Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Wuli; All

I heard a report the other day which said that the location of the nuclear plant had received 30 meter (95 ft) tsunamis in the historical past, but the plant was not sited or protected to reflect this historical reality. I spoke to a man the other day from the northern part of Washington, DC. He said that all the houses in his neighborhood had sustained earthquake damage from the 5.6 in Mineral, VA. They all had to have their chimneys torn down and rebuilt and it was not covered by their insurance because this is not an earthquake area.


20 posted on 01/14/2013 9:46:48 PM PST by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: gleeaikin

“I heard a report the other day which said that the location of the nuclear plant had received 30 meter (95 ft) tsunamis in the historical past, but the plant was not sited or protected to reflect this historical reality.”

From everything I have read, if the site of the plant had ever received a 95 ft tsnami in the past, it was not in the living memory of any Japanese living today.

Such assessments are based on the statisical most likely scenarios not the radomly, rarely possible though not likely scenarios.

Many things can be on the order of “possible” but it does not make them likely or certain and that sort of unpredictability leaves all kinds of planning left dealing responsibly with statistically greatest, most frequent, most often recorded case scenarios.

No one can afford to build for D-Day every day in every way. If we were asked to, civilization would slowly shut down.


21 posted on 01/14/2013 10:20:54 PM PST by Wuli (uire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson