 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones...
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Mar 14 - 01:22 PM "Tehran (AFP) - Russia has signed a preliminary agreement to build at least two more nuclear power plants in the Iranian port city of Bushehr, Iran's official IRNA news agency reported on Wednesday. The deal was reached during a visit to Tehran on Tuesday by a senior official of Russia's state atomic energy agency Rosatom, IRNA said. "Iran and Russia reached a preliminary agreement to build at least two new nuclear power plants," Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi told the news agency. The two new 1,000 megawatt plants will be constructed alongside the existing power station in Bushehr, which was also built by Russia, Kamalvandi said. Further talks will be held on technical and financial aspects of the project, but a final agreement is expected to be signed "very soon", he added. …… Construction of the new Bushehr nuclear plants is likely to spark concerns among Gulf Arab states, which have often raised concerns about the reliability of the existing Bushehr facility and the risk of radioactive leaks in case of a major earthquake. Iran sits astride several major fault lines and is prone to frequent quakes. On April 9, a 6.1-magnitude quake rocked the south, with an epicentre just 100 kilometres (60 miles) from Bushehr." Does ANYBODY think that this is a good idea? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: Ebbie Date: 12 Mar 14 - 01:39 PM NO |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: Greg F. Date: 12 Mar 14 - 02:08 PM Abouit as good as where the U.S. and Britain and most of the rest of the world have sited nuclear reactors, Bruce. NEXT. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Mar 14 - 03:22 PM So, GregF, YOU approve of building nuclear reactors in earthquake zones? It was a dumb idea when we built Diablo Canyon, it is a dumb idea today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: GUEST,michaelr Date: 12 Mar 14 - 06:35 PM Here in Northern California, in the 1960s there was a plan to build a nuclear reactor on Bodega Head. They got as far as digging a large hole for the foundation when it was pointed out that the location was squat on the San Andreas Fault. Construction was halted, and the pit became known as "the hole in the Head". It's still there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: GUEST Date: 13 Mar 14 - 07:39 AM Hinkley Point - south west England |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Mar 14 - 07:48 AM "When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: Stu Date: 13 Mar 14 - 08:21 AM The human race is collectively to stupid and greedy to ever learn. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: Greg F. Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:33 AM So, GregF, YOU approve of building nuclear reactors in earthquake zones? How is it, Bruce, that you are totally incapable of understanding the English language, cannot employ logic, and see things thet aren't there? Side effects from your meds? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:39 AM VERY GOOD, GregF. Your statement contains only 4 lies. You are getting much better than your previous posts |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: Greg F. Date: 13 Mar 14 - 10:32 AM I rest my case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:36 PM Goodness! Vituperation in only 11 posts! Is this a record? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: JohnInKansas Date: 13 Mar 14 - 05:28 PM No. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 13 Mar 14 - 06:00 PM LOL John. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: JohnInKansas Date: 13 Mar 14 - 06:06 PM (Previous comment was for Eliza.) A definition of "earthquake zone" appropriate to the individual project is necessary. There are few places where one can't find records of some earthquakes, and for some people any place on earth is in an earthquake zone. With proper design, anything can be made to be invulnerable to any quake of any size, and anything built anywhere will have some likelihood of experiencing any catastrophe, earhquake or otherwise, one might name. ALL of the possible modes of failure need to be considered, and there are many things other than earthquakes that are much more likely, even in zones of frequent LARGE quakes. I'd have to see the blueprints (and they'd have to be pretty %#$&!good). Even more important would be whether an adequate regulatory organization with appropriate and sufficient knowledge and authorities will have oversight of any such construction and of operation and maintenance. Otherwise, make sure the builder says "Trust Me" and sounds very sincere. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: GUEST,Black belt caterpillar wrestler Date: 14 Mar 14 - 08:29 AM A couple of years back we had a small shock (enough to feel like I had been nudged in my chair) from an epicentre just off Ulverston, quite near to Heysham power station. Since then ther have been some tremours caused by cracking in the area. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Mar 14 - 08:39 AM Reactors CAN be designed to be safe under expected conditions- but they are not always made so. If this was being done near you, would you be concerned? Would you object? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 14 Mar 14 - 10:30 AM I'd hate to be within dozens of miles of a nuclear reactor. I realise that even a hundred miles away one can be affected by contamination as in the Chernobyl disaster. It isn't only earthquakes that present a hazard. What about terrorist attack? Or even leaks? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Mar 14 - 10:39 AM Russian reactor design has improved a little. BUT, regardless of my opinion of the Iranian Government or their activities, I object to this additional hazard imposed on the Iranian people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: Stu Date: 14 Mar 14 - 10:49 AM "Reactors CAN be designed to be safe under expected conditions" It's not the expected conditions that are the problem, it's the unexpected ones. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Mar 14 - 11:37 AM Earthquakes in an earthquake zone SHOULD be an expected condition, one would think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: GUEST,Local Business Bigwig Date: 14 Mar 14 - 11:59 AM Naaahhh.. if we aint had a quake & tsunami here for the last 300 years, it aint likely gonna happen any time soon, is it ? So let's build the bloody reactor asap while we can still profit from it !!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Mar 14 - 12:07 PM From OP: "Iran sits astride several major fault lines and is prone to frequent quakes. On April 9, a 6.1-magnitude quake rocked the south, with an epicentre just 100 kilometres (60 miles) from Bushehr." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reactors in Earthquake zones... From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 15 Mar 14 - 04:12 AM There have been earthquakes in the UK fairly recently of 4, 5 and even 6 on the Richter scale, causing structural damage. We felt one whose epicentre was in Birmingham, and the whole house shook for about 10 seconds. A crack appeared in our wall. So imagine the danger if such an event damaged the structure of a nuclear installation! And if the tragic events of 9/11 were to be repeated by terrorists on a nuclear power station, the death rate could be yet more horrifying. I don't agree with them. We must find other ways of generating power. |
