Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: joseph krinsky who wrote (240671)	3/21/2002 4:12:23 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

There are all nature of threats. What if an asteroid crashes in downtown hocum. There are many ways to contaminate large areas with industrial chemicals. One of them is the deploy solar cells and batteries everywhere. There are no perfect solutions. There are solutions where the risks can be defined and contained. I don't know if any airplane is a threat to a nuclear power plant. I'd guess the design of the California plants took into account the stresses of an earth quake. But if one knows where all the fault lines are then they can be avoided. If planes are a concern. A little more concrete can solve that. Remember a 747 did not even make it thru the first ring of the pentagon. tom watson tosiwmee

To: joseph krinsky who wrote (240671)	3/21/2002 4:37:49 PM
From: George Coyne	Respond to of 769670

I believe that if the entire story was told, all of it, then there might be a lot fewer people enthralled with nuke power. 99% of the people would be asleep. That's how many do not understand the safeguards or for that matter nuclear energy generation itself.

To: joseph krinsky who wrote (240671)	3/21/2002 5:04:39 PM
From: Kenneth V. McNutt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

DESIGN CRITERIA Nuclear facilities are designed so that earthquakes and other external events will not jeopardize the safety of the plant. Because of the frequency and magnitude of earthquakes in Japan, particular attention is paid to seismic issues in the siting, design and construction of nuclear power plants. The seismic design of such plants is based on criteria far more stringent than those applying to non-nuclear facilities. Japanese nuclear power plants are designed to withstand two earthquake ground motion waves, S1 and S2.* * The same ground motion at reactor site could result from an earthquake near the site or a larger earthquake at a greater distance. The design basis earthquake ground motion S1 is defined as the largest earthquake ground motion which can reasonably be expected to occur at the site of a nuclear power plant during its lifetime, based on the known seismicity of the area. A power reactor could continue to operate safely during an S1 level earthquake. Larger earthquake ground motions in the region, considering the tectonic structures and other factors, must also be taken into account, although their probability is very low. The largest conceivable such ground motion is the design basis earthquake ground motion S2. The plant's safety systems would be effective during an S2 level earthquake to ensure safe shutdown without release of radioactivity. Nuclear power plants are fitted with seismic detectors. If these register ground motions of a set level, usually less than S1 to allow a margin for extra safety, systems will be activated to automatically bring the plant to a safe shutdown. Power reactors are also built on hard rock foundations to minimise seismic shaking. After the Kobe earthquake a panel was set up to review the safety of nuclear facilities and the design guidelines for their construction. The Nuclear Safety Commission then approved the panel's report. After recalculating the seismic design criteria required for a nuclear power plant to survive near the epicentre of a large earthquake it concluded that under current guidelines such a plant could survive a quake of 7.75 on the Richter scale. The Kobe quake was 7.2. More info. Ken