On 3/15/11 4:43 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 15/03/2011 7:21 AM, HarryisPaul wrote:
In , princecraft49
@gmail.com says...

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

You stupid ****! Do you realize that in the U.S. the standard design for
nuke plants for sunamis, earthquakes, flood, etc. is to use a 10,000
year event span?

So does Japan claim the same. You trust these *******s to tll the truth?

I have some beach front land for sale cheap too...


You should know that "HarryisPaul" is the former loogy here and doesn't
know or care about nuclear reactors. He only posts to take cheap and
repetitive potshots at me and another poster. Along with Scott
Ingersoll, he is about the dumbest poster who ever showed his handle here.

On 3/15/11 5:05 PM, Harryk wrote:
I have some beach front land for sale cheap too...


He only posts to take cheap and
repetitive potshots at......

This sounds like you are talking about yourself. Cheap, childish,
repetitive potshots are all you do.

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.

In article ,
says...

On 3/15/2011 9:29 AM, HarryisPaul wrote:
In articles4idneA9KrOkPePQnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 3/14/11 7:04 PM, Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 6:58 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 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.



There is not a no risk utopia.
We have to learn to safely handle nuclear power, and coal, etc.
Ultimately nuclear wins out.
Japanese are not
ultimate technologists. Our Nuclear Power Plants are a lot more
sophisticated and more redundant safety.


Oh, really? Please provide proof that our creaky old nuclear power
plants are a lot more sophisticated and more "redundant safety" than the
equally old (or new) Japanese nuclear power plants. I understand at
least one of our nuke plants, in California, is literally built over an
earthquake fault, and that several plants in the South East are also
built in areas of seismic activity.

Oh, and all the reactors at the plant in question were designed by...you
guessed it...General Electric. All but one were built by...you guessed
it...General Electric.

But *our* nuclear power plants built by...you guessed it...General
Electric...are a lot safer.

Damn you are stupid.


Stupid is spending your on-line life trying to elicit responses from
someone who obviously ignores you/blocks your posts and has no intention
of responding.

Have a nice day, Loogy.

You have a nice day too Harry!

On 3/15/11 9:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:43:27 -0600,
wrote:

You stupid ****! Do you realize that in the U.S. the standard design for
nuke plants for sunamis, earthquakes, flood, etc. is to use a 10,000
year event span?

So does Japan claim the same. You trust these *******s to tll the truth?

I have some beach front land for sale cheap too...

You probably should not put a nuke plant there. If it was 25 miles up
the river it would not be knocked out by a tsunami.

BTW has there EVER been a tsunami in the Atlantic?


Portugal, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have experienced them.
There probably have been other tsunamis in the Atlantic.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:10:12 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:42:48 -0700, wrote:

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.


They have been pumping sea water into those reactors for days using
big barge mounted pumps and it is still hot. You are talking about a
good sized lake, not a tank.

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.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:10:12 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:42:48 -0700, wrote:

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.


They have been pumping sea water into those reactors for days using
big barge mounted pumps and it is still hot. You are talking about a
good sized lake, not a tank.

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.

It "seems to you"?? Holy crap, watch a newscast before you make such a
stupid statement. You don't care about Florida, you don't care to even
inform yourself at all about the situation in Nippon, you just blather
on about Righties this and Conservatives that, and wait for someone to
follow you down your yellow brick road.. Greg is catching on, and from
what we have learned about you lately, I am sure once he stops playing
you will move along, change your handle and infect some other group...
Pffft... Dork..

On 15/03/2011 7:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:43:27 -0600,
wrote:

You stupid ****! Do you realize that in the U.S. the standard design for
nuke plants for sunamis, earthquakes, flood, etc. is to use a 10,000
year event span?

So does Japan claim the same. You trust these *******s to tll the truth?

I have some beach front land for sale cheap too...

You probably should not put a nuke plant there. If it was 25 miles up
the river it would not be knocked out by a tsunami.

BTW has there EVER been a tsunami in the Atlantic?

Keep in mind the Japanese nuke facility was designed by non-other than
General Electric of the USA. So how many of these problematic reactors
are there? Probably more than a few utility companies wanting to ignore
this imutable fact. How many of these reactors ARE in your back yard?

On Mar 15, 11:26*pm, I_am_Tosk
wrote:
In article ,
says...











On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:10:12 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:42:48 -0700, wrote:

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.

They have been pumping sea water into those reactors for days using
big barge mounted pumps and it is still hot. You are talking about a
good sized lake, not a tank.

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.

It "seems to you"?? *Holy crap, watch a newscast before you make such a
stupid statement. You don't care about Florida, you don't care to even
inform yourself at all about the situation in Nippon, you just blather
on about Righties this and Conservatives that, and wait for someone to
follow you down your yellow brick road.. Greg is catching on, and from
what we have learned about you lately, I am sure once he stops playing
you will move along, change your handle and infect some other group...
Pffft... Dork..

I really do believe she should stay with selling rags. It's more
lucrative for her than thinking

On 15/03/2011 7:10 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:42:48 -0700, wrote:

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.


They have been pumping sea water into those reactors for days using
big barge mounted pumps and it is still hot. You are talking about a
good sized lake, not a tank.

And the drain off is truly hot water in more ways than one. Massive
polution to do this.