Earthquakes and nuclear power plants

[harryopal1]

I wonder if the widespread impact of the Myanmar earthquake, extending to Thailand, has caused any pause for thought for the proponents of building nuclear power plants in Indonesia? Thre are 130 active volcanoes in Indonesia and vulcanologists are good at warning of aftershocks after a quake or eruption has happened they don't seem to be so good at predicting the first quake or eruption.

 

[John indonesia]

I wonder if the widespread impact of the Myanmar earthquake, extending to Thailand, has caused any pause for thought for the proponents of building nuclear power plants in Indonesia? Thre are 130 active volcanoes in Indonesia and vulcanologists are good at warning of aftershocks after a quake or eruption has happened they don't seem to be so good at predicting the first quake or eruption.

In known earthquake zones, the Japanese answered that one a few years ago.
The first question sould be, are the planned installations in 'safe' areas?

 

[Balifrog]

In known earthquake zones, the Japanese answered that one a few years ago.
The first question sould be, are the planned installations in 'safe' areas?

In the Fukushima case, it was is not the tremor itself that damaged the powerplant, it was the tsunami that followed. It shutted down the electricity supply of the cooling system, causing the reactor to go in overheat.
Worst, the back up generators being at ground level were flooded and could not take over / kick in.
I read somewhere, that one of the lessons learned is not to put the back up generators at ground level but higher up.
Concerning the location of nuclear PWP remember they need an availability of a big quantity of water for the cooling, hence them being build along a river or near the sea.

 

[Shadrach]

I wonder if the widespread impact of the Myanmar earthquake, extending to Thailand, has caused any pause for thought for the proponents of building nuclear power plants in Indonesia? Thre are 130 active volcanoes in Indonesia and vulcanologists are good at warning of aftershocks after a quake or eruption has happened they don't seem to be so good at predicting the first quake or eruption.

I certainly Hope so!

 

[pantaiema]

The Pacific Ring of Fire

In my personal opinion, the nuclear power plants in Indonesia should first be built near Jakarta and Bandung, close to the politicians, scientists, and their families who have advised the government to proceed with the project. This would demonstrate their confidence in the recommendations they have given to the public. To prevent the typical "not in my backyard" mindset, where these decision makers, scientists want to enjoy the benefits, asking other people to take the risk, but refuse to accept any associated risks by themselves.

 

[Bob]

The Pacific Ring of Fire
View attachment 4745
In my personal opinion, the nuclear power plants in Indonesia should first be built near Jakarta and Bandung, close to the politicians, scientists, and their families who have advised the government to proceed with the project. This would demonstrate their confidence in the recommendations they have given to the public. To prevent the typical "not in my backyard" mindset, where these decision makers, scientists want to enjoy the benefits, asking other people to take the risk, but refuse to accept any associated risks by themselves.

View attachment 4746

Playing a 'gotcha' game with a nuclear power plant would be pretty dim.

 

[Balifrog]

Location of nuclear PWP in France.
Each located near a river or near the sea.
The number is the number of reactors in each plant

Do we feel unsafe Nope.

 

[John indonesia]

In the Fukushima case, it was is not the tremor itself that damaged the powerplant, it was the tsunami that followed.

Yes.
It was obviously a stupid idea to build in a place you know earthquakes and tsunamis are likely. If you are aware of three major tsunamis in the area, one just before WWII that generated 27m high waves, building it there was positively moronic.

 

[Balifrog]

Yes.
It was obviously a stupid idea to build in a place you know earthquakes and tsunamis are likely. If you are aware of three major tsunamis in the area, one just before WWII that generated 27m high waves, building it there was positively moronic.

Japan has a long history of earthquakes but is well prepared.
Here is the list of all earthquakes over 7.0

List of earthquakes in Japan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And after checking, several near Fukushima :

Fukushima earthquake - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Several earthquakes at or near Fukushima, Japan, have been recorded:

• 2011 Fukushima earthquake in April – the strongest aftershock on land of the disastrous Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami
• 2016 Fukushima earthquake
• 2021 Fukushima earthquake in February
• 2022 Fukushima earthquake - a 7.4 magnitude offshore quake

Note : Calling the Japanese positively moronic is uncalled for ...

 

[harryopal1]

The nuclear debate in Australia has suggested that for us the costs do not stack up very well in favour of nuclear over other alternatives. However much it may be argued that the chance of a meltdown are minimal, the grim reality is that the possibilities have such terrible long term implications. It is said that Chernobyl will remain uninhabitable for an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 years due to the long-term effects of the radioactive contamination.

 

[Hawk256]

The nuclear debate in Australia has suggested that for us the costs do not stack up very well in favour of nuclear over other alternatives. However much it may be argued that the chance of a meltdown are minimal, the grim reality is that the possibilities have such terrible long term implications. It is said that Chernobyl will remain uninhabitable for an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 years due to the long-term effects of the radioactive contamination.

The animals have already returned to Chernobyl and are not just living but thriving. Places that took direct blasts during testing or WW2 have people living there now. I am not buying those kinds of numbers for human habitation. I grew up up near a coal plant. They are still building mountains of used coal and have no plans for it. If it had been nuclear powered the waste would have fit in a pick up truck and would safely be in a vault out of everyone's way until it is no longer unsafe which is not 20,000 years.

 

[Shadrach]

The animals have already returned to Chernobyl and are not just living but thriving. Places that took direct blasts during testing or WW2 have people living there now. I am not buying those kinds of numbers for human habitation. I grew up up near a coal plant. They are still building mountains of used coal and have no plans for it. If it had been nuclear powered the waste would have fit in a pick up truck and would safely be in a vault out of everyone's way until it is no longer unsafe which is not 20,000 years.

The nuclear debate in Australia has suggested that for us the costs do not stack up very well in favour of nuclear over other alternatives. However much it may be argued that the chance of a meltdown are minimal, the grim reality is that the possibilities have such terrible long term implications. It is said that Chernobyl will remain uninhabitable for an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 years due to the long-term effects of the radioactive contamination.

It always amazes me, how people still deny the long term dangers of Radioactive energy, and Nuclear Waste. I am terrified of it! I will get an X-ray if I have too, but only when necessary! After getting one, I always use Miso, and Soya sauce, because the Doctors who attended the survivors of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, would consume these soy products and it allowed the body to flush out the radiation in their stool!
This stuff is just too unstable to be around. It's best to leave it underground where it belongs!

 

[Balifrog]

Wait, wait boys....
The nuclear bombs on Hiroshima / Nagasaki and the Chernobyl meltdown are 2 completely different things !
The bombs explode at altitude for maximum damage, the immediate effects are maximal (that's the idea..) but the radiation level disapears rather fast.
The Chernobyl melt down is completely different. We speak about the heart of the reactor melting down at ground level with housings a few km away !

A few articles explaining in depth the differences :

This Is Why You Can Live In Hiroshima And Nagasaki But Not Chernobyl

There is a very short answer to do with radiation levels, but that’s less fun than diving into the details.

www.iflscience.com

Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki Still Radioactivein 2025? – MIRA Safety

Explore the lingering effects of radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki decades after the atomic bombs were dropped, and discover if these cities are still radioactive.

www.mirasafety.com

I have myself participated at about 10 nuclear explosion tests, from 15 / 20 nautical miles distance and I am still alive.

Those test were done at altitude, the bombs being suspended under a balloon which was attached to a winch on a barge.

Not sure if I would survive a nuclear reactor meltdown....

 

[harryopal1]

Wait, wait boys....
The nuclear bombs on Hiroshima / Nagasaki and the Chernobyl meltdown are 2 completely different things !
The bombs explode at altitude for maximum damage, the immediate effects are maximal (that's the idea..) but the radiation level disapears rather fast.
The Chernobyl melt down is completely different. We speak about the heart of the reactor melting down at ground level with housings a few km away !

A few articles explaining in depth the differences :

This Is Why You Can Live In Hiroshima And Nagasaki But Not Chernobyl

There is a very short answer to do with radiation levels, but that’s less fun than diving into the details.

www.iflscience.com

Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki Still Radioactivein 2025? – MIRA Safety

Explore the lingering effects of radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki decades after the atomic bombs were dropped, and discover if these cities are still radioactive.

www.mirasafety.com

View attachment 4749

I have myself participated at about 10 nuclear explosion tests, from 15 / 20 nautical miles distance and I am still alive.

View attachment 4750View attachment 4751
Those test were done at altitude, the bombs being suspended under a balloon which was attached to a winch on a barge.

Not sure if I would survive a nuclear reactor meltdown....

In Australia when the British were conducting tests in the south Australian outback they combed the bush looking for Aboriginal people but missed a group who were affected with health issues including one of the men being blinded. Still they were the days when many regarded Aborigines as all but sub human and seen almost as vermin.

It is interesting to note that with the Federal election near at hand in Australia, the opposition, who were proposing building a series of nuclear reactors, have gone very quiet on that issue.

 

[Balifrog]

In Australia when the British were conducting tests in the south Australian outback they combed the bush looking for Aboriginal people but missed a group who were affected with health issues including one of the men being blinded. Still they were the days when many regarded Aborigines as all but sub human and seen almost as vermin.

It is interesting to note that with the Federal election near at hand in Australia, the opposition, who were proposing building a series of nuclear reactors, have gone very quiet on that issue.

Before doing the tests in Mururoa (French Polynesia) we did them in the Sahara, as Algeria was still a French department.
One the first tests, can't remember if 3th or 4th went very wrong and it was a bit of a panic to get out of Dodge. Of course it was covered up and disclosed only 20 or 30 years later.

 

[harryopal1]

Before doing the tests in Mururoa (French Polynesia) we did them in the Sahara, as Algeria was still a French department.
One the first tests, can't remember if 3th or 4th went very wrong and it was a bit of a panic to get out of Dodge. Of course it was covered up and disclosed only 20 or 30 years later.

And what exactly was covered up?

 

[Balifrog]

And what exactly was covered up?

It's in French but you see clearly the mountain in which the explosion took place, being ripped open by it.
People running away and try to find refuge in their bungalows. There were no immediate deaths, but some got very sick later in thei life.


Have tried to find some in English, but no success.

 

[harryopal1]

Thanks for the video. I don't speak French but still got a good idea of what went wrong. I am disinclined to have total faith in the opinion of scientists and this event shows a good reason to be sceptical.

 

[Shadrach]

It is amazing the audacity of people blowing this horrible stuff, just to experiment! Just because one person witnessed many from mile away, doesn't make it OK to the thousands of people, and Animals, that suffered extreme painful Deaths! This is an example of the Stupidity of Humans! They were given a Paradise to live in, and have been doing their best since time began, to destroy every living thing on the Planet, even to this DAY!

 

[Hawk256]

It is amazing the audacity of people blowing this horrible stuff, just to experiment! Just because one person witnessed many from mile away, doesn't make it OK to the thousands of people, and Animals, that suffered extreme painful Deaths! This is an example of the Stupidity of Humans! They were given a Paradise to live in, and have been doing their best since time began, to destroy every living thing on the Planet, even to this DAY!

How about all the good things that came from nuclear research? Do you want all those to go away as well? No body imaging of any kind. The only answer is exploratory surgery? No advanced cancer treatments? The list goes on and on and I'm here to spoon feed all the benefits to everyone when a simple search will show you all the positive things that have been brought about because of nuclear research. Governments will try to turn anything into a weapon and so far a nuclear bomb is at the top of the list but I wouldn't count on it being there forever. Every new discovery is a possible new weapon.