It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Pilot
Hey guys, we had a 4.7 or 4.9 in Oklahoma last night at 2:12 am. It woke my brother up, he said the whole house was shaking...what's funny is he works in Santa Cruz every week and comes home on weekends, he said he never felt anything in CA the past few months he's been there. Kind of weird I think.
I slept through it.
Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
reply to post by CaptainKostr
Unfortunately, that nuclear fuel still needs cooling even if it is not udergoing criticality in a reactor. Even "spent" fuel has to be continually cooled or it will melt it's containment structue and end up in the ground beneath whatever building it is housed in and then be in a position to contaminate the ground water nearby as is the case in Fukushima right now.
Why people ever thought that an energy source who's waste product is dangerous for time periods longer than our acknowledged written history would be a good idea is beyond me. In case anyone is interested, I made a post inking a document published by the University of illinois regarding the impact of as large quake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone. That post can be foundhere.
Arkansas also has seen a big increase in earthquake activity, which residents have blamed on injection wells. Natural gas companies engaged in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, use fluid to break apart shale and rock to release natural gas. Injection wells then dispose of the fluid by injecting it back into the ground.
There are 181 injection wells in the Oklahoma county where most of the weekend earthquakes happened, said Matt Skinner, spokesman for the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which oversees oil and gas production in the state and intrastate transportation pipelines.
But natural gas companies claim there is no proof of a connection between injection wells and earthquakes, and a study released earlier this year by an Oklahoma Geological Survey seismologist seems to back that up. It found most of the state's seismic activity didn't appear to be tied to the wells, although more investigation was needed. The state survey didn't respond to phone messages left Sunday.
Earle said he couldn't comment on the relationship between fracking, injection wells and earthquakes.
Originally posted by Wertwog
Originally posted by Ektar
reply to post by rbrtj
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but if we already have many highly contaminated places such
as Chernobyl & now Fukushima why can't they be used for a so called "dumping station"?
I realize NO ONE wants to have any more radiation than what they already have, however it seems like
once beyond a certain level of contamination that isn't going away any time soon everyone could benefit from it. Seems like Japan could make a huge profit by doing so & therefore putting the money towards clean up, peoples health (especially the children), relocation & rebuilding if that is even possible.
Just an idea. Thanks for everyone's hard work & time!
It must be stupid ideas night, no offense to anyone, these are common thoughts I've heard bandied around so next time someone comes up with these winners, hand them an IQ test, no don't bother, you already know.
Dumb idea #1: Use Chernobyl and Fuku as dump sites. Reasoning: They're already nuked, why not?
Both, Chernobyl and Fuku are sitting on top of groundwater, and in Fuku's case, seismically volatile also, in fact the most seismically volatile area on earth! Chernobyl sits on top of an enormous underground lake that supplies the drinking water for half of northern Ukraine! If you were to choose nuke storage sites, these would be some of the worst. What you want is in a storage facility is DRY conditions, EQ stable, preferably non-cracky, non-porous, bedrock/quartz composition, you'd be amazed at how few sites on earth fit that bill. You are dealing with stuff that's deadly 200,000 years from now and longer. What you don't want is that stuff leaking out of rusted/busted/rotting drums and containers and getting into your water suppy, kapish? What you really really don't want is to take a horrible site and then add thousands of tons of the most toxic non-biologic materials known to man and put it on top of your drinking water... got it?
Originally posted by matadoor
reply to post by zworld
Personal opinion, Russia needs to build a launch complex at Chernobyl and build huge rockets with strong containment canisters to launch the nuclear waste into space, then send it on a long journey to the sun.
They would make BILLIONS a year in launch fees.
Then it's off the planet for good.
Dumb idea #2: Send the nuke waste into space! Yeeehaw, let aliens deal with it.
Do you have any idea how much nuke fuel weighs? 1(ONE) typical spent fuel cask weighs 151tonnes. Do you know what kinda ummmmmph (thrust) you need to send 151 tons into space? The more weight you are sending up the more fuel you need to send it up, the more fuel you are carrying the more weight you have. At a certain point, you reach negative returns... you can't carry enough fuel to reach escape velocity. For comparison, the usual max payload for the space shuttle including crew and toothpaste was about 23 tonnes. Now look at this little fact:
With 134 missions, and the total cost of US$192 billion (in 2010 dollars), this gives approximately $1.5 billion per launch over the life of the program.
Now that includes Nasa's buildings, paperclips and janitors, but most of the cost of a launch is the fuel. FUEL. Now, given your payload, assuming you could even reach escape velocity, which you couldn't, you would need approx 8x the thrust/cost etc. Now, that's just for ONE CASK. 12 billion $$ for one cask. Annnd.... what if the space vehicle does a Columbia on it's way up?....Hmmm. Wa Wa Wa... flush.
We need to get beyond dumping our problems on future generations and think of energy sources that are sustainable.
 On second thought, you guys probably weren't serious, all good, I'm probably just coming down from a sugar rush... carry on!
edit on 31-10-2011 by Wertwog because: mini coffee crisp and gummy bears.... ohhh sore belly!
 Maybe the Atlantians will take it. Or send it to Antarctica, nobody lives there anyways...edit on 31-10-2011 by Wertwog because: anybody got a antacid?
Wednesday, November 09, 2011 at 06:40:23 UTC
Tuesday, November 08, 2011 at 10:40:23 PM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones
Depth 0 km (~0 mile)
set by location program Region
30 km (19 miles) SE (143°) from Eureka, NV
41 km (25 miles) N (356°) from Duckwater, NV
51 km (32 miles) NW (307°) from Willow Grove, NV
75 km (47 miles) W (274°) from Ely, NV
348 km (216 miles) N (353°) from Las Vegas, NV
horizontal +/- 12.4 km (7.7 miles); depth fixed by location program
NST= 6, Nph= 7, Dmin=106.5 km, Rmss=0.09 sec, Gp=263°,
M-type=local magnitude (ML), Version=8
Seismological Laboratory, University of Nevada, Reno
Originally posted by kdog1982
reply to post by zworld
A research project to see what the common person could theorize .
We were test subjects,they got their info and fled.
I hope to hell we scared them a little with what we as a group came up with.