Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,166,733 times
Reputation: 8105
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCGranny
Well... I have a couple of friends who are "Conspiracy Theorists" - to the extreme.
Ever seen an "earthquake truck"?
It's actually a large truck called a "Vibro-seis". It is used to 'read' potential oil deposits far underground. But, well, what would happen if someone put one over a fault that had potential slippage? There was actually a fictional book written by Ken Follett about just such an occurrence... Amazon.com: The Hammer of Eden (9780449227541): Ken Follett: Books
So no matter how far-out and fantastical it may seem, there is foundation for it...
Just sayin'. Not saying that I believe it was done, but sayin - well, it's mathematically and scientifically possible. What I really believe is that there are a lot of stupid people who will do a lot of stupid things, either by accident, out of pure ignorance, or out of malice; and all too often, "the law of unintended consequences" happens.
Yes, people can cause small earthquakes by fracking etc, but they can't move entire tectonic plates. Sometimes people think that all earthquakes are about the same, and I've seen on some sites where every little swarm of 2s and 3s in an area were reported. But it's good to remember the logarithmic nature of reported earthquake intensities, where each increase of 1 = 10x the size ...... a 9.1 earthquake is 1,000,000,000,000,000 times the energy released of a 3.1, if I'm doing my math correctly.
The earth was actually shifted a few inches from the Japan earthquake. We simply can't do that on a human level. Even the largest nuclear explosion ever - the Tsar Bomba - didn't do anything even remotely close to that, even though Siberia has plenty of faults running through it.
Yes, people can cause small earthquakes by fracking etc, but they can't move entire tectonic plates. Sometimes people think that all earthquakes are about the same, and I've seen on some sites where every little swarm of 2s and 3s in an area were reported. But it's good to remember the logarithmic nature of reported earthquake intensities, where each increase of 1 = 10x the size ...... a 9.1 earthquake is 1,000,000,000,000,000 times the energy released of a 3.1, if I'm doing my math correctly.
The earth was actually shifted a few inches from the Japan earthquake. We simply can't do that on a human level. Even the largest nuclear explosion ever - the Tsar Bomba - didn't do anything even remotely close to that, even though Siberia has plenty of faults running through it.
True - but sound and vibration can move an already-unstable plate configuration, and cause a chain reaction of shift.
True - but sound and vibration can move an already-unstable plate configuration, and cause a chain reaction of shift.
This has been demonstrated. Also I don't doubt that electromagnetic or similar could have an effect. Certainly an explosion, say nuclear, properly placed could do much damage. In Japan's case they are in a unstable geographic situation.
There are hot spots even within the Tokyo Metropolitan Area that have actually already led to physiological problems/damage.
[...]
We are expecting thyroid disorders in children, but also cancers (bladder, leukemia, lung), diabetes.
(BTW, above, I noticed I typed unstable "geographic" situation for japan and earthquakes, when I meant "geological". (lol))
Tokyo is only 220KM from the plants & the Japanese nuclear disaster is supposed to be worse than Chernobyl who evacuated to 600KM... so there is something going on besides what is covered for sure.
It's important to note that the Chernobyl disaster would have been far, far less severe if the reactor had been inside a containment building. Even if the meltdown within the Fukushima reactors was worse than the Chernobyl accident, the containment buildings at Fukushima should significantly reduce the amount of fallout that escapes into the atmosphere. Granted, the world "should" is a key word. The bigger question is whether or not the buildings will contain the radiation before the mess can be cleaned up.
As far as I know, The Soviet Union is the only country that has ever built a nuclear power plant without a containment buildings for the reactors. Since then, the mere thought of doing so has never even been considered.
It's important to note that the Chernobyl disaster would have been far, far less severe if the reactor had been inside a containment building. Even if the meltdown within the Fukushima reactors was worse than the Chernobyl accident, the containment buildings at Fukushima should significantly reduce the amount of fallout that escapes into the atmosphere. Granted, the world "should" is a key word. The bigger question is whether or not the buildings will contain the radiation before the mess can be cleaned up.
As far as I know, The Soviet Union is the only country that has ever built a nuclear power plant without a containment buildings for the reactors. Since then, the mere thought of doing so has never even been considered.
Cleaning-up, maybe impossible. On drudge today, there is an article about the spent fuel being exposed.
I worked at a nuclear reactor years ago. During training to start work in the plant, we were told that spent fuel is by far the most dangerous safety threat in the factory. Our instructor told us that if just 1 spent fuel pellet was in the middle of a field and you started to run towards it, you would never get there. He went on the say that the actual radiation coming from spent fuel is unknown ( at the time of my training in 1980) because there was no instrumentation that could measure it.
Cleaning-up, maybe impossible. On drudge today, there is an article about the spent fuel being exposed.
I worked at a nuclear reactor years ago. During training to start work in the plant, we were told that spent fuel is by far the most dangerous safety threat in the factory. Our instructor told us that if just 1 spent fuel pellet was in the middle of a field and you started to run towards it, you would never get there. He went on the say that the actual radiation coming from spent fuel is unknown ( at the time of my training in 1980) because there was no instrumentation that could measure it.
Wasn't Chernobyl encased in concrete? If so, why hasn't this approach been taken yet with the reactor and fuel rod storage at Fukashima?
Multiple 6.0 earthquakes this week in Japan and a possible bulging wall do not bode well in regard to the future safety of this nuclear reactor site.
The high res sat photos of Bldg 3 seem to throw doubt on intact encasement. It looks like not only the building, but much else has been blown away. The spent fuel is indeed the bigger issue. Hi-res photographic proof reactor core exploded at unit 3
Chernobyl was encased and is continuing to be encased. The problem with concrete is it will decay and breakdown. It doesn't really address the ground water contamination either.
I would say Fukushima is indeed worse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Considerations about farming/sustainability
