Nuclear project in disarray as two pull out making new plants

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Aparrently there is geological evidence of massive earthquakes throughout Europe.

When were they and can you provide a link to that evidence

I would be interested to see which of those affect the UK and are large enough to create tidal waves or capable of shaking concrete reinforced building to the ground in the UK. Considering the standards that any nuclear reactor building will need to be built to any earthquakes would need to be a pretty dam big ones. I don't think we have seen one large enough in the UK yet.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Sirius

When were they and can you provide a link to that evidence

I would be interested to see which of those affect the UK and are large enough to create tidal waves or capable of shaking concrete reinforced building to the ground in the UK. Considering the standards that any nuclear reactor building will need to be built to any earthquakes would need to be a pretty dam big ones. I don't think we have seen one large enough in the UK yet.

well the keep spouting global warming aha new blurb is climate change.

Our town had for abit tsunami warning airraid sirens god knows what they think we can do in 1 hour. there no high ground to escape too.

In 1953 the was big big tidal surge which flooded lincolnshire norfolk caused to believe earthquake in norway area causing massive water displacement in north sea. It cost lives. It could easily happen again.

If the scientist are right lets say it is true then climate will adapt we could face with tornado like america get. Eathquakes could be even more prominent or larger.

We had 6 magnitude earthquakes in past notably yarmouth.

History suggest we had some biggish ones they could return old faultlines could come active once again.

Lake district scarfel, and scotlands glencoe are actually super volcano might again wake up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog.../article.shtml

We cant be closed to our ecological past of the future we cant predict it. It might be thousands years it might not.

We should at our peril be not vigilant and prepared.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by mertle

well the keep spouting global warming aha new blurb is climate change.

Our town had for abit tsunami warning airraid sirens god knows what they think we can do in 1 hour. there no high ground to escape too.

In 1953 the was big big tidal surge which flooded lincolnshire norfolk caused to believe earthquake in norway area causing massive water displacement in north sea. It cost lives. It could easily happen again.

If the scientist are right lets say it is true then climate will adapt we could face with tornado like america get. Eathquakes could be even more prominent or larger.

We had 6 magnitude earthquakes in past notably yarmouth.

History suggest we had some biggish ones they could return old faultlines could come active once again.

Lake district scarfel, and scotlands glencoe are actually super volcano might again wake up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog.../article.shtml

We cant be closed to our ecological past of the future we cant predict it. It might be thousands years it might not.

We should at our peril be not vigilant and prepared.

I am sorry but i am having problems understanding that post.

What your trying to say i think is You never know what is going to happen. Well if we accepted that outlook for everything then we will never progress.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Sirius

I am sorry but i am having problems understanding that post.

What your trying to say i think is You never know what is going to happen. Well if we accepted that outlook for everything then we will never progress.

nobody saying we cant move forward and progress we however need to be mindful of climate will change if scientist are right.

Lets be honest subsequant governents believed it to be so they taxing enough. then we should consider our options on how we adapt.

If that mean coastal property on stilts other flood risks. Buildings to withstand magnitude 7+.

Sky scrapers such new london one london being built with high specifications to withstand high winds and earthquakes.

It just means adapting specifications to withstand what we could face. At some point if they believe science then they have to to look at those countries who build in earthquake, tsunami, tornado high risk locations.

Originally Posted by mertle

nobody saying we cant move forward and progress we however need to be mindful of climate will change if scientist are right.

Lets be honest subsequant governents believed it to be so they taxing enough. then we should consider our options on how we adapt.

If that mean coastal property on stilts other flood risks. Buildings to withstand magnitude 7+.

Sky scrapers such new london one london being built with high specifications to withstand high winds and earthquakes.

It just means adapting specifications to withstand what we could face. At some point if they believe science then they have to to look at those countries who build in earthquake, tsunami, tornado high risk locations.

I think we are a few hundred thousand years away from having to worry about earthquakes, tsunamis and tornados on a regular basis .Geographically speaking the British Isles are very stable

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by martyh

not really a reason not to build them though is it

It's a very good reason to not build them. The UK is very densely populated compared to many countries, so an accident could mean many 1000's of people having to be evacuated, and a whole region becoming uninhabitable.

---------- Post added at 18:18 ---------- Previous post was at 18:17 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

I think we are a few hundred thousand years away from having to worry about earthquakes, tsunamis and tornados on a regular basis .Geographically speaking the British Isles are very stable

Where on earth did you get that from???

---------- Post added at 18:20 ---------- Previous post was at 18:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

When were they and can you provide a link to that evidence

I would be interested to see which of those affect the UK and are large enough to create tidal waves or capable of shaking concrete reinforced building to the ground in the UK. Considering the standards that any nuclear reactor building will need to be built to any earthquakes would need to be a pretty dam big ones. I don't think we have seen one large enough in the UK yet.

If you have the documentary channels, and you have a Tivo, then search for earthquake, and I'm sure it will come up with some results. Although I don't know how long you will have to wait to view them again.

---------- Post added at 18:27 ---------- Previous post was at 18:20 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

I think we are a few hundred thousand years away from having to worry about earthquakes, tsunamis and tornados on a regular basis .Geographically speaking the British Isles are very stable

You think!!!! But the truth is that you don't have a clue about it do you?

I also thought that the UK was quite stable (with the exception of the odd tremmor). Then after watching the documentary I was shocked to see the evidence of huge earthquakes. And to hear about the chances of them happening again.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

It's a very good reason to not build them. The UK is very densely populated compared to many countries, so an accident could mean many 1000's of people having to be evacuated, and a whole region becoming uninhabitable.

.

then we just have to be more carefull

Where on earth did you get that from???

The last time i looked we don't get strong earthquakes or volcanoes and we aren't straddling 2 continental plates so i would say we are live on a stable land mass

---------- Post added at 18:38 ---------- Previous post was at 18:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

You think!!!! But the truth is that you don't have a clue about it do you?

I also thought that the UK was quite stable (with the exception of the odd tremmor). Then after watching the documentary I was shocked to see the evidence of huge earthquakes. And to hear about the chances of them happening again.

yes i do think ,and yes i have watched a few documentaries on the subject ,it doesn't make me a expert though that's why i think ,unlike you though who appear to be a expert on most matters after watching a few documentaries .
I have just been watching one about weather change in the UK on BBC Iplayer as it happens and guess what all the experts only "think" as well they are not certain ,perhaps we should point them in your direction being the fount of all knowledge

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by martyh

then we just have to be more carefull

So we can avoid earthquakes by being careful can we???

Originally Posted by martyh

The last time i looked we don't get strong earthquakes or volcanoes and we aren't straddling 2 continental plates so i would say we are live on a stable land mass

Well you really need to do some more research then.

---------- Post added at 18:47 ---------- Previous post was at 18:39 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

then we just have to be more carefull



The last time i looked we don't get strong earthquakes or volcanoes and we aren't straddling 2 continental plates so i would say we are live on a stable land mass

---------- Post added at 18:38 ---------- Previous post was at 18:31 ----------



yes i do think ,and yes i have watched a few documentaries on the subject ,it doesn't make me a expert though that's why i think ,unlike you though who appear to be a expert on most matters after watching a few documentaries .
I have just been watching one about weather change in the UK on BBC Iplayer as it happens and guess what all the experts only "think" as well they are not certain ,perhaps we should point them in your direction being the fount of all knowledge

The documentaries get their information from experts who know far more than me or you So I'm far more likely to listen to what they say, than what 'you think'. But you seem to quite often think that what "you think" is right, and the experts are wrong.

The experts don't know when a large earthquake could happen. But what they do know is that they have happened before, and they will probably happen again. This is enough reason to not build power stations that could prove to be extremely dangerous in the event of an earthquake. In fact Germany are decommissioning all of their nuclear power stations following the events in Japan. But then I suppose you think that you know better than them also!!

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

So we can avoid earthquakes by being careful can we???




Well you really need to do some more research then.

Oh good god you really are a doom and gloom mercant aren't you ,we are not about to be devastated by earthquakes ,volcanoes or any other natural disaster you cook up in that overactive imagination of yours .
Personally i think you have been watching too much tv and need a spell in the real world

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by martyh

Oh good god you really are a doom and gloom mercant aren't you ,we are not about to be devastated by earthquakes ,volcanoes or any other natural disaster you cook up in that overactive imagination of yours .
Personally i think you have been watching too much tv and need a spell in the real world

I didn't say we were. But you don't risk 1000's of lives when there are alternatives. So you don't build nuclear power stations.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

In fact Germany are decommissioning all of their nuclear power stations following the events in Japan. But then I suppose you think that you know better than them also!!

In fact ,Germany have been decomissioning their nuclear power staions since 2000 as they came to the end of their life ,some stations have been closed this year

Mr Rottgen said the seven oldest reactors - which were taken offline for a safety review immediately after the Japanese crisis - would never be used again. An eighth plant - the Kruemmel facility in northern Germany, which was already offline and has been plagued by technical problems, would also be shut down for good.

Six others would go offline by 2021 at the latest and the three newest by 2022, he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13592208


It doesn't have a fat lot to with Japans disaster at all ,that is merely a sop for the enviromentalists the decision to end germanies nuclear stations was taken years before and by a different government

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...se-out#Germany

In 2000, the German government, consisting of the SPD and Alliance '90/The Greens officially announced its intention to phase out the use of nuclear energy. Jürgen Trittin (from the German Greens) as the Minister of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, reached an agreement with energy companies on the gradual shut down of the country's nineteen nuclear power plants and a cessation of power-generation (non-research) use of nuclear power by 2020.

[mertle]

Martyh you might want to read these links. Tells you that scientist dont much know about intraplate earthquakes to understand how they happen where the risks are. They learning all the time about these type earthquakes these are the type uk get. In netherlands was pretty immune got 5.8 which damaged structures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Roermond_earthquake

Its was thought they we very infrequent but that thinking subsiding. Scientist accept three types caused by stress, heat or weakness fig 2. following link

http://www.experimentation-online.co...le.php?id=1316

Its these earthquakes not near the main plates can be just violent deadly. I dont want you have nightmares but we not immune.

This will give you idea where most at risk next 50 years darker the risks damage to property. Although they estimate only 10% chance of this.

http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/hazard/UKhazard.html

Another is the 2 most recent earthquakes study been conducted

http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/res...rketrasen.html

some other stuff might want read

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/earthq...s.html?src=sfb

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/5356/

Which means historic earthquakes may been stronger as it difficult to assess.

Now biggest recorded earthquake was offshore dogger bank near coast yorkshire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1931_Do...ank_earthquake

DATE 07/06/1931
ORIGIN TIME 00:25:00 UTC
LOCATION 54.080 1.500
DEPTH 23.0 km
MAGNITUDE6.1 ML
LOCALITY NORTH SEA

http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/ear...UKseismic.html

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by mertle

Martyh you might want to read these links. Tells you that scientist dont much know about intraplate earthquakes to understand how they happen where the risks are. They learning all the time about these type earthquakes these are the type uk get. In netherlands was pretty immune got 5.8 which damaged structures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Roermond_earthquake

Its was thought they we very infrequent but that thinking subsiding. Scientist accept three types caused by stress, heat or weakness fig 2. following link

http://www.experimentation-online.co...le.php?id=1316

Its these earthquakes not near the main plates can be just violent deadly. I dont want you have nightmares but we not immune.

This will give you idea where most at risk next 50 years darker the risks damage to property. Although they estimate only 10% chance of this.

http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/hazard/UKhazard.html

Another is the 2 most recent earthquakes study been conducted

http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/res...rketrasen.html

some other stuff might want read

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/earthq...s.html?src=sfb

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/5356/

Which means historic earthquakes may been stronger as it difficult to assess.

Now biggest recorded earthquake was offshore dogger bank near coast yorkshire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1931_Do...ank_earthquake

DATE 07/06/1931
ORIGIN TIME 00:25:00 UTC
LOCATION 54.080 1.500
DEPTH 23.0 km
MAGNITUDE6.1 ML
LOCALITY NORTH SEA

http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/ear...UKseismic.html

But martyh knows better

Originally Posted by mertle

Martyh you might want to read these links.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

But martyh knows better

yeah you may want to read them yourselves

taken from Mertle's link here http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/hazard/UKhazard.html

The overall values of hazard are not particularly high, since the predicted intensity for the higher zones is only 6 EMS. In other words, even in areas of relatively high exposure to earthquakes in the UK, there is only a 10% chance of experiencing shaking equivalent to intensity 6 in a 50 year period. If we assume that less than 5% of buildings of normal construction will be damaged when the intensity of shaking is 6, the probability of damage for a single house in 50 years is therefore less than 0.5%

kind of backs up what i said really doesn't it ,the rest of the links either talk about other countries or are just theories

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by martyh

yeah you may want to read them yourselves

taken from Mertle's link here http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/hazard/UKhazard.html




kind of backs up what i said really doesn't it ,the rest of the links either talk about other countries or are just theories

Not at all. Even a 1% chance is a chance. And when you are dealing with nuclear power, then that chance is far too high.

Would you like to be the one who tells 1000's of people who live within a 25 mile range of lets say Selafield, that there is a 1% chance that they could die due to an earthquake causing a massive radiation. And then don't forget all the contamination caused by the radiation cloud.