Well THIS is reassuring...
- Thread starter ToyotaNSaturn
- Start date
- Status
Can you point out the place in the employee handbook where this behavior is expressly forbidden?
"Asleep at the switch... I wasn't asleep! I was drunk!"
-- Homer
-- Homer
While I don't condone what happened. I have been to OC and many other nukes. The amount of security is way over kill. There is barrier after barrier after barrier of security-security automatic alarms. The entire guard force could be asleep and it would be difficult or impossible to do anything.
Like I said..yea its a bad thing. But dangerous? No.
Like I said..yea its a bad thing. But dangerous? No.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Overkill? They have SAAMs, SSMs, are hardened against EMP and short, medium and long range cruise missiles? All that'll help with those boy scouts asleep.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
I forgot to add that it might also be considered COMMON SENSE to NOT build nuclear power plants on seismic active fault lines (see Diabolo Canyon). But no, let's see what will happen.
You should know, Geology is just a big, secular, satanic lie.
Naturally, they need to be properly constructed,placed, and guarded, but I wish there was a new nuclear facility going on line monthly, till electricty got CHEAP and could be used for transportation. If Navy subs and carriers can be nuke powered why not more widespread civilian?
Bob
Bob
Every nuke on seismic sites must meet max credible earthquake + fudge factor. Plants that are near airports must be able to withstand 707 direct impact on "critical areas".
Easy to throw stones when you don't know what you are talking about.
When the heck is California becoming an island as was reported 35 years ago?
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Well, bad decisions and safety issues in the past have made nukes unpopular. I grew up about 35 miles from a nuke, and the cancer rate in the immediate surrounding area (farm land) was (and still is) exponentially higher than in areas farther from the plant. Two-headed calfs and other mutants were quite common there. At one point one of our politicians ate publicly two-headed veal steak to show people how it all was harmless.
Nukes are potentially our best and safest bet, but it seems to be impossible to build and operate them and to dispose of their waste in a safe manner. Why? Go figure.
There was a plan to soon build a natural gas power plant here in SF. It would have replaced an old polluting plant. The plant was not approved. We will instead deal with rolling blackouts. Go figure...
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Then why are you still talking?
So the earthquake in Japan where they admitted the nuke site wasn't built to withstand max "credible" earthquake was just "the news again" huh? Oh, I almost overlooked that little keyword there "credible". Is that similar to "virtually maintenance free"?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
At least they weren't awake and experimenting with the reactor, like the guys at Chernobyl.
Disaster at a nuke plant means the potential of releasing nefarious poisons that last thousands of years. Makes sense to me that you'd locate a plant in the area of lowest risk as was feasible. Regardless of construction, land over a known fault line and land near an airport sound like pretty bad choices...not worth the risk.
Fletch - Sounds like good common sense, to me.
- Status
Similar threads
