they enforce wind codes)

There's quite a few faults in the U.S. that are just as dangerous, if
not more dangerous than the ones in California. And actually, the San
Andreas isn't that bad, it's just famous because of the fact that it is
so long over land.

The one that runs under CT is worse, it's just not as active... yet...