adoucette said:
Generally speaking the further you get from the plant the more mixing there is the less "hot spots" you will have.
That doesn't mean you are safe in assuming even dispersal, at any relevant distance.
trippy said:
And here we go, once more around the block, just to demonstrate some more that you don't actually know what you're talking about.
Is that what you're trying to demonstrate? You will need to address at least one of the points I've been making, then:
trippy said:
Ignoring simple facts like "Maximum tsunami height observed in area is maximum tsunami height observed in area", and ignorin the fact that under that part of Northen Japan, the pacific plate is divided into several segments, each of which behaves differently, I might even point out that (again) that the plate motions are different in Japan and laugh as you proclaim that it's irrelevant, and complain about the science, and bag the scientests.
Whoops. Maybe some other time, then.
Seriously: you really don't know what I'm even talking about. Bizarre. How does that happen, among the technologically adept? That's one of the most important questions facing our future with nuclear power, (and GM technology, and medical innovations, and a couple of others).
trippy said:
It's to do with siting a Nuclear reactor at a low altitude, close to the water, in an area where the prevailing winds seem to be out to sea.
Matters that reduce the likely damage from likely mishaps. So?
Almost all nuclear power plants are at low altitude, close to major bodies of water of some kind (in Japan, the ocean's the big one), and in some kind of more or less predictable prevailing wind. If that's ironical in this case, you're missing the point again.
Let's check:
trippy said:
Incidentally, the Jogan Tsunami in 869 is the Tsunami that inundated the Sendai plains to a depth of 8m that I have mentioned in this thread, several times now, but been told, several times now that designing to such a small Tsunami is absurd. I've even quoted some of the statistics mentioned in that article.
Yep.
btw: No one has told you anything in that language, even once. Being mistaken like that, even rather badly and obviously, is not absurd - it's quite soberly characteristic. That's the problem.
Another one:
trippy said:
Yeah, and there's a good point right there, show me somewhere in Japan that isn't within 200km of a faultline (the radius the US NRC uses IIRC)
Why is that a "good point"?
Try this: ponder for a minute exactly what the US NRC "uses" that for. The nuclear plants near me are well within 200km of some faultlines, and the geologists have even less of a handle on midcontinent quakes than they have on the plate boundary ones. Suppose we try to answer the following basic question: does the long span of time since the last really big quake under Prairie Island, Minnesota, coupled with the New Madrid quake recently, make it more likely or less likely that one will hit soon?
That question cannot be answered with the necessary (nuclear power plant) level of confidence at the current level of geological science.
trippy said:
Can you imagine how hard I'm trying not to laugh at the moment?
Keep laughing, and yawning, tech boy - builds the
kind of confidence in experts I think we need more of - well informed confidence.
.
