Earthquake in Japan....9.0...ouch!

2StepSteve said:
I have realised that they think they are built for this sort of thing, but they really haven't a clue.
Click to expand...

As Tefal says, they are one of the most prepared countries in the world when it comes to Earthquakes. Tsunamis, you just cannot safeguard against them. But look at their early warning systems.
Granted a lot of people died, many more would probably have died also had they not known what to do when the sirens went off etc.
 
Scubascorpion said:
Depends if the 23,000,000 cubic meters of water in it washed the reactor into the sea...
Click to expand...

What reactor? A hydro electric plant uses water to push turbines, thats the start and end of the plant. A nuclear plant uses a reactor powered by radioactive nuclear material to heat water, to make steam, to turn the turbines, a normal coal power plant heats water by burning the coal, turning the water to steam to turn the turbines.

Theres nothing radioactive about a hydro electric plant, the difference in most power stations right now is the method to get water to turn the turbines, hydro electric, well dams at least use mavity and potential energy to turn the turbines.

THe threat with that is, if a big ass damn goes, it can do exactly what a Tsunami did, wipe out entire towns with a wall of water.

Can't find anything beyond a story saying a dam has burst, doesn't say where, when, how bad, what kind of dam.
 
drunkenmaster said:
What reactor? A hydro electric plant uses water to push turbines, thats the start and end of the plant. A nuclear plant uses a reactor powered by radioactive nuclear material to heat water, to make steam, to turn the turbines, a normal coal power plant heats water by burning the coal, turning the water to steam to turn the turbines.

Theres nothing radioactive about a hydro electric plant, the difference in most power stations right now is the method to get water to turn the turbines, hydro electric, well dams at least use mavity and potential energy to turn the turbines.

THe threat with that is, if a big ass damn goes, it can do exactly what a Tsunami did, wipe out entire towns with a wall of water.

Can't find anything beyond a story saying a dam has burst, doesn't say where, when, how bad, what kind of dam.
Click to expand...

Not the reactor that is non existant. The reactor downstream is what the poster meant . . . Duh!
 
VaderDSL said:
As Tefal says, they are one of the most prepared countries in the world when it comes to Earthquakes. Tsunamis, you just cannot safeguard against them. But look at their early warning systems.
Granted a lot of people died, many more would probably have died also had they not known what to do when the sirens went off etc.
Click to expand...

I think most people don't realise the extent of resistance to earthquakes that goes into the design - at first glance even for an earthquake prone area it would seem overly engineered yet this quake was over 700x more powerful than what they engineer for - fortunatly it was at quite a distance. To put it into some kinda perspective if that quake had happened 5 miles under London it would have flattened most buildings for upto almost 300miles.
 
drunkenmaster said:
What reactor? A hydro electric plant uses water to push turbines, thats the start and end of the plant. A nuclear plant uses a reactor powered by radioactive nuclear material to heat water, to make steam, to turn the turbines, a normal coal power plant heats water by burning the coal, turning the water to steam to turn the turbines.

Theres nothing radioactive about a hydro electric plant, the difference in most power stations right now is the method to get water to turn the turbines, hydro electric, well dams at least use mavity and potential energy to turn the turbines.

THe threat with that is, if a big ass damn goes, it can do exactly what a Tsunami did, wipe out entire towns with a wall of water.

Can't find anything beyond a story saying a dam has burst, doesn't say where, when, how bad, what kind of dam.
Click to expand...

I think that's the point he was trying to make :)
 
Rroff said:
Theres been 5-6.5 Magnitude quakes/aftershocks every 2 hours give or take since... pretty crazy.
Click to expand...

Yup, I know. over 275.
The BBC reported a strong tremor just off Tokyo (was 90 miles not km as I mentioned).
It shook buildings in Tokyo more so than previous aftershocks but they said there were no immediate tsunami warnings.
 
VaderDSL said:
I think that's the point he was trying to make :)
Click to expand...

Hmm, i took the first post to be sensationalist and the reply about what radioactive damage could occur to be the sarcastic post, as in asking him why a dam would compare to a nuclear power plant melting down.

Hard to keep track of whose being daft and whose being sensible in this thread now :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom