3 ms·

Magically? We're made to believe that nuclear power plants are built for all sorts of compounding contingencies. Take a look at the list of significant earthqua

Magically? We're made to believe that nuclear power plants are built for all sorts of compounding contingencies. Take a look at the list of significant earthquakes in Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Japan 8,3, 8.5 and 8.4 are three major earthquakes I see before mid-20th century. If you're building a power plant, it should survive a large safety factor above the largest earthquake you have ever seen, especially since the cost of failure is pretty darn high. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to survive an 8.9 in a major earthquake zone, especially since the largest earthquake the world saw after the 1900s was around 9.5. I think the fact that the diesels in Daiichi failed because of seawater flooding is yet another gigantic contingency failure. The Japanese know that earthquakes are followed by Tsunamis. What happened? I used to be pro-nuclear but I'm reconsidering my decisions too. I don't think that humans can be trusted with doing things right, such as decommissioning old plants in time or building in extra safety factors even though it costs way more money to do so. Furthermore, I shudder to think what a deliberate attack attempt at a nuclear plant (or several ones simultaneously) could do. If there are people who drive planes into buildings with no regard to their own life, there will be those who attack nuclear plants also. Edit: reasons for downvotes would be appreciated to further the discussion.

reirob 16y ago
Looking up in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale the Richter Scale "is a base-10 logarithmic scale obtained by calculating the logarithm of the combined horizontal amplitude (shaking amplitude) ...". This means that a Richter magnitude of 9 has a 10 time bigger shaking amplitude than Richter magnitude 8. I do not know for which earthquake magnitude the power plants in Japan were planned but apparently the risk assessment was not good enough. This said, I am opposed to nuclear power - I think that apart the natural catastrophe risks, as you said there is human error that cannot be calculated, there is no "clean" solution for the nuclear waste and again we are relying on radioactive materials that are limited so anyway mankind will have to look for other solutions. I think it is high time to make an effort and look for other solutions.
- masklinn 16y ago
  Note that the richter scale is outdated, the current scale (while sometimes mis-named Richter) is the Moment Magnitude Scale. It is also a logarithmic scale. Furthermore, as with Richter, > This means that a Richter magnitude of 9 has a 10 time bigger shaking amplitude than Richter magnitude 8 Yes, and a bit above 30 times the energy released (2 magnitudes indicate a thousandfold increase in energy)
  - bioh42_2 16y ago
    Yes, but I think makmanalp point was that earthquakes of up to 8.9 are not unknown in Japan, and there's also been a 9.5 in the world. Thus it would be reasonable to expect 9+ earthquakes and tsunamis in Japan. Now, can you make anything withstand that? I am not sure, but I think it is possible. It would make electrical power more expensive but how much would more expensive electricity shave of Japan's GDP? Enough to justify not doing it?

reirob 16y ago

Looking up in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale the Richter Scale "is a base-10 logarithmic scale obtained by calculating the logarithm of the combined horizontal amplitude (shaking amplitude) ...". This means that a Richter magnitude of 9 has a 10 time bigger shaking amplitude than Richter magnitude 8. I do not know for which earthquake magnitude the power plants in Japan were planned but apparently the risk assessment was not good enough. This said, I am opposed to nuclear power - I think that apart the natural catastrophe risks, as you said there is human error that cannot be calculated, there is no "clean" solution for the nuclear waste and again we are relying on radioactive materials that are limited so anyway mankind will have to look for other solutions. I think it is high time to make an effort and look for other solutions.

masklinn 16y ago
Note that the richter scale is outdated, the current scale (while sometimes mis-named Richter) is the Moment Magnitude Scale. It is also a logarithmic scale. Furthermore, as with Richter, > This means that a Richter magnitude of 9 has a 10 time bigger shaking amplitude than Richter magnitude 8 Yes, and a bit above 30 times the energy released (2 magnitudes indicate a thousandfold increase in energy)
- bioh42_2 16y ago
  Yes, but I think makmanalp point was that earthquakes of up to 8.9 are not unknown in Japan, and there's also been a 9.5 in the world. Thus it would be reasonable to expect 9+ earthquakes and tsunamis in Japan. Now, can you make anything withstand that? I am not sure, but I think it is possible. It would make electrical power more expensive but how much would more expensive electricity shave of Japan's GDP? Enough to justify not doing it?