Meltdown??

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

To say that a 9.0 earthquake (and/or the resulting tsunami from it) shouldn't have been on the list of possibilities, is stupid.

Huh? My post was sarcasm. No, I think they SHOULD have looked at it. They played the odds, and we lost. This is nuclear. There is no taking that small chance.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Riot

Huh? My post was sarcasm. No, I think they SHOULD have looked at it. They played the odds, and we lost. This is nuclear. There is no taking that small chance.

Especially after the Indonesia Quake showed them just how much water will come ashore. Look at the white car sitting on a decently high hill (center left.)
This would be at least as high as their sea wall. Eventually, the water does take that car, and it did flood that nuclear plant. I'm sure this is at least a mile in. On the coast, it would be much worse. A sea wall is about as useful as a paper fan in 105 degree heat.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/wor...deo.cnn?hpt=C2

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Especially after the Indonesia Quake showed them just how much water will come ashore. Look at the white car sitting on a decently high hill (center left.)
This would be at least as high as their sea wall. Eventually, the water does take that car, and it did flood that nuclear plant. I'm sure this is at least a mile in. On the coast, it would be much worse. A sea wall is about as useful as a paper fan in 105 degree heat.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/wor...deo.cnn?hpt=C2

Our sea wall for that nuclear plant that is literally on the ocean in CA is 30 feet.

[hi_im_god]

anyone that actually planned their life around the possibility of a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami would be paralyzed. risk takers have out competed them over the last few million years.

which is why you see otherwise rational people building nuclear reactors on the coast of a seismically active country.

this is the price we pay for deciding not to stick with looking for tasty roots within easy walking distance as our main choice for dinner and then dying of starvation at 27 because our teeth are bad.

it's not like there won't be plenty of blame to go around but unless you want to go back to living in an open plan cave, get over the "how could they have built it there?" crap. we all do that. the odds of that specific nuclear plant getting hit by a tsunami was miniscule. if they had built a 50 foot flood wall around it there's still the chance of a 51 foot tsunami next year.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

anyone that actually planned their life around the possibility of a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami would be paralyzed. risk takers have out competed them over the last few million years.

which is why you see otherwise rational people building nuclear reactors on the coast of a seismically active country.

this is the price we pay for deciding not to stick with looking for tasty roots within easy walking distance as our main choice for dinner and then dying of starvation at 27 because our teeth are bad.

it's not like there won't be plenty of blame to go around but unless you want to go back to living in an open plan cave, get over the "how could they have built it there?" crap. we all do that. the odds of that specific nuclear plant getting hit by a tsunami was miniscule. if they had built a 50 foot flood wall around it there's still the chance of a 51 foot tsunami next year.

Oh, fk off!! You are not God. This ain't Mexico, Russia, or China. Take that lame gargage above, and put it in your dark spaces.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Oh, fk off!! You are not God. This ain't Mexico, Russia, or China. Take that lame gargage above, and put it in your dark spaces.

Scuds fringe sites are already picking up the story that a scientist was against this type of plant being built. More than likely the cause of this will come down to the decision to save money. And don't be surprised if pockets were lined to achieve this.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Scuds fringe sites are already picking up the story that a scientist was against this type of plant being built. More than likely the cause of this will come down to the decision to save money. And don't be surprised if pockets were lined to achieve this.

Just can't believe the big shyt-covered tarp of unaccountability that people try to put up. 2 weeks ago, they'd of said it was safe, and now they say it was a risk people should be happy to take. Love the quick pivot (so Chantal.)

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Just can't believe the big shyt-covered tarp of unaccountability that people try to put up. 2 weeks ago, they'd of said it was safe, and now they say it was a risk people should be happy to take. Love the quick pivot (so Chantal.)

i didn't have all that much of an opinion 2 weeks ago other than i liked for my dark spaces to be illuminated when i flipped the switch up.

i just can't believe all the highly qualified interweb nuclear engineers that didn't know this plant existed 2 weeks ago but are now positive it shouldn't have been put where it was.

I'm more upset with the fact that there wasn't a gigantic storage facility for fuel in a nearby hill.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i didn't have all that much of an opinion 2 weeks ago other than i liked for my dark spaces to be illuminated when i flipped the switch up.

i just can't believe all the highly qualified interweb nuclear engineers that didn't know this plant existed 2 weeks ago but are now positive it shouldn't have been put where it was.

Well, lets all just give a left nut to the Gov't and the Nuclear Industry. Again, if you (and others) had this "shut up it's risky" attitude before this took place, I wouldn't mind that you have it now. What you (and other maggots) do is claim it's safe, and (when it's obvious something really wasn't safe) you quickly pivot to this "necessary risk" bullshyt. You'll do whatever is most convenient for you....FK OFF, MAGGOT!