On 3/14/11 6:48 PM, 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.

I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one.
But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:26 -0400, Harryk wrote:

On 3/14/11 6:48 PM, 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.

I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one.
But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause.

Thanks for putting the dip in his place.

(That was your March response, BTW.)

Scotty, take heed.

On 3/15/11 10:20 AM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:26 -0400, wrote:

On 3/14/11 6:48 PM, 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.

I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one.
But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause.

Thanks for putting the dip in his place.

(That was your March response, BTW.)

Scotty, take heed.


This from John "ever the asshole" Herring, rec. boat's resident racist.

Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 6:48 PM, 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.

I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from
one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause.
He didn't ask you.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:26 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

On 3/14/11 6:48 PM, 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.

I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one.
But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause.

as an engineer, i have mixed emotions on this one.

it took a magnitude 9 earthquake AND a tsunami to do this. NOTHING can
withstand that. BUT fossil fuels have their dangers, too. air
pollution kills tens of thousands every year....the gulf oil spill,
etc.

we need a sense of perspective. i dont know if the reactor will
meltdown. but if it does, we still need to put it in context and
compare it to alternatives

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:26 -0400,
wrote:


On 3/14/11 6:48 PM, 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.

I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one.
But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause.

as an engineer, i have mixed emotions on this one.

it took a magnitude 9 earthquake AND a tsunami to do this. NOTHING can
withstand that. BUT fossil fuels have their dangers, too. air
pollution kills tens of thousands every year....the gulf oil spill,
etc.

we need a sense of perspective. i dont know if the reactor will
meltdown. but if it does, we still need to put it in context and
compare it to alternatives

As an engineer, don't you have to know how to use proper capitalization
or are you a half-blind train engineer?

On 14/03/2011 6:35 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:26 -0400,
wrote:

On 3/14/11 6:48 PM, 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.

I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one.
But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause.

I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0
earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors
somewhat immune to the biggest problem.

Beg to differ. Could have been an aircraft, quake, fire, flood...always
an excuse.

The buildings are sheet steel, they should have been 2' thick concrete.
All reactors should have a mechancial way of assured shutdown, pull a
lever and the rods pull away ceasing the reaction. And much lower
temperature limits.

Using moulton salts is efficient, but not safe. Looks like these
reacors were designed as efficient but not safe. Politicians rather
have the money for government corruption and greed than doing it right.

Last week, I was all for nukes, this week, no way. This si the worlds
worst nuclear disaster to date and politicians are white washing it big
time. And they will get away with it. Prove the damages? Hard to do,
could be something else....

We need much better designs and quite frankly I don't trust our or their
governmetns to do it right. Pretty clear they use a bad design from a
safety perspective.

If I moved to an area that had one, I would wantt o be upwind from it
for sure.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote:

I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one.
But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause.

I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0
earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors
somewhat immune to the biggest problem.

It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected
second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup
power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are
a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however.
The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an
emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous
maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration
practices, etc.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:19:14 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote:

I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one.
But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause.

I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0
earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors
somewhat immune to the biggest problem.

It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected
second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup
power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are
a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however.
The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an
emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous
maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration
practices, etc.

Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all
you need is gravity.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:11:19 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:37:00 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:19:14 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote:

I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one.
But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause.

I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0
earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors
somewhat immune to the biggest problem.

It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected
second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup
power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are
a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however.
The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an
emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous
maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration
practices, etc.

Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all
you need is gravity.

The size of the tank.

How big would it have to be? Seems like you could build a pretty big
one that would work for at least some period of time... long enough to
get the backup online.