|
Discussion in here please.
|
Watching the more recent footage of the tsunami eg.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12725646
I still haven't seen any 'walls of water' or big waves; it looks like the sea level just started rising, and kept rising. Anyone else seen any different?
|
|
Most of the shots do indeed show a rapidly rising level rather than the wall of water that I recall seeing in school textbooks, although there aren't so many shots of the actual shoreline where the wave would break if it was like that.
|
>> Most of the shots do indeed show a rapidly rising level rather than the wall
>> of water that I recall seeing in school textbooks, although there aren't so many shots
>> of the actual shoreline where the wave would break if it was like that.
It didn't look like a wall of water because there is so much of it. A "wall of water" is merely a fanciful description, after all given the fluid properties of water, it can't form a "wall" Even a wave is curved, with a back draw first then the curve of water. There is certainly "walls" of water where it met sea walls for example.
|
|
well I was thinking of a 'wall' as in big wave
|
>> There is certainly "walls" of water where it
>> met sea walls for example.
How do you mean?
|
|
There are some shots of the tsunami meeting some of the coast where it has been protected by sea walls, IE all that water suddenly meets an obstruction designed to keep it out. Its a wall when it rushes over the top of that.
|
|
I see what you mean, although again the shots I have seen appear to show more of a gradual build up, unless the wall/obstruction collapses.
|
|
I'm not at all attempting to play down its destructive capabilities BTW
|
|
What you have seen is typical of a tsunami created by an undersea earthquake. They just don't generate the movie-style 100 foot waves you're imagining without a landslide being a contributing factor.
|
That's about the same as I've seen, Focus.
I think the "massive wall of water" kind of tsunami seem to be a result of things like land slides rather than under sea earthquakes. Although a landslide could be triggered by an underse quake I suppose.
Like this maybe:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatsunami
"Megatsunamis can be caused by giant landslides and asteroid impacts. Underwater earthquakes or volcanic eruptions do not normally generate such large tsunamis, but landslides next to bodies of water resulting from earthquakes do, since they cause a massive amount of displacement."
|
>> I still haven't seen any 'walls of water' or big waves; it looks like the
>> sea level just started rising, and kept rising. Anyone else seen any different?
Scary footage from a Japanese coastguard vessel:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12797471
|
>> For goodness sake Alanovic, I think we all know your views but you have to accept we >> don't all have to share them.
>> Pat
A bit rich coming from someone who seems to think everyone should share her views on workers rights.
>> If you find it like red rag to a bull to read an opposing view then a discussion forum may >> not be the best place for you.
See above. Your comment applies to you too, doesn't it?
So what is a discussion forum for? If I wanted a good read without contributing I'll go down the library. If the mods have some advice for me on how discussion should be carried out on here, I'll listen to them and I invite them to email me with their thoughts should that be the case.
|
|
It's right to argue and discuss. Don't fall out over it though. Everyone has an opinion, as long as it doesn't get personal please.
|
|
Sitting here on my (not so fat) behind in the relative safety of rural Wales (chocolate box, quite a few ethnic minorities visible and otherwise) I feel a strong urge to actually go out there and help in some way.
|
Yes, that thought had gone through my mind too. I can supply my own mask.
John
|
>> Sitting here on my (not so fat) behind in the relative safety of rural Wales
>> (chocolate box, quite a few ethnic minorities visible and otherwise) I feel a strong urge
>> to actually go out there and help in some way.
And me, alas I feel we would be more a hindrance than a help.
|
>> And me, alas I feel we would be more a hindrance than a help.
We would of course. We wouldn't want concerned foreign citizens faffing about under our feet if something like that happened here.
Specialist groups at digging out survivors from under collapsed buildings and minimising damage from nuclear meltdowns are another matter of course. Given the scale of the natural catastrophe some of those must be needed and welcome.
I'm sure the Japanese appreciate sympathy. But they aren't going to starve, they aren't short of medical and other emergency services and they can stamp out bulldozers and earthmovers in any numbers they need. It isn't like a drought in a desertish region of Africa, far from it.
|
I'm quite used to opposing views Alanovic and I'm also quite aware that there's a lot worse things in the world than the Daily Mail and the BBC.
There should also be threads where criticism of neither appear.
Just my opinion, of course.
Pat
|
PU has drawn a line under this, no need to carry it on.
Just my opinion, of course.
|
Saw an earlier post about Japanese people wearing face masks.
It is common practice in Hong Kong and other parts of Asia these days to wear a face mask, the habit possibly 'took root' during the SARS episode. If you have a cough then it is deemed common courtesy to wear a mask so that you don't spread your germs and it is not paranoia with people protecting themselves against the great unwashed. I used to chuckle when seeing tourists in Waterloo with masks on but now I realise that I was wrong.
However, the need arises because culturally it is (or was) quite acceptable to make no attempt to cover your mouth or nose when coughing or sneezing, spitting is deemed acceptable in many circles too. Not ideal when trying to prevent airborne diseases.
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Tue 15 Mar 11 at 14:32
|
"Japan's nuclear plants were built with the latest technology, specifically to withstand natural disasters, yet we still face potential meltdown," said Steve Campbell, from Greenpeace." (BBC web site).
Yet it is reported elsewhere that those affected are nearing the end of their life, 40 years old though with a 10 year extenson granted before shutting down.
There's nothing like getting your dis-information in first.
John
Last edited by: Tooslow on Tue 15 Mar 11 at 15:57
|
There is a report that argues given the scale of the earthquake, far in excess of the earthquake margins designed into the nuclear power plants, they performed better than anyone could have hoped. And given the number of deaths "projected" from radiation fallout, makes them safer than anyone realised.
|
|
But the nay-sayers won't see it like that.
|
|
As I understand it the nuclear reactors withstood the earthquake without problems. The diesel backup generators cut in when the power supply to the cooling pumps failed, as they should. I was the Tsunami taking out the diesels and probably the last resort batteries and / or their control systems that caused the problems.
|
>> There is a report that argues given the scale of the earthquake, far in excess
>> of the earthquake margins designed into the nuclear power plants, they performed better than anyone
>> could have hoped.
Not Lewis's article over on The Register? Seemed barking to me. Although I don't see that this accident spells the end of nuclear power as we know it.
|
|
Irony went unmentioned in a Welsh language documentary filmed in Christchurch that was broadcast last night - It showed a team of Japanese rescue workers digging at the scene of the TV tower collapse. Little did they know at the time what was going to overwhelm their country.
|
>> Not Lewis's article over on The Register? Seemed barking to me.
yeah - thats the one. It is barking in some respects, and way to far over the top in others, but there is an underlying truth to it.
When you look at the extreme failures happening to the Japanese reactors (and being unable to cool the core is a pretty extreme failure - clearly the cores have melted) the designed containments are doing a pretty good job.
Although I don't see
>> that this accident spells the end of nuclear power as we know it.
There have been three previous major nuclear failures.
Windscale
Three Mile Island
Chernobyl.
They dont get much worse than those, and if you check the effects on on health and human death, they have not really been significant.
In the case of Windscale there was NO containment building. Just a poxy filter in the chimney.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 15 Mar 11 at 18:35
|
>> >> Not Lewis's article over on The Register? Seemed barking to me.
>>
>> yeah - thats the one. It is barking in some respects, and way to far
>> over the top in others, but there is an underlying truth to it.
>>
I agree with that, there were some good points, but (as the comments for the article show) people will remember the exaggerated/wrong bits and ignore the underlying message.
This is the article we're on about folks:-
www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/
|
...They dont get much worse than those, and if you check the effects on on health and human death, they have not really been significant...
Very hard to get accurate information, but I wouldn't describe increased cancer rates continuing decades after Chernobyl as insignificant.
And some sheep in the UK still glow in the dark.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects
Wiki is not always the most reliable source of information, but this article has a ring of truth about it.
|
>> ...They dont get much worse than those, and if you check the effects on on
>> health and human death, they have not really been significant...
>>
>> Very hard to get accurate information, but I wouldn't describe increased cancer rates continuing decades
>> after Chernobyl as insignificant.
as in:
most of those affected received relatively low doses of radiation; there is little evidence of increased mortality, cancers or birth defects among them; and when such evidence is present, existence of a causal link to radioactive contamination is uncertain.
from that article,
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 15 Mar 11 at 19:40
|
From the same article:
A sevenfold increase in DNA mutations has been identified in liquidators' children conceived after the accident.
Late in 1995, the World Health Organisation (WHO) linked nearly 700 cases of thyroid cancer among children and adolescents to the Chernobyl disaster.
Health officials have predicted that over the next 70 years there will be a 2% increase in cancer rates in much of the population.
|
"Health officials have predicted that over the next 70 years there will be a 2% increase in cancer rates in much of the population."
but they don't say what the cause might be or how the increase may have happened naturally.
Either way you look at it, there was shedloads of radiation released, and the global effect has been minimal.
|
|
Didn't the Chernobyl outfall cause some problems in Wales??
|
>> Didn't the Chernobyl outfall cause some problems in Wales??
Anecdotally, yes.
A Welshman I used to meet at work in a previous life has a daughter who was born the year after Chernobyl - he related to me that she has an ear deformity. There is no family history of anything like that.
Then there are the sheep, which I understand _still_ need to be on valley bottom pasture for a while before they are allowed to be sold (as are some in the Lake district).
|
>> >> Didn't the Chernobyl outfall cause some problems in Wales??
>>
>> Anecdotally, yes.
>>
>> A Welshman I used to meet at work in a previous life has a daughter
>> who was born the year after Chernobyl - he related to me that she has
>> an ear deformity. There is no family history of anything like that.
>>
>> Then there are the sheep, which I understand _still_ need to be on valley bottom
>> pasture for a while before they are allowed to be sold (as are some in
>> the Lake district).
>>
Oh perlease. This is daily mail territory.
|
...Oh perlease. This is daily mail territory...
The sheep part is true, so yes, it would be in the Daily Mail.
The rest is described by the OP as an anecdote, so unless you are calling him a liar, then that is also true - a true anecdote.
I know you've decided in your infinite wisdom there have been so significant after effects from Chernobyl, but you know next-to-nothing about it.
Same as the rest of us.
|
...Yeah yeah whatever....
More informed debate from Zero.
Instead of making snidey remarks, why not post some sources of material for discussion?
No, you'd rather make bold, unsubstantiated assertions, many of which are claptrap.
And when someone points out the obvious, out comes the dummy.
Whatever.
|
>> Health officials have predicted that over the next 70 years there will be a 2%
>> increase in cancer rates in much of the population.
>>
Those risk stats a bit iffy, to say the least.
Taking that at face value, say normal cancer rates are 100 per 1000 population.
2% increase means 102 per 1000 population.
If people were that worried about cancer, they would stop smoking, drinking, getting fat, inhaling fumes from petrol pumps, and/or standing next to the smoke from a barbecue grill.
If people were that worried about deaths, they would stop driving, cycling, motorbiking, or crossing the road.
If people were that worried about radiation, they would stop sunbathing, having x-rays, having MRI scans, and/or abandon Cornwall and Scotland.
Get real.
Last edited by: John H on Tue 15 Mar 11 at 20:24
|
>> having MRI scans
>>
should have said "CT scans"
|
>> They dont get much worse than those, and if you check the effects on on
>> health and human death, they have not really been significant.
Many more people have died mining for coal and drilling for oil/gas than have died in nuclear related accidents. I used to be anti nuclear but with so many people crawling around on the planet demanding energy, it's the only viable option at the moment to meet those needs without pollution.
|
This could spell a knee-jerk reaction against the use of diesel back-up generators world wide.
Wind turbines are much more reliable, and being 300 feet high can survive any tsunami.
|
I can point you to any number of problems caused by reliance on diesel generators switching in, from Air Traffic Control, to large computer systems, to ships, and now Nuclear Reactors.
As soon as you say "its ok the diesel generator will kick in" you have a problem.
|
|
I'd rather have a diesel (or i/c) engine backup than have to rely on sufficient wind...
|
|
You have to feel sorry for them down there, the weather has turned cold and they are now being snowed upon.
|
>> As soon as you say "its ok the diesel generator will kick in" you have
>> a problem.
>>
I thought here they did kick in, but were subsequently drowned by the tsunami.
It was part of the routine at UK nuclear stations to start up and test the diesel generators daily. Large power stations are designed for a "black start", and many have batteries plus gas-turbines plus diesels for this, but they all depend on the electrics/electronics remaining in a dry functioning state.
It seems that the continuing problems are due to many of the back-up motors/pumps having been rendered useless from water damage.
|
>> It was part of the routine at UK nuclear stations to start up and test
>> the diesel generators daily. Large power stations are designed for a "black start", and many
>> have batteries plus gas-turbines plus diesels for this, but they all depend on the electrics/electronics
>> remaining in a dry functioning state.
Oh yes, they always work under test. I was involved where there were THREE back up generators, yet still lost power. And that was Air Traffic Control!
|
Thunderbirds are not go!
International Rescue Corps sent home because they had the wrong paperwork.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12756366
|
I know of an example where a datacentre had a backup generator. It had been tested on many occasions to make sure it kicked in to supplement the UPS etc. Only it didn't start when there really was a power cut. Why? Someone had plugged it into the power socket on the wrong side of the power supply (i.e. not protected by UPS) so it couldn't start. Doh.
Okay human error as it should have worked. But it was known to work but didn't kick in when really needed.
|
I know of one datacentre where there was a power cut, and the genny cut in. Trouble was when the power came back on the switchgear crowbar wouldnt switch the genny out.
No problem, its running fine on Genny, we will call for some more diesel and the service guy for the genny.
The diesel track collided with a car on the road running to the Datacentre blocking the road, and the old bill put a cordon round it. The service guy couldn't get there, the oil couldn't get there, it ran out and the power failed. Fortunately we shut the place down and reverted to the recovery site and hour before the fuel ran out.
I wont tell you about the place that had three gennies, with three diesel feeds.
Trouble was all three feeds went to one tank where there was algae growing in it.
|
I know of a data centre that switched to generator back up as part of a regular test. Generator ran fine... until it ran out of diesel. Then they had their very own, private power cut.
John
|
>> I thought here they did kick in, but were subsequently drowned by the tsunami.
>>
>
That's what the early reports said...
|
|
As I said, you cant rely on them.
|
>> As I said, you cant rely on them.
>>
Indeed. Some will say they were unfortunate to get the Tsunami but with the plants where they were this was always a risk and should have been mitigated.
I would not like to think how much the diesel tank(s) for a datacentre backup generator would cost now. Years ago a shocking figure of £250k would probably be mentioned. Probably at least half as much again now. And that won't last that long!
|
Apologies if this has been posted as I have not been following the thread, but there were plenty of brown trouser moments in the air as well as devastation on the ground -
www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/g7ksg/written_by_a_delta_pilot_on_approach_to_tokyo/
|
>> Indeed. Some will say they were unfortunate to get the Tsunami but with the plants
>> where they were this was always a risk and should have been mitigated.
>>
It was, but with tsunami protection walls which were deemed to be well above any statistically expected event in the lifetime of the station - as designed and calculated in the 1960s.
Experts said this:
"Peter Bradford, a member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the time of the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979, said the accident exposes shortcomings in risk analysis as well as engineering.
'The redundancy, such as it was, obviously was inadequate to the event that actually happened,' he said. He said the problem is that certain risks always are discounted in the licensing process as 'so highly unlikely that you don't have to plan for them.'
He said that may be the case in Japan, with an earthquake that apparently exceeded the level that the plant was designed to withstand, possibly compounded by other unexpected technical problems and tsunami waves."
"Richard Meserve, a physicist and former NRC chairman, said the Japanese reactors experienced a 'one-two punch of events beyond what anyone could expect or what was conceived.' A reassessment of safety threats to boiling-water reactors, in particular, and also to coastal reactors will result, he said.
Operators of similar early-vintage General Electric Co. boiling-water reactors in the U.S. said they are trying to understand events in Japan. The NRC sent boiling-water-reactor experts to Japan over the weekend and agency Chairman Gregory Jaczko said, 'We stand ready to assist in any way possible.'
Two kinds of nuclear plants are most likely to be affected by the accident- those of similar reactor type and those that also are located in coastal areas around earthquake faults. In earthquake-prone California, attention immediately turned to PG&E Corp.'s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant and Southern California Edison's San Onofre plant, both of which are on the Pacific Ocean, near fault zones."
The above two California plants use PWRs.
|
Some photos, that I have not seen before, of the Tsunami hitting the Fukushima nuclear power plant
www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13467943
|
|
Difficult to believe that this was nearly six months ago - however a Horizon Fukushima special tonight on BBC 2 at 9.00
|
>> Difficult to believe that this was nearly six months ago
Where's that time gone! Life is speeding up.... so time in the near future to step down a few gears and enjoy life. Will have to watch that programme on iPlayer now.
|
>> Where's that time gone! Life is speeding up....
Oh I dunno Rob, we seem to have been hearing about your new car for half a lifetime. I can't blimkin' wait for it to arrive...
:-))
Only kidding !
|
|
It's been sat in the dealer's since the end of July - and I can't have it yet. Not fitting a bike rack to it though.
|
>> What new car?
You know the one, that rusty one that's been hanging around in the dealers compound, the one covered in bird sh...guano.
|
That's the one Z. Probably got a few dents in it too. And it's on it's second registration.... lease company sent a set of 11 plates for it. Only I get it in October so now it will have 61 plates. I have a photo of it on the 11 plates when I popped to check it over.
Neither plate is registered to anything yet - sad I know, but I checked.
|
|
Anyway was the programme worth watching?
|
|
It was, but I was only half watching in the end - I think that Embarrassing Bodies and the Volvo case was more perturbing...and got my attention.
|
>> Embarrassing Bodies
Not watched it but why do people go on it instead of to their GP?
|
I was wondering that .Unless they have lousy doctors.
Don't watch it either strange program to watch.
|
|
....and flat spots on the tyres...!
|
>> ....and flat spots on the tyres...!
>>
.... and a duff battery.....
|
|
They'll have to jump start it probably, not good that...
|
Someone getting a new car?
:-)
|
|
No, a rather old, poo covered, rusty old wreck actually.
|
|
And that's before it gets dropped off the transporter and winds up in the bodyshop...
|
Japan Tsunami....Volume 3. - Focusless
