http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Nuclear Crisis in Japan - 21 messages, 9 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4e19044edc193817?hl=en
* University Medical Center Tucson Advertising - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5b79f4c9ea300020?hl=en
* Outrageous (operator assisted) phone charges - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e2bf0b6ebd705505?hl=en
* Frugal Potassium Iodide? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a117af0bec4bad24?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nuclear Crisis in Japan
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4e19044edc193817?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 11:22 am
From: Kurt Ullman
In article <OpCdnW_Y75tN0h_QnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"DGDevin" <DGDevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Incredible design error, to save x-million dollars they rolled the dice on
> how big a quake would occur while the plant was in service. They just got
> an extension on keeping one of those reactors in service for another decade
> too, despite the design life being hit before the turn of the century.
> Profits ahead of safety--that's a formula for disaster.
I don't how it works in Japan, but in the US most utilites are highly
regulated from a profit standpoint. Usually they are guaranteed a
certain return on investment and can pass along most of costs of
producing the energy. So, keeping these online and saving money is at
least as much a political decision, so the Regulatory Commissions (and
through them the governor and legislators) don't get yelled at for
higher electricity rates.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke
== 2 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 12:09 pm
From: "DGDevin"
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
news:3f-dnaOAioj9zB_QnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> I don't how it works in Japan, but in the US most utilites are highly
> regulated from a profit standpoint. Usually they are guaranteed a
> certain return on investment and can pass along most of costs of
> producing the energy. So, keeping these online and saving money is at
> least as much a political decision, so the Regulatory Commissions (and
> through them the governor and legislators) don't get yelled at for
> higher electricity rates.
I'm thinking the formula is going to be changed after this, especially in
light of massive deception and fraud in how the Japanese nuclear industry
has handled safety. For a start different agencies should review safety and
promote the nuclear industry--not one agency responsible for both. And
it's not like nobody saw this disaster coming.
"The unfolding disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant follows decades of
falsified safety reports, fatal accidents and underestimated earthquake risk
in Japan's atomic power industry."
***
"The cascade of events at Fukushima had been foretold in a report published
in the U.S. two decades ago. The 1990 report by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, an independent agency responsible for safety at the country's
power plants, identified earthquake-induced diesel generator failure and
power outage leading to failure of cooling systems as one of the "most
likely causes" of nuclear accidents from an external event."
***
"Mitsuhiko Tanaka, 67, working as an engineer at Babcock Hitachi K.K.,
helped design and supervise the manufacture of a $250 million steel pressure
vessel for Tokyo Electric in 1975. Today, that vessel holds the fuel rods in
the core of the No. 4 reactor at Fukushima's Dai-Ichi plant, hit by
explosion and fire after the tsunami.
Tanaka says the vessel was damaged in the production process. He says he
knows because he orchestrated the cover-up. When he brought his accusations
to the government more than a decade later, he was ignored, he says."
***
"Tokyo Electric in 2002 admitted it had falsified repair reports at nuclear
plants for more than two decades. Chairman Hiroshi Araki and President
Nobuyama Minami resigned to take responsibility for hundred of occasions on
which the company had submitted false data to the regulator.
Then in 2007, the utility said it hadn't come entirely clean five years
earlier. It had concealed at least six emergency stoppages at its Fukushima
Dai-Ichi power station and a "critical" reaction at the plant's No. 3 unit
that lasted for seven hours."
***
"The world's biggest nuclear power plant had been built on an earthquake
fault line that generated three times as much as seismic acceleration, or
606 gals, as it was designed to withstand, the utility said. One gal, a
measure of shock effect, represents acceleration of 1 centimeter (0.4 inch)
per square second.
After Hokuriku Electric's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa prefecture
was rocked by a 6.9 magnitude quake in March 2007, government scientists
found it had been built near an earthquake fault that was more than twice as
long as regulators deemed threatening."
== 3 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 12:14 pm
From: Smitty Two
In article <FqidnTq4Hr3vwR_QnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"DGDevin" <DGDevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> I'm thinking the formula is going to be changed after this, especially in
> light of massive deception and fraud in how the Japanese nuclear industry
> has handled safety. For a start different agencies should review safety and
> promote the nuclear industry--not one agency responsible for both. And
> it's not like nobody saw this disaster coming.
My vote would be to require the 3 highest officials in charge of every
nuclear power plant to live, with their families, within 5 miles of the
plant.
== 4 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 12:40 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Han wrote
> Jeff Thies <jeff_thies@att.net> wrote
>> Diagram of the spent fuel storage, and data on the amounts thereof
>> and how the emergency measures to pump saltwater work:
>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/japan-nuclear-reactors-and-seismic-activity/>
> That is a really good background.
You have no way of knowing how accurate it is on the emergency measures.
== 5 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 1:29 pm
From: The Daring Dufas
On 3/17/2011 1:05 PM, dgk wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:35:41 -0500, The Daring Dufas
> <the-daring-dufas@stinky.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/16/2011 10:14 PM, Jeff Thies wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2011 10:34 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
>>>> On 3/16/2011 8:36 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>>>> The Daring Dufas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, it may be that the most prevalent cause of the nuclear disaster
>>>>>> is complacency and lack of due diligence. I did notice one thing when
>>>>>> I looked at a map showing the location of the epicenter of the quake,
>>>>>> it was very close and I suppose the water hit those folks with no
>>>>>> warning.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1/2 hour warning as I heard it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't immersed myself in the news of the disaster but
>>>>>> how would you prepare for the worst earthquake EVER?
>>>>>>
>>>>> If you can't, you shouldn't build the plant.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A gee golly gosh darn meteor could hit the power plant too!
>>>> Perhaps that would be a good reason for not building it?
>>>
>>> A plant of a different design would not be in the unholy mess that
>>> Fukushima is in now. It's a bad design sold in quantity because it was a
>>> lower cost. It has a cheap completely inadequate onsite spent fuel
>>> storage that in the case of the offline #4 also had the offline fuel.
>>>
>>> This should not now be running amuck. You can not afford to take chances
>>> and cut corners with something that can have such dire consequences if
>>> it fails.
>>>
>>> This will get worse.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>
>> Like many other people, I'm all for safety but the owners have to
>> consider what the stockholders wish to spend on it. In North Alabama
>> where there are nuclear power reactors, I don't think any thought was
>> given to a tsunami but there is an earthquake fault not too far away.
>> Tornadoes are known to hit the area from time to time and there are
>> passenger jet routes crisscrossing the area. If the plant is on a river,
>> there is the possibility of a flood. Of course there are some wicked
>> thunderstorms with cataclysmic lightning now and then, lightening could
>> wipe out unprotected control and power systems. It's all about location,
>> location, location. :-)
>>
>> TDD
>
> If saving money for stockholders is the problem then private
> enterprise should not be in the business of building nuclear power
> plants.
There was a SciFi writer who wrote a story where there was a priesthood
responsible for all nuclear power. It was kind of amusing in its own way
with the strict rituals and regimented operating procedures. :-)
TDD
== 6 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 2:08 pm
From: Jeff Thies
On 3/17/2011 1:43 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
> On 3/17/2011 10:12 AM, Bob F wrote:
>> The Daring Dufas wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2011 8:36 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>>> The Daring Dufas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, it may be that the most prevalent cause of the nuclear
>>>>> disaster is complacency and lack of due diligence. I did notice one
>>>>> thing when I looked at a map showing the location of the epicenter
>>>>> of the quake, it was very close and I suppose the water hit those
>>>>> folks with no warning.
>>>>
>>>> 1/2 hour warning as I heard it.
>>>>
>>>>> I haven't immersed myself in the news of the disaster but
>>>>> how would you prepare for the worst earthquake EVER?
>>>>>
>>>> If you can't, you shouldn't build the plant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> A gee golly gosh darn meteor could hit the power plant too!
>>> Perhaps that would be a good reason for not building it?
>>>
>> Do you pay any attention to the news? They said it couldn't happen.
>> Guess what,
>> it did. What is going on in Japan is still getting worse. It is not
>> acceptable.
>> They have already proven they cannot guarantee safety despite their
>> continuous
>> assurances. These things are way too dangerous to be allowed without
>> serious
>> investment in safety.
>>
>> You would like to live in the neighborhood of the plant hit by a
>> meteor? How
>> about a terrorist attack on the secondary containment, scattering used
>> fuel all
>> over you? Would you rather not have it near you?
>>
>
> Wouldn't bother me, I think glowing in the dark could be pretty cool. ^_^
Some of the best past disasters were very colorful indeed. Hindenburg,
Dresden, Hiroshima and Krakatoa. Now those you could write home about.
Why should we be shorted with the mundane dark and drab
hurricanes,floods and tornadoes?
Jeff
>
> TDD
== 7 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 2:12 pm
From: "Robert Green"
"DGDevin" <DGDevin@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:FqidnTq4Hr3vwR_QnZ2dnUVZ_u-
<stuff snipped>
> After Hokuriku Electric's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa prefecture
> was rocked by a 6.9 magnitude quake in March 2007, government scientists
> found it had been built near an earthquake fault that was more than twice
as
> long as regulators deemed threatening."
We also know that some of the greatest earthquakes have been along blind
thrust faults whose presence is known only after they've been triggered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_thrust_earthquake
"blind thrust earthquakes contribute more to urban seismic risk than the
'big ones' of magnitude 8 or more"
Building to avoid known fault lines in a no brainer, but it's also no
guarantee of not getting the M9.0 hell shaken out of you no matter where you
build. I'm no geologist, but I think our actual knowledge of what lies deep
below the earth's mantle is limited to a relatively few samples at sites
dispersed widely through the world. I've read some explanations of the
history of magnetic pole reversal and there's an awful lot of "we believes"
compared to the "we knows"
http://www.physorg.com/news159704651.html
""The quadrupolar field (it is likely to be a quadrupole but another
structure could be possible)"
"small fluctuations in convective flow in Earth's core can push the planet's
sensitive magnetic system away from one pole toward an intermediate state,
where the system becomes attracted to the opposite pole."
I can sort of understand that, but there seems to be a lot that's missing.
Like how the process even starts itself up and why there's such an immensely
long time between changes, but a relatively quick change from north to
south, at least according to the rock records. I wonder if the switch isn't
associated with an increase in earthquakes.
--
Bobby G.
== 8 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 2:24 pm
From: Jeff Thies
On 3/17/2011 3:09 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
> news:3f-dnaOAioj9zB_QnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
>> I don't how it works in Japan, but in the US most utilites are highly
>> regulated from a profit standpoint. Usually they are guaranteed a
>> certain return on investment and can pass along most of costs of
>> producing the energy. So, keeping these online and saving money is at
>> least as much a political decision, so the Regulatory Commissions (and
>> through them the governor and legislators) don't get yelled at for
>> higher electricity rates.
>
> I'm thinking the formula is going to be changed after this, especially
> in light of massive deception and fraud in how the Japanese nuclear
> industry has handled safety. For a start different agencies should
> review safety and promote the nuclear industry--not one agency
> responsible for both. And it's not like nobody saw this disaster coming.
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/03/16/bloomberg1376-LI7CHJ07SXKX01-27JLEJH6UQPBTE0NLL2I2HSRRJ.DTL&ao=3
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> "The unfolding disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant follows decades
> of falsified safety reports, fatal accidents and underestimated
> earthquake risk in Japan's atomic power industry."
>
> ***
Yow! Fukushima appears to be the Deepwater Horizon of Nukes. Not that
there aren't other stellar contenders.
The below left intact because it bears repeating.
Jeff
>
> "The cascade of events at Fukushima had been foretold in a report
> published in the U.S. two decades ago. The 1990 report by the U.S.
> Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an independent agency responsible for
> safety at the country's power plants, identified earthquake-induced
> diesel generator failure and power outage leading to failure of cooling
> systems as one of the "most likely causes" of nuclear accidents from an
> external event."
>
> ***
>
> "Mitsuhiko Tanaka, 67, working as an engineer at Babcock Hitachi K.K.,
> helped design and supervise the manufacture of a $250 million steel
> pressure vessel for Tokyo Electric in 1975. Today, that vessel holds the
> fuel rods in the core of the No. 4 reactor at Fukushima's Dai-Ichi
> plant, hit by explosion and fire after the tsunami.
>
> Tanaka says the vessel was damaged in the production process. He says he
> knows because he orchestrated the cover-up. When he brought his
> accusations to the government more than a decade later, he was ignored,
> he says."
>
> ***
>
> "Tokyo Electric in 2002 admitted it had falsified repair reports at
> nuclear plants for more than two decades. Chairman Hiroshi Araki and
> President Nobuyama Minami resigned to take responsibility for hundred of
> occasions on which the company had submitted false data to the regulator.
>
> Then in 2007, the utility said it hadn't come entirely clean five years
> earlier. It had concealed at least six emergency stoppages at its
> Fukushima Dai-Ichi power station and a "critical" reaction at the
> plant's No. 3 unit that lasted for seven hours."
>
> ***
>
> "The world's biggest nuclear power plant had been built on an earthquake
> fault line that generated three times as much as seismic acceleration,
> or 606 gals, as it was designed to withstand, the utility said. One gal,
> a measure of shock effect, represents acceleration of 1 centimeter (0.4
> inch) per square second.
>
> After Hokuriku Electric's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa
> prefecture was rocked by a 6.9 magnitude quake in March 2007, government
> scientists found it had been built near an earthquake fault that was
> more than twice as long as regulators deemed threatening."
== 9 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 2:33 pm
From: Jeff Thies
On 3/17/2011 3:40 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Han wrote
>> Jeff Thies<jeff_thies@att.net> wrote
>
>>> Diagram of the spent fuel storage, and data on the amounts thereof
>>> and how the emergency measures to pump saltwater work:
>
>>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/japan-nuclear-reactors-and-seismic-activity/>
>
>> That is a really good background.
>
> You have no way of knowing how accurate it is on the emergency measures.
>
>
It's all I can find. It leaves the seawater path into and out the
reactor unconnected so it is most certainly inaccurate. The PDF has a
better showing of the lines but the general idea of just what is flooded
and the rough path is described there. If you can find something else,
post it up. I'd like to know how hacked together this is. Certainly plan
"F" is a bad hack.
Jeff
== 10 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 2:35 pm
From: "DGDevin"
"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news:prestwhich-1E4C6D.12142217032011@mx02.eternal-september.org...
> My vote would be to require the 3 highest officials in charge of every
> nuclear power plant to live, with their families, within 5 miles of the
> plant.
Works for me, although right on the grounds of the plant might be even
better.
== 11 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 2:39 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Robert Green wrote
> DGDevin <DGDevin@invalid.invalid> wrote
>> After Hokuriku Electric's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa
>> prefecture was rocked by a 6.9 magnitude quake in March 2007,
>> government scientists found it had been built near an earthquake
>> fault that was more than twice as long as regulators deemed
>> threatening."
> We also know that some of the greatest earthquakes have been along
> blind thrust faults whose presence is known only after they've been triggered.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_thrust_earthquake
> "blind thrust earthquakes contribute more to urban seismic risk than
> the 'big ones' of magnitude 8 or more"
> Building to avoid known fault lines in a no brainer,
Easier said than done with a small place like Japan right on the boundary between two plates.
Thats actually why its there.
> but it's also no guarantee of not getting the M9.0
> hell shaken out of you no matter where you build.
Thats just plain wrong.
> I'm no geologist,
Thats obvious.
> but I think our actual knowledge of what lies deep below the earth's mantle is
> limited to a relatively few samples at sites dispersed widely through the world.
Nope not with fault lines.
> I've read some explanations of the history of magnetic pole reversal
> and there's an awful lot of "we believes" compared to the "we knows"
Sure, but thats an entirely different matter to fault lines.
> http://www.physorg.com/news159704651.html
> "�The quadrupolar field (it is likely to be a quadrupole
> but another structure could be possible)"
> "small fluctuations in convective flow in Earth�s core can push the
> planet�s sensitive magnetic system away from one pole toward an
> intermediate state, where the system becomes attracted to the
> opposite pole."
> I can sort of understand that, but there seems to be a lot that's missing.
Not surprising given that its a bit hard to see whats going on in the center of the earth.
> Like how the process even starts itself up and why there's such
> an immensely long time between changes, but a relatively quick
> change from north to south, at least according to the rock records.
> I wonder if the switch isn't associated with an increase in earthquakes.
No evidence that it is.
== 12 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 2:40 pm
From: "DGDevin"
"Robert Green" wrote in message
news:ilttta$oc4$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> After Hokuriku Electric's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa
>> prefecture
>> was rocked by a 6.9 magnitude quake in March 2007, government scientists
>> found it had been built near an earthquake fault that was more than twice
>> as
>> long as regulators deemed threatening."
> We also know that some of the greatest earthquakes have been along blind
> thrust faults whose presence is known only after they've been triggered.
And we know that the Earth has been smacked by giant meteorites, but that
seems to have little relation to the current crisis. The point here is that
the nuclear industry in Japan was allowed to build plants near known fault
lines after doing their own evaluation of the threat, and the govt. only
became concerned when it was too late. If you're familiar with how industry
and govt. work hand-in-glove in Japan this comes as no surprise however.
Hopefully the hellish situation now underway will prompt governments around
the world to take a closer look at how such plants are designed and where
they are built.
== 13 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 4:47 pm
From: "trader4@optonline.net"
On Mar 17, 10:38 am, Jeff Thies <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
> On 3/17/2011 9:38 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
>
> > In article<ilsk5q$9j...@news.albasani.net>,
> > Jeff Thies<jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> Exactly. There is a reason for regulation and why market forces should
> >> not decide such things.
>
> > Yet it has been shown over and over again that market forces end up
> > deciding the regulations, too.
>
> I don't disagree.
>
> But, better regulatory rather than none as the Tea Party wants is the
> answer. If your objective is to break government than broken government
> is what you get.
>
>
>
> >> When I first heard of this I thought a mighty technology nation with
> >> many resources at hand will manage this. It might take a few hours or
> >> days. I was wrong.
>
> > So far they have for the most part. However, I will admit to
> > stressing the so far part.
>
> So far? So far it is a cluster fuck. The situation is largely out of
> control. The complex is a total writeoff and will cost billions to clean
> up. And that is the best case.
>
>
And that affects you exactly how? Did they ask you to pay for the
clean up?
>
> >> Onsite fuel storage must change, particularly for any Mark 1 reactors
> >> left licensed, but the rest need to be decommissioned. Screw the
> >> corporate cost when the public good is at such risk.
> > HOw about the public cost? You don't just shut down reactors without
> > replacing them with something else.
>
> They can stop extending the licenses on Mark 1s. One was just renewed in
> Vermont, despite local regulatory refusal. Just because it takes a long
> time to do something doesn't mean the only option is the status quo. The
> faults previously identified and the likely outcome of their failures is
> exactly the situation that is in Fukuyama.
>
> To reiterate, if you think things are going well there, you need to take
> another look.
>
> Jeff
>
I think you need to take not another look, but a FIRST look. That
will come
when we have the investigation into exactly what happened and what
went
wrong. Right now, we don't know. And so far, the reactor
situation
appears worse than Three Mile Island, but nowhere near as serious as
Chernobyl. At the end of it all, I'll wager right now that when the
death
toll is summed up, you'll have tens of thousands dead from the
earthquake
and sunami and two orders of magnitude less from the nuclear incident.
Following your logic, we should immediately halt all contruction of
buildings, roads, etc because of the earthquake. Unless you think
tthey all
performed exactly as designed and intended. It could turn out that a
simple change like having the diesel generators located 25 feet higher
would have prevented the whole thing. And that change could be
implemented without closing anything. But we won't know until we
have an investigation and learn all the facts.
== 14 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 4:54 pm
From: "trader4@optonline.net"
On Mar 17, 11:12 am, "Bob F" <bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Daring Dufas wrote:
> > On 3/16/2011 8:36 PM, Bob F wrote:
> >> The Daring Dufas wrote:
>
> >>> Well, it may be that the most prevalent cause of the nuclear
> >>> disaster is complacency and lack of due diligence. I did notice one
> >>> thing when I looked at a map showing the location of the epicenter
> >>> of the quake, it was very close and I suppose the water hit those
> >>> folks with no warning.
>
> >> 1/2 hour warning as I heard it.
>
> >>> I haven't immersed myself in the news of the disaster but
> >>> how would you prepare for the worst earthquake EVER?
>
> >> If you can't, you shouldn't build the plant.
>
> > A gee golly gosh darn meteor could hit the power plant too!
> > Perhaps that would be a good reason for not building it?
>
> Do you pay any attention to the news? They said it couldn't happen. Guess what,
> it did. What is going on in Japan is still getting worse. It is not acceptable.
> They have already proven they cannot guarantee safety despite their continuous
> assurances. These things are way too dangerous to be allowed without serious
> investment in safety.
>
> You would like to live in the neighborhood of the plant hit by a meteor?
We already all live in a neighborhood called Earth that could be hit
by a meteor.
The remote chance of a meteor of sufficient size to breach the
containment
vessel yet not end life is say a 10 mile perimeter from the meteor
itself is
miniscule. But it does show the bizarre lengths some people will go
to
conjure up nonsense.
> How
> about a terrorist attack on the secondary containment, scattering used fuel all
> over you? Would you rather not have it near you?- Hide quoted text -
>
That used fuel would be safely stored in Yucca Mountain long ago if
alarmists
and nut jobs like Harry Reid had not stopped it. If you're worried
about security
we can secure one Yucca a hell of a lot easier than 100 spent fuel
pools
all around the country.
At the end of the day, everything has risks. following the madness of
zero risk
tolerance, we should immediately shut down all airports near major
cities, eg
Laguardia, JFK, LAX, etc because of the horrific possibility of a 747
crashing
into a populated area. Yet, they fly everyday, people get on them,
and life
goes on.
== 15 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 4:58 pm
From: "trader4@optonline.net"
On Mar 17, 11:19 am, "Bob F" <bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hank wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 9:34 am, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Among other things they have been using fire engines to pump water
> >>> into the reactors, so it's possible that all the pumps built into
> >>> the plant are in fact down.
>
> >> They are, that is the entire problem, pretty much. So far, from afar
> >> it looks like the major possible design flaw was placement of the
> >> back-up electric systems in a low-lying area. The tsuanami came
> >> through, ripped out the generators and the battery back-ups.
>
> > That is why I suggest steam driven pumps as back-up, no electric and
> > the reactor produces steam to drive the pumps. Sounds like a great
> > back-up plan to me. Of course, nothing is perfect.
>
> Except for the fact that the reactors shut down in a earthquake.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's my understanding that at least some of these reactors have
exactly
what was suggested. That is a turbine driven pump system that uses
the
remaining heat inthe reactor after the control rods are inserted to
pump
cooling water. Then they have a diesel generator driven pump system
and then a battery power source as well.
Once again, until there is an investigation, it's just pure
speculation
to suggest what could have been done differently, because we
don't know the exact sequence of events or what went wrong.
== 16 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 5:34 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Jeff Thies wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Han wrote
>>> Jeff Thies<jeff_thies@att.net> wrote
>>>> Diagram of the spent fuel storage, and data on the amounts thereof
>>>> and how the emergency measures to pump saltwater work:
>>>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/japan-nuclear-reactors-and-seismic-activity/>
>>> That is a really good background.
>> You have no way of knowing how accurate it is on the emergency measures.
> It's all I can find.
Sure, but its far too superficial to be any use when
discussing what they are currently doing about cooling it.
> It leaves the seawater path into and out the reactor unconnected so it is most certainly inaccurate. The PDF has a
> better showing of the lines but the general idea of just what is flooded and the rough path is described there. If you
> can find something else, post it up.
I doubt we'll see anything that can be relied on until the formal
enquiry, particularly on just what the tsunami damaged and
what they used to get the sea water into the reactors initially.
Its easier with the latest use of chinooks etc, they are very visible.
> I'd like to know how hacked together this is. Certainly plan "F" is a bad hack.
== 17 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 5:52 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Jeff Thies wrote
> Kurt Ullman wrote
>> Jeff Thies<jeff_thies@att.net> wrote
>>> Exactly. There is a reason for regulation and why market forces should not decide such things.
>> Yet it has been shown over and over again that market forces end up deciding the regulations, too.
> I don't disagree.
I do, it doesnt happen like that.
Not one of the Canadian or Australian retail banks imploded spectacularly
or even needed to be bailed out by govt in the most recent complete implosion
of the entire world financial system. The regulations in those countrys that
produced that result clearly had not been decided by market forces.
> But, better regulatory rather than none as the Tea Party wants is the answer. If your objective is to break government
> than broken government is what you get.
Nope, its just another fad, it wont have any real long term effect.
>>> When I first heard of this I thought a mighty technology nation with many resources at hand will manage this. It
>>> might take a few hours or days. I was wrong.
>> So far they have for the most part. However, I will admit to
>> stressing the so far part.
> So far? So far it is a cluster fuck. The situation is largely out of control.
No its not.
> The complex is a total writeoff
Yes, but then it was going to be decomissioned anyway.
And should be given that its in an area prone to very severe earthquakes.
They should be using reactors that cant melt down like the Canadian CANDUs etc.
> and will cost billions to clean up.
Nope. Even if they do melt down, they can just be entombed in concrete.
> And that is the best case.
Nope, the best case is that there is no meltdown
and they are just permanently shut down now.
>>> Onsite fuel storage must change, particularly for any Mark 1
>>> reactors left licensed, but the rest need to be decommissioned.
>>> Screw the corporate cost when the public good is at such risk.
>> HOw about the public cost? You don't just shut down reactors without replacing them with something else.
> They can stop extending the licenses on Mark 1s.
Not practical. There are something like 100 of them in use.
> One was just renewed in Vermont, despite local regulatory refusal.
Local regulatory is just posturing clowns.
> Just because it takes a long time to do something doesn't mean the only option is the status quo.
Yes. The Japanese Mark 1s should be shut down and replaced
with reactors that cant meltdown like the Canadian CANDUs,
because Japan is a very well know severe earthquake region.
> The faults previously identified and the likely outcome of their failures is exactly the situation that is in
> Fukuyama.
Yes.
> To reiterate, if you think things are going well there,
He didnt say that.
> you need to take another look.
== 18 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 6:28 pm
From: "Robert Green"
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Robert Green wrote
> > DGDevin <DGDevin@invalid.invalid> wrote
>
> >> After Hokuriku Electric's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa
> >> prefecture was rocked by a 6.9 magnitude quake in March 2007,
> >> government scientists found it had been built near an earthquake
> >> fault that was more than twice as long as regulators deemed
> >> threatening."
>
> > We also know that some of the greatest earthquakes have been along
> > blind thrust faults whose presence is known only after they've been
triggered.
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_thrust_earthquake
>
> > "blind thrust earthquakes contribute more to urban seismic risk than
> > the 'big ones' of magnitude 8 or more"
>
> > Building to avoid known fault lines in a no brainer,
>
> Easier said than done with a small place like Japan right on the boundary
between two plates.
>
> Thats actually why its there.
Agreed. The whole damn island is the result of one huge tectonic plate
banging against another.
> > but it's also no guarantee of not getting the M9.0
> > hell shaken out of you no matter where you build.
>
> Thats just plain wrong.
How so? Without any reasoning to support your statement, it's just your
word. On the other hand, with huge plates floating on the surface of a
molten metal core, there's no guarantee of anything not rupturing, splitting
or heaving at some point. I'll agree that some places are far more likely
to pop 9.0 on the Richter scale. However, I happen to know you're dead
wrong in this case because time and time again I've read that there's no
immunity to earthquakes anywhere in the world. Do you have contrary
information?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50E12FF395E13738DDDA00994D9415B818DF1D3
NO PLACE IMMUNE FROM EARTHQUAKES; Scientists Agree That There Is Nothing
Amazing About Those in Germany. Scientists who have made a study of
earthquakes expressed no astonishment yesterday at the fact that extensive
shocks had occurred in Germany and Switzerland, where heretofore they have
been almost unknown. They said that while earthquakes were more common in
certain other localities, there was no reason why one should not occur
anywhere.
Operative words: "NO REASON WHY ONE SHOULD NOT OCCUR ANYWHERE." Just ask
any competent geologist.
I think that about demolishes your implied contention that there are "safe
areas" where people are guaranteed not to get a M9.0 shaking at some point.
> > I'm no geologist,
>
> Thats obvious.
As if *you* are. We've already proved you don't know shit about seismology
and that you somehow believe that earthquakes will only appear in certain
places. THAT'S wrong.
> > but I think our actual knowledge of what lies deep below the earth's
mantle is
> > limited to a relatively few samples at sites dispersed widely through
the world.
>
> Nope not with fault lines.
Garbage. Read what I wrote. "What lies deep below the mantle." Are you
saying we have all those fault lines mapped out? If so, you're a bigger
BS'er than you appear to be. That would mean that there is no such thing as
a blind thrust fault. Just looking up Northridge on Google will put the lie
to that contention. We've barely mapped surface faults and even then, it's
mostly in places that are known to be active. Very little fault mapping is
done in areas that haven't recently had earthquakes. Especially deep faults
lying "deep below the mantle."
> > I've read some explanations of the history of magnetic pole reversal
> > and there's an awful lot of "we believes" compared to the "we knows"
>
> Sure, but thats an entirely different matter to fault lines.
Prove it. We know so little about the processes in the earth's core I say
it's impossible, given how little we know about deep earth processes, to
conclude they're entirely different and unrelated. Common sense alone
implies there's a relation because it's the heat from the core that provides
the energy to power vulcanism and the core itself that allows plates to
float and move around. The convection of the molten core determines
magnetic pole orientation (so they believe) and you want us to believe that
huge currents of molten metal at the center of the planet have no relation
to earthquakes? You can believe it if you like . . .
> > http://www.physorg.com/news159704651.html
>
> > ""The quadrupolar field (it is likely to be a quadrupole
> > but another structure could be possible)"
>
> > "small fluctuations in convective flow in Earth's core can push the
> > planet's sensitive magnetic system away from one pole toward an
> > intermediate state, where the system becomes attracted to the
> > opposite pole."
>
> > I can sort of understand that, but there seems to be a lot that's
missing.
>
> Not surprising given that its a bit hard to see whats going on in the
center of the earth.
Strewth! Not being able to see usually means not being able to include or
exclude those unseen processes from processes sitting right on top of them
(like earthquakes) that we can see.
> > Like how the process even starts itself up and why there's such
> > an immensely long time between changes, but a relatively quick
> > change from north to south, at least according to the rock records.
>
> > I wonder if the switch isn't associated with an increase in earthquakes.
> No evidence that it is.
No evidence yet other than we seem to be going through an era of increased
earthquake activity of very serious intensity. Understanding what's going
on with processes in the earth's core is at its very infancy. Right now,
all we can do it look at the geological records of both types of events to
see if there's a concordance. As you might know from your own countryman's
brilliant deduction that microbes, not stress, causes ulcers, science
doesn't necessarily have all the answers. I think it's valid to conclude
that convection currents in the molten core of the earth can affect both
magnetic pole reversals AND geological events like earthquakes. It's not
like trying to prove astrology is meaningful, it's linking two events that
share a very fundamental component - the entire, massive nickel-iron molten
core of the earth.
--
Bobby G.
== 19 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 6:40 pm
From: "Robert Green"
"Jeff Thies" <jeff_thies@att.net> wrote in message
news:iltuob$da2$1@news.albasani.net...
<stuff snipped>
> It's all I can find. It leaves the seawater path into and out the
> reactor unconnected so it is most certainly inaccurate. The PDF has a
> better showing of the lines but the general idea of just what is flooded
> and the rough path is described there. If you can find something else,
> post it up. I'd like to know how hacked together this is. Certainly plan
> "F" is a bad hack.
No matter what the government is saying, when you see firefighting helos
dropping buckets of water (and boric acid - kills roaches AND runaway
reactors, too!) then you know we're in deep, deep doodoo.
--
Bobby G.
> Jeff
== 20 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 7:23 pm
From: gheston@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston)
In article <ilruco$evl$1@news.albasani.net>,
Jeff Thies <jeff_thies@att.net> wrote:
[ ... ]
>A plant of a different design would not be in the unholy mess that
>Fukushima is in now. It's a bad design sold in quantity because it was a
>lower cost. It has a cheap completely inadequate onsite spent fuel
>storage that in the case of the offline #4 also had the offline fuel.
[ ... ]
You're saying it's the Ford Pinto of nuclear energy?
Not everyone can afford the Lincoln model. Japan has kept those
reactors going because they need the electricity. While not the
best, they've worked well over the decades.
Energy, not just nuclear energy, is a complex thing. While it's easy
to Monday morning quarterback decisions made decades ago, none of us
were there nor are any of us privy to all the issues.
Can we get back on topic, now?
Gary
== 21 of 21 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 8:15 pm
From: Jeff Thies
On 3/17/2011 7:47 PM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
> On Mar 17, 10:38 am, Jeff Thies<jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
>> On 3/17/2011 9:38 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
>>
<snip>
> Following your logic, we should immediately halt all contruction of
> buildings, roads, etc because of the earthquake.
You make a lot of straw man arguments about what other people think.
Unless you think
> tthey all
> performed exactly as designed and intended. It could turn out that a
> simple change like having the diesel generators located 25 feet higher
> would have prevented the whole thing.
This plant has been dodging bullets. Just another "if only" in a bad
design. What did happen is more important than what could have. Early in
the accident, even with the generators working, there was trouble:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_nuclear_accidents
And that change could be
> implemented without closing anything. But we won't know until we
> have an investigation and learn all the facts.
The GE Mark 1 should not be allowed unmodified in any danger zone. Out
of 6 reactors, 4 are history. What cost that? The flaws in the design
were well known, among them an insufficient wet well and spent fuel
storage located where it could be damaged and is essentially uncontained.
I have never been anti nuclear. I previously had no opinion on any
reactor. But, whatever it takes to make sure this model reactor never
does what four of them are currently doing, is what has to be done. That
takes no investigation to figure out.
Jeff
==============================================================================
TOPIC: University Medical Center Tucson Advertising
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5b79f4c9ea300020?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 12:27 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article <8udjhmFjrmU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
:>)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Outrageous (operator assisted) phone charges
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e2bf0b6ebd705505?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 4:25 pm
From: Bill Bowden
Not having a long distance service, I recently made a 23 minute long
distance call (California to Texas) using operator assistance and was
billed a little over $60. The operator made no comment about the
charges at the time. I consulted AT&T costumer service about a credit
for being unaware of the high rates, but they said there was nothing
they could do. I could have purchased a prepaid phone including 5
hours of time for less than $40. But there was still nothing they
could do.
Live and learn, I guess.
-Bill
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal Potassium Iodide?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a117af0bec4bad24?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 5:57 pm
From: "Lou"
"Darkfalz" <darkfalz79@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6nu0o6d6hl8hovlkm8a8u31rg119v87q8i@4ax.com...
> Is frugal Potassium Iodide available anywhere in light of the Japanese
> meltdown?
In the first place, there hasn't been a "meltdown" as of yet, and there may
never be. In the second place, anyone in the US is so far away from Japan
that even if a meltdown does happen, it doesn't matter as far as radiation
is concerned.
In the third place, until the partial nuclear test ban treaty of 1963, all
the nuclear powers conducted extensive tests of real, honest to goodness
nuclear bombs in the oceans, at the surface of the earth, and in the
atmosphere. The largest such test was a 50 megaton warhead exploded by the
USSR in 1961 - something far larger than the Japanese plants could possibly
produce. The point being that such testing was not followed by a rash of
two headed babies or people glowing in the dark while their hair fell out.
Unless you're near one of the crippled reactors, the frugal approach to
potassium iodide is to leave it on the shelf at the store.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 17 2011 6:33 pm
From: Karen Silkwood
In article <ilu737$v7j$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
"Lou" <lpogoda@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Darkfalz" <darkfalz79@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6nu0o6d6hl8hovlkm8a8u31rg119v87q8i@4ax.com...
> > Is frugal Potassium Iodide available anywhere in light of the Japanese
> > meltdown?
>
> In the first place, there hasn't been a "meltdown" as of yet, and there may
> never be. In the second place, anyone in the US is so far away from Japan
> that even if a meltdown does happen, it doesn't matter as far as radiation
> is concerned.
>
> In the third place, until the partial nuclear test ban treaty of 1963, all
> the nuclear powers conducted extensive tests of real, honest to goodness
> nuclear bombs in the oceans, at the surface of the earth, and in the
> atmosphere. The largest such test was a 50 megaton warhead exploded by the
> USSR in 1961 - something far larger than the Japanese plants could possibly
> produce. The point being that such testing was not followed by a rash of
> two headed babies or people glowing in the dark while their hair fell out.
>
> Unless you're near one of the crippled reactors, the frugal approach to
> potassium iodide is to leave it on the shelf at the store.
Hey, it's not on the shelf.
and;
How is "Natural Selection" going to take out these stupid people?
I say let them kill themselves with the stuff.
They are; "The Last to Know " and the first to go when...TSHTF.
IMHO
and today's post;
Oh, God, you are so BIG. So absolutely Huge. I tell you we are all very
impressed with you down Here.
Forgive us for our hopeless toadying and bald faced pandering.
Please.
In my defense , at least I bred no children , who might have wanted
children , who most likely would want children......... ad nauseum.
The world is a better place with fewer people.
--
Karma, What a concept!
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
