Last 7 days

Over the last 7 days there have been 10,053 - yes ten thousand and 53 earthquakes in California/Nevada area. Although most are still occuring in the ridgecrest area there has been a unsettling tremendous increase in activity along the San Andreas fault also.

(Refer Cal tech's recent earthquake map)

The USGS is warning more even bigger likely and the 8 nearby volcanoes are concerning geologists greatly.

With all that activity makes you wonder which genius's decided to build 5 nuclear reactors right along this fault and one down the coast (diablo canyon) which makes it susceptible to a fukushima type incident and that's just that 1 let alone the other 5 in close proximity to the fault line.

If a mag 9 hit San Andreas which is not unfeasible given whats gone on last week or so it would be 707 times bigger than the July 5 - 7.1, can you imagine? Then on top of that, what if this concurrently ruptures all 5 nuclear reactors out there and also sets of the volcanoes leading to water surges down at diablo canyon and the unthinkable is unleashed.

Where do you even start to deal with this type of scenario.


So i have 2 questions.

1 : In all honesty why would anyone continue to roll the dice and remain residents of this vacinity, what is the attraction?
and
2 : why build these reactors in such a vulnerable enviroment that has the potential for such devastation?

a reply to: CthruU

1. Nice weather

2. Money

Also, the largest magnitude quake possible on the San Andreas fault is generally accepted to around 7.9 - 8.1 not a 9.

originally posted by: CthruU
...

If a mag 9 hit San Andreas which is not unfeasible given whats gone on last week or so it would be 707 times bigger than the July 5 - 7.1, can you imagine? Then on top of that, what if this concurrently ruptures all 5 nuclear reactors out there and also sets of the volcanoes leading to water surges down at diablo canyon and the unthinkable is unleashed.

Where do you even start to deal with this type of scenario.

...

Well, not to be contrary, but...what if the Sun exploded into a supernova and vaporized our entire Solar System at same time??

I mean, it could happen.

That would suck too.

why build these reactors in such a vulnerable enviroment that has the potential for such devastation?

We are only a few years into a problem that will need to be managed for 100,000's years. Short term thinking, energy demands, money, nuclear material reprocessing. Fukushima is still burning away and leaching into the ocean.

To have a small little box that can power an aircraft carrier for years is some pretty cool technology used right. But yeah, when it does go wrong, Chernobyl is still a no go zone and will be for quite some time.

In trying to look for an upside, science still has a long way to go when dealing with radiation. But if it can then it will make space exploration a lot safer and more practical.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

originally posted by: CthruU
...

If a mag 9 hit San Andreas which is not unfeasible given whats gone on last week or so it would be 707 times bigger than the July 5 - 7.1, can you imagine? Then on top of that, what if this concurrently ruptures all 5 nuclear reactors out there and also sets of the volcanoes leading to water surges down at diablo canyon and the unthinkable is unleashed.

Where do you even start to deal with this type of scenario.

...

Well, not to be contrary, but...what if the Sun exploded into a supernova and vaporized our entire Solar System at same time??

I mean, it could happen.

That would suck too.

^^^^^This^^^^^

Hmmm. I don't know why you would assume they haven't developed a strategy to avoid another Fukushima by now?

1) Don't worry Dwayne Johnson will save them.

2) Its California.

a reply to: CthruU

INSTA CALI MAP

a reply to: BrianFlanders
LOL Because they still haven't fixed Fukushima? If they can't fix that, how are they going to avoid it?

All about the money OP.
And lack of common sense.

a reply to: MorpheusUSA

LOL..yeah, in his helicopter which never needs fuel and his boat that can crash through buildings and drive on lakes of fire!

Fun show though.

originally posted by: chiefsmom
a reply to: BrianFlanders
LOL Because they still haven't fixed Fukushima? If they can't fix that, how are they going to avoid it?

All about the money OP.
And lack of common sense.

Because it's easier to prevent a meltdown than it is to make one not happen after it's already happened? I don't know. I'm no nuclear scientist but if they know what specific circumstances and conditions caused the reactor to melt down, they can probably modify other ones to not do that in similar conditions.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Nah, I seem to recall that the Sun is too small to go supernova. It has to do with the star's ability to generate iron in its core or something, and the sun isn't quite massive enough to manage that. The most it will do is turn into a red giant and swallow the earth in billions of years.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Hmmm. I don't know why you would assume they haven't developed a strategy to avoid another Fukushima by now?

Do you assume they have? If so what is it? - please, just out of curiosity.

originally posted by: chiefsmom
a reply to: BrianFlanders
LOL Because they still haven't fixed Fukushima? If they can't fix that, how are they going to avoid it?

All about the money OP.
And lack of common sense.

Defies logic doesn't it.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: CthruU

1. Nice weather

2. Money

Also, the largest magnitude quake possible on the San Andreas fault is generally accepted to around 7.9 - 8.1 not a 9.

"Generally accepted" ---oh you mean like fukushima or chyrnobel where "generally accepted" safe until they weren't or that titanic was "generally accepted" as unsinkable until it sank or like takama car airbags where "generally accepted" safe until they started maiming and killing people?????

If this is the type of general acceptance your refering to then ok everything will be fine then. Phewww.

originally posted by: CthruU

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Hmmm. I don't know why you would assume they haven't developed a strategy to avoid another Fukushima by now?

Do you assume they have? If so what is it? - please, just out of curiosity.

I assume they have because Fukushima was kinda a big deal and probably sent everyone who works on such things back to the drawing board.

I would not know anything about it but I would be very surprised if they have not been working on it. It's kind of like if your neighbor's house burns down with him in it due to some correctable flaw that your house also has. It would be in your best interest to get right on finding out if there's any way you could avoid death by fire.

You have to realize the people who know the most about these things are also the people who get irradiated when something goes wrong and they have to send people who know what they're doing in there.