It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Major event about to unfold before your eyes

page: 8
170
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by kdial1
 


Hopefully someone here tends to send these very important posts to the MSM in their locales..we hope..and we pray for a great relief..blessings to all concerned.
It really is special as well to have the resources of the amazing people on ATS. It does and can make a positive difference to many lives around the world..S&F indeed.




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by jerzee14
 
It wasn't a bright idea to build these nuclear power plants on a major river in the first place, but a dam break in Montana will have very little impact on nuclear power plants in Nebraska. Even the increased flooding would be slow in coming and easily prepared-for.


"a dam break in Montana will have very little impact on nuclear power plants in Nebraska" & "easily prepared-for", This has to be sarcasm.


If not please explain, other than run for the hills what could be done.
Let's do some math. Fort Peck is releasing 60,000 Cubic Feet Per second.
Which raised the river level where I live (nebraska) by tens of feet to flood stage.

And Fort Peck holds 160,082,999,226 (160 billion) cubic feet of water.
What would the flow rate in CFS be for total failure?
2 times, 10 times, lets go with 100 times the 60,000 cfs currently flooding us now.

That is a 6 million cubic feet PER SECOND wave of death.
There would be nothing left of the nuclear power plants, nor my city.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
If you look at how that dam is constructed, it is like a very wide sloped hill or ridge of earth on one side, I think it would be more likely the water would just flow over it instead of burst it.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greensage
Ft. Peck is at 112% capacity!







A record-setting year of moisture has raised the 134-mile-long reservoir to its highest level ever, an elevation of 2,252.3 feet as of Thursday. Full pool at the reservoir is 2,250.


Forgive me, but I really don't think 2.3 feet out of 2,250 translates to 12 percent.
It would be more like...100.12 percent.

112 percent would be around 2520 feet.

Math is fun.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Absum!
 


You're assuming the entire volume of Fort Peck Lake will head straight for Nebraska. But, how much of that water will overflow the river? How much will end up inundating western North Dakota? How much will then overflow in South Dakota? After all of this, how much of a "wave of death" would it be?
A steady rise in the river's water-level is hardly a wave of death. Certainly, it would inundate much of the land around the Missouri River, but how long would it take to get there? How much time do people need to prepare? It's not like every drop of water released from Fort Peck Lake is going to make a run straight for Nebraska.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by semicolonsmile

Originally posted by Greensage
Ft. Peck is at 112% capacity!







A record-setting year of moisture has raised the 134-mile-long reservoir to its highest level ever, an elevation of 2,252.3 feet as of Thursday. Full pool at the reservoir is 2,250.


Forgive me, but I really don't think 2.3 feet out of 2,250 translates to 12 percent.
It would be more like...100.12 percent.

112 percent would be around 2520 feet.

Math is fun.




Damn, math is super fun. Either you are a complete idiot or troll or both. First of all maybe you should look at his sources first. And since you know so much about math, you should know that it is talking about pressure, which is not linear. Go be a smart ass somewhere else.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Absum!
 





If not please explain, other than run for the hills what could be done.
Let's do some math. Fort Peck is releasing 60,000 Cubic Feet Per second.
Which raised the river level where I live (nebraska) by tens of feet to flood stage.


This does involve the plains. Maybe it's our turn to run to the hills.




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by semicolonsmile

Originally posted by Greensage
Ft. Peck is at 112% capacity!







A record-setting year of moisture has raised the 134-mile-long reservoir to its highest level ever, an elevation of 2,252.3 feet as of Thursday. Full pool at the reservoir is 2,250.


Forgive me, but I really don't think 2.3 feet out of 2,250 translates to 12 percent.
It would be more like...100.12 percent.

112 percent would be around 2520 feet.

Math is fun.


Thank god for math! OMG!


actually it was this part where I read the 112%, I am afraid I may have misunderstood what it means


Originally posted by Dalke07
Jun 22, 2011

Fort Peck....: Flood Control max level ... 2250 : current level ... 2251.8 : percent of flood control capacity 112%
Garrison......: Flood Control max level ... 1854 : current level ... 1854.4 : percent of flood control capacity 102%
Oahe...........: Flood Control max level ... 1620 : current level ... 1619.3 : percent of flood control capacity 92%
Big Bend......: Flood Control max level ... 1423 : current level ... 1421.0 : percent of flood control capacity 32%
Fort Randal...: Flood Control max level ... 1375 : current level ... 1368.0 : percent of flood control capacity 69%
Gavins Point..: Flood Control max level ... 1210 : current level ... 1208.1 : percent of flood control capacity 63%


edit on 6/23/2011 by Greensage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Absum!
 


You're assuming the entire volume of Fort Peck Lake will head straight for Nebraska. But, how much of that water will overflow the river? How much will end up inundating western North Dakota? How much will then overflow in South Dakota? After all of this, how much of a "wave of death" would it be?
A steady rise in the river's water-level is hardly a wave of death. Certainly, it would inundate much of the land around the Missouri River, but how long would it take to get there? How much time do people need to prepare? It's not like every drop of water released from Fort Peck Lake is going to make a run straight for Nebraska.


I am assuming no such thing. Lets work on the facts and figures.
If a dam breaks it is not, "A steady rise in the river's water-level." Your words.

Right now they are releasing 60,000cfs or 0.0000375% of the volume of Fort Peck.
If the flow were to only double to 120,000cfs logic says the height down
the river will rise significantly, if not double outright.

I guess you have to see it first hand to truly understand the volume.

And it takes around five days at 7 MPH for the water to cover MT to IA,
however total failure of the dam would be moving much faster IMO.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I think this may have been mention previously, I actually Live in Montana, and the flood season this year has been ridiculous we got tones of places underwater at the moment and we are breaking the past rainfall record 4 times over, normal weather here is mostly drought drought drought a little rain then we rely off the snowmelt, well we got so much rain and the snow melt will get us in the long run, I actually live on the Yellowstone river, and we got irrigation ditches going all through town,( not a small town I'm actually int he most populated city) the amount that both have risen is alarming and we got plenty of dam that could be adversely affected, oh well something had to make this valley i live in wouldn't be surprised to see it fill up would be and awesome waterfall though coming from the north
ima keep an eye on this post back with updates, maybe I'll just go up there and look



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by semicolonsmile
 


Actually, the 2.3 feet of lake rise would be multiplied by the maximum length and width of the lake. So 112% is more accurate. The water maximum water depth is measured from the deepest point in the lake, I'm assuming. So let's do the math: 134 miles x 5280 ft/ mile x 40 miles x 5280 ft/ mile x 2.3 ft x 8.34 gal/ cu. Ft. = 286,633,219,276,800 gallons. Correct me f I'm wrong. (40 mile width was an estimate, even if its 10 miles it would still be 71 trillion gallons)

Yes that's 286 trillion gallons! Dam capacity is calculated in gallons not water depth.

And you're right, math is fun!
edit on 23-6-2011 by imawlinn because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-6-2011 by imawlinn because: (no reason given)


If anyone knows the average width of the lake, I would be happy to rework the numbers.

edit on 23-6-2011 by imawlinn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Absum!
 


If a dam breaks it is not, "A steady rise in the river's water-level." Your words.


But, after 750 miles worth of river, it's not going to be a "wave of death." Your words, as well.
Energy tends to dissipate after that much travel. Especially considering how much the river meanders over its course.


Right now they are releasing 60,000cfs or 0.0000375% of the volume of Fort Peck.
If the flow were to only double to 120,000cfs logic says the height down
the river will rise significantly, if not double outright.


In the case of the Teton Dam failure, it was 2,000,000 CFS.
I know, that doesn't help my position any, but I'm only concerned with defending my position so long as my position is legitimate... and, in this case, past experience is on your side. In this instance, at least.
It doesn't prove, however, that this massive outpouring of water would survive with enough energy after 750 miles worth of river to cause substantial damage to nuclear power plants in Nebraska.


I guess you have to see it first hand to truly understand the volume.


Unfortunately, the only way to truly know what the affect of a failure of the Fort Peck dam would be on the nuclear plants in Nebraska is to have a failure of the Fort Peck dam.
And, in the event such a failure does occur, we would be safer to assume your position and act accordingly beforehand.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Absum!
 



I guess you have to see it first hand to truly understand the volume.


That statement couldn't be any closer to the truth!

I was unfortunate enough to experience the floods of '93, and let me tell you that just a couple inches of rain, let alone an increase in dam output, can cause some serious trouble! We are talking about not just the rivers and surrounding area, we are talking about the rivers, streams, creeks, water diversion infrastructure and the entire ground water table.

A little bit goes a long way when it comes to what is needed to cause a river to rise. Some people will never understand until they are canoeing through their streets trying to get out of there.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I came back to this thread three times. I can't understand the dolt's that think a really big dam bursting will beanything less than a Tsunami with no end in sight. It's all downhill after all. I get the impression that the posters assume cold clear water gently flowing along. Right now the Salmon River here is at or near flood stage. Just a yearly scouring of her banks, has dumped all kinds of floating terror into the channel. You must have seen the tsunami in Honshu batter it's way across those fields. Now multiply this by the size of the biggest dam on the Missouri, setting in motion temporary flotsum dams, like in the great Johnstown PA. flood of 1880, but greatly multipied by the difference in the size of the rivers. It looks like that reactor complex is in an old slough. If temporary dams block the channel there, it could end up on the bottom of the new channel. The reactor vessels are probably safe, but what about the pools with 30 years accumulation of old rods. By some of the better posts, I see how these could be scattered and buried not only in the present river channels, but ground to bits and scattered over hundreds of square miles of presently fertile farm land. Once the flood crest takes out the second dam, the water over the plains won't be what does the damage. But present river channels and the dams therein, could become the new sloughs, if enough debris is packed into them. If these slushy temp dams of debris have a thousand or so fuel rods buried in them, who is going to crawl into them to plant explosives to re-channel the rivers. The army did this at Quake Lake, near Yellowstone, in 1959, but there were no Fukashima Fifty parameters of certain death by radiation on that one. The great Missoula Ice dam floods were in such a big hurry to get downstream, that they cut a completely new channel to the Snake River, so that the Palouse River flows over Palouse Falls many miles Eastwards of the Palouse's ancient channel. And this is just a miniscule part of the scab lands. Although it will never be proven scientifically, I believe that a herd of Columbia Mammoths heard the distant thunder of the last Ice dam flood 20,000 years ago, and ran up a canyon to the flats of the Camas Prairie. There they found safety, and water at Tolo Lake, but there wasn't any food, that high, and the roiling monster licking up the canyon walls had utterly destroyed every green thing in its path. So they just hung out around their little pond, until Nature took her course. At Lind Coulee, the waters scoured the solid rock down to 1985 feet below the surface, and carbon 14 dating, from diamond drill holes, down to solid rock showed that all the way down was precisely 20,000 years ago. At the very bottom, there was a giant mish-mash of great tree stumps, mixed with huge boulders. Now the Ninth power law, shows that a boulder the size of a large house, being rapidly propelled down a river channel by a monster flood, is something you really don't want to stand anything in its way. Those Columbia Mammoths ran for their lives, but they couldn't hide for long with nothing to eat. I'm sorry if this sounds alarmist, but a rock grinding monster, whether a real Tsunami, or Mt. St. Helens, or this possible giant flood down the Missouri River valley, seems to announce it's coming from quite a ways away. It's just that without any previous experiences, only the Tsunami phobic elephants in Ceylon, and those Wooly Mammoths had big enough ears to hear the imminent doom bearing down on them in time to evacuate. And with what Jimmy Carter's regime pulled here on May 18th, 1980, I believe it's fair to say; " you will be all on your own". If the Feds have bullied the broadcast News outlets into silence, over that air wave quarantine, they are sure to try it again, whenever needed. That camel is most certainly still in the tent. But the last time I looked; "Fore-warned is still very much, fore-armed".



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Can anyone tell me the populations that live in the way of potential waterways if the dam did go

Like what cities are near and downwards and so on



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ADUB77
 


A simple map with the Missouri and Mississippi rivers highlighted, just to sort of give a vague visual of where this might flow. The guy in the interview mentioned possible "biblical floodings" in St. Louis. Then the Missouri flows into the Mississippi which could impact areas already recently hit in May.





posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


The river is not a stationary obstacle to the flow of water released by the break of a dam. The river in fact would simply allow the extra water to scoot across its surface, with minimal friction - the ordinary flow of water beneath would minimise any frictional effects, and would also act to channel the flow of water along the river course; therefore reducing the extent to which the 'wave of death' will spread out across flood plains as it goes.

I think 'wave of death' is a pretty damn (no pun intended) accurate way to put it, at least for the first few hundred miles. Tsunamis don't appear to travel particularly quickly, or even particularly 'high', but we all know the kind of devastation they can cause..

Stop flogging your dead horse of a theory. There's plenty of people much smarter than me that can probably advise us more accurately regarding the physics involved, but I believe my generalised statements in the opening paragraph more or less sum up the key points.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by carpooler
 


Holy wall of text Batman! But yeah, good points in the main. This is an epic disaster in the making, and sadly it seems more and more likely that this could be anticipated, prepared for and even planned by those who are supposed to have our best interests at heart.

Stirring up strife in the Middle East, throwing rocks at the hornet's nest that is North Africa?

Seemingly deliberately pissing off the Communist and Arab nations, including China, Iran and Russia?


Their weather / geo-manipulation weapons are fully tested, locked and loaded...

In fact, these systems were probably responsible for the 'jet-stream blocking event' which led to uncharacteristic floods in Pakistan and wildfires in Russia in 2010.

The Christchurch earthquake tests (to determine the depth of penetration necessary for maximum destructive potential)..?

These systems have been and are still being tentatively rolled out worldwide already, as part of their bid to destabilise - well, everything - in preparation for global war. They are the perfect weapon. You could take down the entire planet without firing a gun. Though of course they will, in order to shock and awe everyone into submission for the deathcamps, and (if you're "lucky") the completion of the NWO agenda.

Remember the depopulation agenda? The Denver monuments? The FEMA 'drill' and purchase of emergency supplies earlier this year? The massive construction projects to build underground bunkers? The recall of troops from existing and long-considered BS conflicts?

They are laying the groundwork, and anyone that doesn't see it is quite simply not worthy of ATS membership.


The resistance must begin.


edit on 23-6-2011 by FlyInTheOintment because: controversial point removed. many others left in situ.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
*speculates* Imagine if the dam breaches in a catastrophic failure and most of the water is released all at once. What would be the effect of that much weight being alleviated off of the earth all in one spot. Are there any volcanos or faults in the area? Lucky this dam isnt right near NMFL.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by CLPrime
 


There's plenty of people much smarter than me that can probably advise us more accurately regarding the physics involved


Ahh yes. Physics. Physics is my specialty. If you want the physics, here it is:

Water in the river does not provide a low-friction surface for the water being released from the dam. In fact, it provides a large amount of drag, greatly slowing down and dissipating the massive inflow of water. Yes, water even experiences drag within itself - though, in that case, it's called cohesion. It's what allows the Jesus lizard to run across the surface of a pond (surface-tension caused by cohesion), and it's what keeps water from flowing freely through itself, slowing it down and dissipating its energy quickly.
The only thing, free from a massive inflow of water, that keeps water flowing at a high velocity is gravity acting down an incline. Once the flow from the dam-break dissipates downstream and over the surrounding low-lying land (especially in central and south-central North Dakota), the water flowing further down the Missouri will continue under the influence of gravity, alone, acting down the shallow incline of the river as it heads south.

Now, let's assume the flood contains itself between Fort Peck and Fort Calhoun - a distance of about 750 miles. Given the capacity of the reservoir of 160 billion cubic feet, that amount of water spread out over a 750-mile stretch of river approximately 1.5 miles wide on average would lead to an overall rise in the river's water-level of about 5 feet. Which, according to the physics, would be a steady (not wave-of-death-like) rise, as much of the energy is dissipated over the 750-mile meandering stretch.

This is the additional flooding Fort Calhoun should expect, at most - about 5 feet. And not all at once. Quickly, but not in some sudden wave of death. The wave of death is what the residents in north-eastern Montana and most of North Dakota should expect.
edit on 23-6-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
170
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join