Nuclear power anyone??
 

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.

Nuclear power anyone??
 

In article ,
says...

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:37:12 -0400, wrote:

On 3/17/2011 6:19 PM, 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:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:48:29 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:11:30 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:04:10 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 01:46:39 -0400, wrote:

Seems to me that if the water was released in a controlled fashion at
the beginning of the problem, there wouldn't be a requirement for that
vast an amount of water.

These reactors do not stop on a dime and the fuel rods continue to
generate heat long after the reactor is "scrammed"
Yes, I understand how they work. What I'm proposing is that there be a
reservoir that is gravity fed. If there's a backup pump failure, the
water in the reservoir would be deployed over a period of time until
either it ran out or the backup pumps came back online. It wouldn't be
perfect, but it would at least delay the over-heating. It would add
some time to the equation.
That is actually a pretty good idea but it still requires having a
lake. That might not be a bad idea when you are picking a site.

The whole Roman plumbing system was gravity fed and most "citizens"
had running water in their house.
The trick is having your aqueduct survive the earthquake.
I was thinking since many plants are not near the ocean, near a lake
would work.

If it were a closed system... lake water flows into the plant, cools
the reactor, then flows down hill, it could generate enough energy
(with a boost from the heat produced) to create enough power to pump
some of the water back to the lake. The water would be contaminated,
but it would be better than a meltdown.

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'S PROBABLY TIME FOR YOU TO FIND A FALLOUT SHELTER WHILE GREATER MINDS
THAN YOURS TRY TO SOLVE THIS *VERY SERIOUS* PROBLEM.

It's probably time for you to crawl back in your hole.

I wonder which of the regular right-wing idiots Ernie is...there are so
many from which to choose.

He's loogy. Or Kevin, or the spoofer, or...damn you and Don are
confusing!

Nuclear power anyone??
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:43:46 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:43:59 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:48:02 -0300, "True North"
wrote:

Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.

No, actually according to this writer, it is good.......!

http://nation.foxnews.com/ann-coulte...port-radiation

Just for the heck of it, I read the article. To which writer were you referring?

"As The New York Times science section reported in 2001, an increasing number of
scientists believe that at some level -- much higher than the minimums set by
the U.S. government -- radiation is good for you. "They theorize," the Times
said, that "these doses protect against cancer by activating cells' natural
defense mechanisms."

Actually, it wouldn't hurt you to read the whole thing:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42347

Anyone who considers Coulter a reasoned voice on anything is a bigger
idiot that she is.

Have you ever posted without using the word idiot? You really have
absolutely no knowledge or anything to add here at all do you?

Nuclear power anyone??
 

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.

Nuclear power anyone??
 

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...

Nuclear power anyone??
 

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:55:21 -0400, wrote:

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)

I think they have a good suspicion that's it dangerous.

Nuclear power anyone??
 

On Mar 18, 3:14*pm, wrote:

" I think they have a good suspicion that's it dangerous."

Really D'Plume? Do all lawyers type that way?

Nuclear power anyone??
 

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:41:16 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:14:35 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:55:21 -0400, wrote:

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



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)

I think they have a good suspicion that's it dangerous.


If so, it should show up in their building codes. Unfortunately the
people who adopt building codes only do it over the dead bodies of
victims. That is why we never fix anything until we have a disaster.
In Florida it was Andrew. California seems to get motivated a little
more from each earthquake. Unfortunately most of the country has not
really had much bad happen to them so they don't have much in their
building codes. The tornado people are the ones who amaze me. They get
tornados every year and they still do not have a wind code.

The fault was recently discovered. The issue needs to be addressed. As
I said, those who know think it's the most dangerous one.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.