Virginia Earthquake!
- Thread starter Kaze Araki
- Start date
Well I doubt no one knows an earthquake and storm will hit NY in 100 years. I sure do. But me like everyone other human doesn't take that into consideration. Like the majors all of use think in our life times.
Why should we care we pay money for something that will happen in about a century? Allot of our problems like the environment are put aside because of this way of thinking. A huge earthquake will hit the eastern cost and we will die for thinking like we do.
Why should we care we pay money for something that will happen in about a century? Allot of our problems like the environment are put aside because of this way of thinking. A huge earthquake will hit the eastern cost and we will die for thinking like we do.
Yeah, but no one ever takes the worst case scenario into consideration. Besides, it wasnt just the earthquake that caused Fukushima to fail, it was a combination of earthquake and gigantic tsunami that caused it.
And how often do earthquakes happen there, and how often are they big enough to actually pose a risk. And arent all Nuclear installation earthquake proof?
And how often do earthquakes happen there, and how often are they big enough to actually pose a risk. And arent all Nuclear installation earthquake proof?
Actually. It is a fact that big storms and earthquakes, increased about 400% in the last 25 years.
However speculation can be dangerous. Our scientists agreed that global warming will eventually cause major changes and problems in the world.
But in their way of thinking it will be 50 to 100 years before we will actually have to deal with the effects.
It is like Renasci said. People do think, it is nothing to worry about. Cos of the fact, something like that will not happen in their lifetime.
On a side note. Isn't US gouverment building a huge (40-foot) wall between the US and Mexico? In case something does happen? Is that true? <.<
Oh and i do agree with you Lex. But think about it. If that kind of a thing did happen. Don't you think there is a possibility it might happen again?
However speculation can be dangerous. Our scientists agreed that global warming will eventually cause major changes and problems in the world.
But in their way of thinking it will be 50 to 100 years before we will actually have to deal with the effects.
It is like Renasci said. People do think, it is nothing to worry about. Cos of the fact, something like that will not happen in their lifetime.
On a side note. Isn't US gouverment building a huge (40-foot) wall between the US and Mexico? In case something does happen? Is that true? <.<
Oh and i do agree with you Lex. But think about it. If that kind of a thing did happen. Don't you think there is a possibility it might happen again?
Yeah its possible, sure. But how likely is it? I mean, there is also a chance to that a big meteor will impact on earth causing a extinction event, but no one is preparing for such a scenario because its deemed to unlikely to happen anytime soon. I suppose its the same for the East coast, since thats only a minor and relatively inactive fault line.
It would need to go horribly wrong first.
It would need to go horribly wrong first.
The Independent very recent report shows that the earthquake itself already compromise Fukushima reactor.
The explosive truth behind Fukushima's meltdown
Japan insists its nuclear crisis was caused by an unforeseeable combination of tsunami and earthquake. But new evidence suggests its reactors were doomed to fail
Gotta separate fact and fiction.
EDIT:
Seriously, comparing earthquake with KT extinction type of meteor?
The explosive truth behind Fukushima's meltdown
Japan insists its nuclear crisis was caused by an unforeseeable combination of tsunami and earthquake. But new evidence suggests its reactors were doomed to fail
Gotta separate fact and fiction.
EDIT:
Seriously, comparing earthquake with KT extinction type of meteor?
Honz. You do know most climatologists expect oceans around the world to rise between 1.5 feet and 5 feet this century.
Some of the hardest-hit areas could be in our own backyard. Hey my country is expected to go bye bye also.
Along with Italia.
Erosion and a shift in ocean currents could cause water to rise four feet or more along much of the East Coast. So east coast is going down. Eventually. That is kinda a fact.
if i remember correctly.NASA Titus has calculated that a three-foot rise in sea level will push back East Coast shorelines an average of 300 to 600 feet in the next 90 years, threatening to submerge densely developed areas inhabited by some 3 million people, including large parts of New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C.
As Margaret Davidson, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Coastal Services Center puts it :
:sigh:
Some of the hardest-hit areas could be in our own backyard. Hey my country is expected to go bye bye also.
Along with Italia.
Erosion and a shift in ocean currents could cause water to rise four feet or more along much of the East Coast. So east coast is going down. Eventually. That is kinda a fact.
if i remember correctly.NASA Titus has calculated that a three-foot rise in sea level will push back East Coast shorelines an average of 300 to 600 feet in the next 90 years, threatening to submerge densely developed areas inhabited by some 3 million people, including large parts of New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C.
As Margaret Davidson, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Coastal Services Center puts it :
:sigh:
Alright, but in that case, the nuclear reactors in Fukushima were a ticking time bombs, regardless of any disaster. Now assume a power plant that is well maintained, the coolant pipes would have survived, the back up generators would have kicked in, and the meltdown would have been avoided.
Not comparing the scope of destruction but in the scope of likeliness on certain places. Or building your home next to an extinct volcano. If it seems unlikely that anything will happen, you simply wont take it into account. Until it goes seriously wrong sometime.
[MENTION=1240]Arachna[/MENTION], rising sea levels poses no real threat for humans, at least, if they are willing to spend money on it. The Netherlands is a good example of this, seeing how half of the country used to be sea before we came along and turned it into land. Hell, our biggest cities are built several meters below sea level.
Not comparing the scope of destruction but in the scope of likeliness on certain places. Or building your home next to an extinct volcano. If it seems unlikely that anything will happen, you simply wont take it into account. Until it goes seriously wrong sometime.
[MENTION=1240]Arachna[/MENTION], rising sea levels poses no real threat for humans, at least, if they are willing to spend money on it. The Netherlands is a good example of this, seeing how half of the country used to be sea before we came along and turned it into land. Hell, our biggest cities are built several meters below sea level.
It isnt exactly europe's fault that the houses in the US just fall apart when the wind tugs at em
besides 100 years in advance not a single soul will jump to prevent that but instead will monitor it till it does become a pressing matter. Something tells me that even you procrastinate when it comes to money Prince most likely due to the fact that you have more pressing issues to deal with. Like fixing the damn country
besides 100 years in advance not a single soul will jump to prevent that but instead will monitor it till it does become a pressing matter. Something tells me that even you procrastinate when it comes to money Prince most likely due to the fact that you have more pressing issues to deal with. Like fixing the damn country
Primarily a few things that seemed unaddressed:
Nothing is ever completely bullet proof, or earthquake proof. They hold a resistance against those forces, but it isn't absolute. Therefore though the reactors may have cautioners designs a strong enough force can still usurp these precautions and cause severe damage. Secondly it's been documented that though fissure lines often have the most earthquakes, that sometimes the centre of a plate can receive immensely powerful earthquake albeit rarely.
All reactors are doomed to fail eventually if not properly maintained regularly. I think this report is more suggestive than it appears at first and is doing what reporters do best; stirring emotions and thoughts. Personally I don't doubt that the reactors had defects in them that were causing them to fail, or approach the point of failure.
Nothing is ever completely bullet proof, or earthquake proof. They hold a resistance against those forces, but it isn't absolute. Therefore though the reactors may have cautioners designs a strong enough force can still usurp these precautions and cause severe damage. Secondly it's been documented that though fissure lines often have the most earthquakes, that sometimes the centre of a plate can receive immensely powerful earthquake albeit rarely.
All reactors are doomed to fail eventually if not properly maintained regularly. I think this report is more suggestive than it appears at first and is doing what reporters do best; stirring emotions and thoughts. Personally I don't doubt that the reactors had defects in them that were causing them to fail, or approach the point of failure.
I never stated that you should. Nonetheless in regards to a nuclear power plant nearly any precaution that can be perceived is taken. I live in Canada and it's rare that we have people even considering invading our borders other than to fish. Nonetheless I've a friend who's visited a nuclear plant equipped with ground to air missiles just in case. Also there is nothing to guard against a meteor other than hoping a missile would do enough damage to it to stall it from completely decimating the terrain.
Exactly they should do what they can in protection . At-least say you tried your best in giving it protection of all kinds. Like having sex its never really 100 % protection but those who dont want a kid still use protection anyway even with the knowledge that it might not be enough. And shooting a missile if not aimed at the exact place to totally destroy a meteor will just break it into multiple pieces causing more wide spread damage.
Shooting giant meteors/asteroids which is an epoch scale event, is pretty much irrelevant (and indeed fallacious) when compared to hundred year probability cycle for earthquake (the 100 year time span itself is pretty much used as safety factor in many standard building design) - especially when we're talking about nuclear reactor here.
NUclear reactors are cheap, protection for them is cheap, maintenance of them is cheap, the only thing that is expensive is the damn fuel rods.. especially getting rid of the depleted ones.
Get over the fact that one melt down and the fact that despite all safety measures taken it CAN happen.
An earthquake? sure safety for that! A tsunami?! shit well atleast the building is structurally sound! Bad maintenance?! oh my god weve got a meltdown.
If it was any 1 or even 2 of the above there would be no discussion necessary but since its all 3... I dont even understand why people are trying to make such a big deal of this. It really just was a matter of time with THAT much attrition.
Get over the fact that one melt down and the fact that despite all safety measures taken it CAN happen.
An earthquake? sure safety for that! A tsunami?! shit well atleast the building is structurally sound! Bad maintenance?! oh my god weve got a meltdown.
If it was any 1 or even 2 of the above there would be no discussion necessary but since its all 3... I dont even understand why people are trying to make such a big deal of this. It really just was a matter of time with THAT much attrition.