The Goddesses have Spoken!

[W7XF]

I guess Boner pissed off the deities! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44245009/ns/us_news-life/t/congress-pentagon-other-dc-areas-evacuate-after-quake/)

[rot]

No shitz....felt er rumble in FM06....I mean like I requested a EastBlow fart and got a bitchin response from Mother Earth....OK planet you make the calls...i'm just here for the ride.
wowsa...
rot

[w2amr]

No shitz....felt er rumble in FM06....I mean like I requested a EastBlow fart and got a bitchin response from Mother Earth....OK planet you make the calls...i'm just here for the ride.
wowsa...
rot Report from FM-29. I was standing out front of my garage talking to a guy sitting in his car. The frigging car starts rocking from side to side, and I feel the ground move under my feets. Dayum.

[WØTKX]

I've felt some good thumps when I've been in CA, twice. The one that happened last night near Trinidad CO was too weak to notice here, and I was sleeping anyway. A small one in WY a few years back hit when I was near the top of the MCI building in downtown Denver, it made the building sway and the suspended lights were swinging a little. Pretty cool, and not so scary if it's mild.

[KC2UGV]

And a shocker: not a single nuclear catastrophe due to this earthquake...

[rot]

It was just enough of a bink here to freak the pups and set off my internal WTF alarm.
As usual, Harry the cat was just sitting there going "What a bunch of losers...get a grip on it people."
rot

[w3bny]

Muppet labs in Adelphi checking in...Rock-n-roll but not apparent casualties.

[X-Rated]

And a shocker: not a single nuclear catastrophe due to this earthquake...

Wow. I am convinced they could survive twice that, like a M12.0.

[N8YX]

And a shocker: not a single nuclear catastrophe due to this earthquake...

That's because we build and run 'em right in the good ol' U.S. of A... :yes:

[KK4AMI]

All Shook up in Charlottesville, VA. My dipole was shaken so hard I bet I could have transmitted in the VHF! Whew, busy watching the path of a hurricane, you don't expect that to sneak up behind you. They shut down both Lake Anna nuclear reactors!

[KC2UGV]

Wow. I am convinced they could survive twice that, like a M12.0.

I don't think much would survive a M12... The last known one was the meteor impact of the Yucatan Peninsula.

And, that wiped out the dinosaurs.

[N8YX]

I don't think much would survive a M12... The last known one was the meteor impact of the Yucatan Peninsula.

And, that wiped out the dinosaurs.

Mag 12 isn't double the intensity of a Mag 6, either. The scale is logarithmic. It would be hundreds of thousands of times more powerful.

[KG4CGC]

Yes. The scale works like this: a 7 would be double a 6.

[W1GUH]

Last time I posted about relative magnitudes I estimated that a 2.0 difference is two orders of magnitude. I was corrected....that's WAY too low. Maybe someday I'll actually learn what the hell that Richter thing is. Now, I'm worried about sphincters.

[KB3LAZ]

I didnt know yall knew Etaine and Raina.

[PA5COR]

The two-reactor North Anna nuclear power plant in Virginia automatically shut down following a 5.8 magnitude earthquake this afternoon.

The two reactors both automatically shut down safely, Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesperson Elizabeth Stuckle confirmed. North Anna is the closest plant to the epicenter of the earthquake.

The earthquake was classified as an "out of the ordinary event" by North Anna and nine other nuclear power plants in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia

These five plants are at a higher statistical risk than those along fault lines in California, for example, because they were not designed for and built in presumed strong quake danger areas. Since they were constructed the US federal government has revised upwards the quake risks where they are. According to Jim Norvelle with Dominion Power, North Anna was designed to withstand a magnitude 5.9 – 6.1 earthquake.

Buildt for 5.9 to 6.1 quake.
Close call then...



And a shocker: not a single nuclear catastrophe due to this earthquake...

[KJ3N]

Yes. The scale works like this: a 7 would be double a 6.

No, it's logarithmic. A 7 is ten times a 6.

[KG4CGC]

No, it's logarithmic. A 7 is ten times a 6.
OK.

And, this was updated quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale

[W1GUH]

No, it's logarithmic. A 7 is ten times a 6.

That's what I was referring to above. My (incomplete) understanding is it's much more than that...it's not strictly logarithmic.

[KC2UGV]

The two-reactor North Anna nuclear power plant in Virginia automatically shut down following a 5.8 magnitude earthquake this afternoon.

The two reactors both automatically shut down safely, Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesperson Elizabeth Stuckle confirmed. North Anna is the closest plant to the epicenter of the earthquake.

The earthquake was classified as an "out of the ordinary event" by North Anna and nine other nuclear power plants in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia

These five plants are at a higher statistical risk than those along fault lines in California, for example, because they were not designed for and built in presumed strong quake danger areas. Since they were constructed the US federal government has revised upwards the quake risks where they are. According to Jim Norvelle with Dominion Power, North Anna was designed to withstand a magnitude 5.9 – 6.1 earthquake.

Buildt for 5.9 to 6.1 quake.
Close call then...


Wow. Automatically shut down. Sounds like the safeties work just like they should, huh?

[w3bny]

Wow. Automatically shut down. Sounds like the safeties work just like they should, huh?

Damn Democrats

[w2amr]

It was just enough of a bink here to freak the pups and set off my internal WTF alarm.
As usual, Harry the cat was just sitting there going "What a bunch of losers...get a grip on it people."
rotI think Leyna slept through the whole thing.

[PA5COR]

Yep, and lost on site power too.
Just like Fukushima.

Good enough don't need no stinking radiation here extra.


Wow. Automatically shut down. Sounds like the safeties work just like they should, huh?

[kb2vxa]

At first I thought Gov. Christie tripped over his shoelace. Nope, 'twasn't a Boehner boner either, Teh Bunneh did it.
http://forums.hamisland.net/showthread.php?18627-Hey-Richmond-Va...You-still-there/page2

[n2ize]

Last time I posted about relative magnitudes I estimated that a 2.0 difference is two orders of magnitude. I was corrected....that's WAY too low. Maybe someday I'll actually learn what the hell that Richter thing is. Now, I'm worried about sphincters.

In the simplest form its just a base 10 logarithm like you learned in high school. "M = log A" where A is the maximum amplitude (measured on the seismograph and M is the computed "magnitude" of the quake. Since its in base 10 for every unit increase in magnitude there is a ten-fold increase in amplitude. (i.e 10^M = A)

In practice its slightly more complicated because the measurements generally involve numerouse seismographs at various distances from the epicenter. So they adjust the basic log formula with a function relating the average amplitudes and distances from the epicenter. But the basic underlying (base 10) logarithmic relation as I describe still holds.

[NA4BH]

Logarithm defined

NSFW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFh2Tgc5YDU

[KC2UGV]

Yep, and lost on site power too.
Just like Fukushima.

Good enough don't need no stinking radiation here extra.

And, then generators kicked in, just like their supposed to.

Wow. Not a single nuclear catastrophe... I thought there were portents of certain doom, or some such like that?

[ad4mg]

Logarithm defined

NSFW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFh2Tgc5YDU
I saw what you did there ... :rofl:

[X-Rated]

In the simplest form its just a base 10 logarithm like you learned in high school. "M = log A" where A is the maximum amplitude (measured on the seismograph and M is the computed "magnitude" of the quake. Since its in base 10 for every unit increase in magnitude there is a ten-fold increase in amplitude. (i.e 10^M = A)

In practice its slightly more complicated because the measurements generally involve numerouse seismographs at various distances from the epicenter. So they adjust the basic log formula with a function relating the average amplitudes and distances from the epicenter. But the basic underlying (base 10) logarithmic relation as I describe still holds.

Base 10 what? I know the Wikipedia definition says it is logarithmic base 10, but in the table, if we look at a one magnitude step, each are close to base 31.5 per magnitude unit step. I understand that there are inconsistencies due to inaccuracies in measurements from distant measurement locations, but 31.5 is nowhere near 10 when looking at the TNT or joule equivalency.

[W3WN]

That's because we build and run 'em right in the good ol' U.S. of A... :yes:I wouldn't go quite that far.

[PA5COR]

Contrary to what you might think i rather have no more Chernobyl's or Fukushima's or fill in the rest of the "accidents" .
Warning for aged nuke plants where the rules are lifted or "adapted" for leaky pipes and nuclear isotopes leaking into drinkwater wells and environment do not register as prudent measures to me, just to keep them open....

This time the plant survived, just, as the authorities admitted.
Company admits Virginia nuke plant only designed to withstand a magnitude 5.9 – 6.1 earthquake — Today’s quake was 5.9 (http://forums.hamisland.net/company-admits-virginia-nuke-plant-only-designed-withstand-magnitude-59-61-earthquake-todays-quake-59)

About the generators kicking in, one failed of the 4...
Taking lots of chances are we? always nice to know you have nuke plants on faultlines, worked too for Japan.



And, then generators kicked in, just like their supposed to.

Wow. Not a single nuclear catastrophe... I thought there were portents of certain doom, or some such like that?

[KC2UGV]

Contrary to what you might think i rather have no more Chernobyl's or Fukushima's or fill in the rest of the "accidents" .
Warning for aged nuke plants where the rules are lifted or "adapted" for leaky pipes and nuclear isotopes leaking into drinkwater wells and environment do not register as prudent measures to me, just to keep them open....

This time the plant survived, just, as the authorities admitted.
Company admits Virginia nuke plant only designed to withstand a magnitude 5.9 – 6.1 earthquake — Today’s quake was 5.9 (http://forums.hamisland.net/company-admits-virginia-nuke-plant-only-designed-withstand-magnitude-59-61-earthquake-todays-quake-59)

About the generators kicking in, one failed of the 4...
Taking lots of chances are we? always nice to know you have nuke plants on faultlines, worked too for Japan.

So, let's see, the plant was designed for better than usual quake activity, survived the borderline region of it's design (Which, it good for up to 6.1, which is a lot more powerful than a 5.9 really, and tends to never happen in the region), had a generator fail, and went to generator power to cool it.

So, all in all, it looks like in one of the more extreme cases for this plant, all is fine, because all the safeties worked like they should.

And, we are supposed to be alarmed, why?

[PA5COR]

Because the faultline was not known when the old plant was build for 20 years, it is now one of the unsafest of all plants.
And if sheer luck makes it possible no accident happened, i find that a rather flimsy excuse of safety certainly of you know and see what happens if it goes wrong.

Fukushima was build for an 8 too, Lake Anna was build to much lesser standards because quakes almost could not happen... as we saw mother nature thought different.
Even when the fault was discovered no action was taken.


The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ranked the earthquake damage risk at all 104 nuclear power plants in this country. The pair operated by Dominion Power, at Lake Anna in eastern Louisa County, come in at 7th most ‘at risk’ on the list.

[KC2UGV]

Because the faultline was not known when the old plant was build for 20 years, it is now one of the unsafest of all plants.
And if sheer luck makes it possible no accident happened, i find that a rather flimsy excuse of safety certainly of you know and see what happens if it goes wrong.

Fukushima was build for an 8 too, Lake Anna was build to much lesser standards because quakes almost could not happen... as we saw mother nature thought different.
Even when the fault was discovered no action was taken.

I don't consider it "sheer luck" that a plant, designed with no knowledge of a fault line, withstood an earthquake that was consider "Extremely abnormal" for the region.

I consider that to be "Good Engineering".

The plant was over-engineered at the time (Built to withstand a quake, even when the chance of quakes was thought to be low).

The plant withstood a quake far above what is normally expected for the region.

It was assume something would go wrong, so redundant safeties were installed.

That's good engineering, not "Sheer luck".

And, FWIW, Fukushima withstood the earthquake. It had issued because they SCRAM'ed the reactor, and a 33 ft tall wall of fucking water hit it; flooding the generators.

If they never SCRAM'ed the reactor, there'd be no issue.

[X-Rated]

I don't consider it "sheer luck" that a plant, designed with no knowledge of a fault line, withstood an earthquake that was consider "Extremely abnormal" for the region.

I consider that to be "Good Engineering".

The plant was over-engineered at the time (Built to withstand a quake, even when the chance of quakes was thought to be low).

The plant withstood a quake far above what is normally expected for the region.

It was assume something would go wrong, so redundant safeties were installed.

That's good engineering, not "Sheer luck".
...

"Good Engineering" includes extreme consideration for margin and probability. Have you heard of the "bell shaped curve"? There are measurement techniques for this concept in sigma as well as CpK.

If the power plant was designed for a ~6.0 quake and there was a 5.8 quake in existence, this will not show up as a "good" number in these process statistics. With a CpK value of 2.0, there would be one day with a failure in 1.3 million years and a CpK of 1.67 would have one day with a failure in 4.5 thousand years. Or you could claim a CpK of 2.0 if you manufactured 1.3 million units with one failure in 500 million. MP3 players are like CpK of around 1.5.

"Good Engineering" is not measured in subjective terms. It is measured with a great deal of actual objective measurements. "Good engineering" is a term that indicates a certainty of success and not a subjective term that says that "It does/did good enough this time".

[PA5COR]

I bet that bell shaped curve worked fine for Fukushima too eh?


Raw Story notes that the North Anna Power Station had all of its seismographs removed (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/23/virginia-nuclear-plant-had-quake-sensors-removed-due-to-budget-cuts/) in the 1990s due to budget cuts.

Ooops....another dent in that bell shaped curve...
Good design, if you then after that design take safety measures away isn't it?
Lets hope Hurrucane Irene doesn't make further dents in thhat bell shaped curce then...

The design was made when the faultline was not known, so that nice bell shaped curve was made on false assumptions.

As federal, state, and local governments scramble to prepare for the imminent arrival of the hurricane, it is important to look at how budget cuts at all levels of government have imperiled the ability to detect and respond to Hurricane Irene and other similar extreme weather events in the future.


Also good to know that if anything big happens there will be insufficient detection/help.



That particular fault was discovered in 1970 when the plant was under contruction, but was not reported until 1973 to the Atomic Energy Commission.
More hush hush...sounds familiar to me ...

The Operator has a bad rep too.

According to the scathing NRC special inspection report issued on May 27 (Millstone_SIT_Report_May_27,_2011_001.pdf ), Dominion’s control room operators repeatedly violated Millstone’s licensing procedures. Dominion responded to the NRC’s inspectors by removing the entire Unit 2 control room crew involved in the event - 8 operators, supervisors and engineers in all - pending further review.

The Unit 2 operators defeated safety systems and repeatedly failed to follow designated procedures.

“Operators defeating safety systems at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl in l986 played key roles in those nuclear disasters,” observed David Lochbaum, nuclear safety engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a critique he prepared for the Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone based on the information provided by the NRC inspection report

Sounds fine to me for your bell curve...


The multiple human errors reflecting poor training that led to dangerous unplanned power spike are not isolated phenomena at Millstone Unit 2, according to the NRC inspection report.

The “latent issues” underlying what it calls the “performance deficiency” are procedural and training performance weaknesses that have existed “for many years. . . . The causal factors for the event had existed for a considerable period of time.”

In its inspection, the NRC found a “pervasiveness of the performance lapses of the Unit 2 control room operators” common among other Unit 2 operating crews.
Ineffective training and procedure inadequacies “were also factors that degraded all the crews’ ability to operate the plant.”

“Improper procedure use and improper peer checking were readily identified behaviors on multiple Unit 2 crews,” the inspectors found. “Ineffective just-in-time training and procedure inadequacies were also factors that degraded all the crews’ ability to operate the plant.”



At least they are consistent in f**king up.

Many nuclear experts say plants in the United States were designed with big margins of error built in, but last year's NRC survey found that the risks posed by earthquakes were higher than previously thought.
And Victor Gilinsky, who was an NRC commissioner at the time of the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster in Pennsylvania in 1979, said that he was concerned that safety at plants like North Anna were not being reviewed as understanding of earthquakes increases.
"It is important to review the seismic design of the plant in terms of current knowledge," he said "Instead, the NRC has been relicensing plants without any real safety review - they do not question any of the original licensing conditions, they only check to see whether the plant has a program to deal with old equipment. It's an irresponsible approach."

Ooops....


the U.S. Geological Survey said. A 7.3 magnitude quake, the largest recorded in East Coast history, hit South Carolina in 1886.Dominion is one of 11 U.S. power companies who have expressed interest in building new advanced nuclear reactors. It has proposed adding a new reactor to the North Anna plant.


Ah, good to see Dominion wants to up the risks.
Stick your bell curve where the sun don't shine, reality already dented it out of service.

[KC2UGV]

"Good Engineering" includes extreme consideration for margin and probability. Have you heard of the "bell shaped curve"? There are measurement techniques for this concept in sigma as well as CpK.


Yes, I am familiar with bell curves. Very common in statistics...



If the power plant was designed for a ~6.0 quake and there was a 5.8 quake in existence, this will not show up as a "good" number in these process statistics. With a CpK value of 2.0, there would be one day with a failure in 1.3 million years and a CpK of 1.67 would have one day with a failure in 4.5 thousand years. Or you could claim a CpK of 2.0 if you manufactured 1.3 million units with one failure in 500 million. MP3 players are like CpK of around 1.5.

"Good Engineering" is not measured in subjective terms. It is measured with a great deal of actual objective measurements. "Good engineering" is a term that indicates a certainty of success and not a subjective term that says that "It does/did good enough this time".

So, how many times has this plant failed, vs. the number of hours in operation?

[PA5COR]

The fukushima reactors were melting before the tsunami hit, pipes were torn off or just broke through the quake, so it was academic if the generators worked or not, the cooling water didn't reach the core.
Tepco annd others admitted it in the last months even when they knew it before the tsunami hit.
More cover up stories there...
As i did link to in my former threads, so i refrain from repeating myself.



As ex pipefitter/welder i have some knowledge about what happens to old ageing stainless steel pipes when they start to move through a quake or just mechanical influence, that was what happened in Fukushima, and what easy could ( have) happened in Lake Anna reactors that have a history of leaking pipes.


Even the NRC demanded extra measure in their inspection in February this year in the lake Anna nuke plant.
If you know since 1973 of the problem having a nuke plant on a fault line one would expect more safety measures or closing down the plant.
Dominion never did anything like that.

[KC2UGV]

The fukushima reactors were melting before the tsunami hit, pipes were torn off or just broke through the quake, so it was academic if the generators worked or not, the cooling water didn't reach the core.
Tepco annd others admitted it in the last months even when they knew it before the tsunami hit.
More cover up stories there...
As i did link to in my former threads, so i refrain from repeating myself.



As ex pipefitter/welder i have some knowledge about what happens to old ageing stainless steel pipes when they start to move through a quake or just mechanical influence, that was what happened in Fukushima, and what easy could ( have) happened in Lake Anna reactors that have a history of leaking pipes.


Even the NRC demanded extra measure in their inspection in February this year in the lake Anna nuke plant.
If you know since 1973 of the problem having a nuke plant on a fault line one would expect more safety measures or closing down the plant.
Dominion never did anything like that.

Where did Tepco (OR any other agency) find that the reactor was melting down prior to getting hit by the tsunami?

And, Cor, with the total number of reactor operating hours, what is the failure rate where we get a catastrophe?

Remember, we've only had 3... So, of the total operating hours?

[n2ize]

Base 10 what? I know the Wikipedia definition says it is logarithmic base 10, but in the table, if we look at a one magnitude step, each are close to base 31.5 per magnitude unit step. I understand that there are inconsistencies due to inaccuracies in measurements from distant measurement locations, but 31.5 is nowhere near 10 when looking at the TNT or joule equivalency.

Good observation. Based on the older Richter scale "M(sub L) which has been superseded by the Moment Magnitude Scale "M(sub W)". Both however are based on logarithms to the base 10.

The case I was describing above is for the simplest concept behind the "Richter base10" scale in which case if your seismograph measures an amplitude of A then the Magnitude of the quake is simple the base 10 log of A or "Log(A) = M. Thus for each unit increase in magnitude we have a 10 fold increase in amplitude.

However, since most earthhquakes are measured by numerous siesmographs at varying distances from the epicentre they would "adjust" the basic log formula above using a base 10 function relating the average readings and their respective distances. So the formula becomes something more like
M = Log(A / log(f(a)) where A is amplitude, f is some function and a some average. Don;t ask me for the details on exactly how the "adjustment; was determined as I'm not familiar with the precise methodology

They Richter scale has been replaced by the "Moment Magnitude Scale" because it gives a better representation of the overal energy released by a quake. I suspect the chart on the Wiki page is based on this modern scale. In this scale each unit increase in magnitude corresponds to an approximately 32 fold increase in energy which would explain the (base 31.5) . So in this scale a single unit step in magnitude represents a 32 fold increase in energy and a 2 step increase in magnitude represents an approx 1000 fold increase in energy released i.e. (32^3)/(32^1) = 1024 (appx 1000).

In many respects doing it this way does make more sense as magnitudes versus energy units (i.e. joules) better correlates between the size of an earthquake and its overall effects. However, I suspect that some of the confusion people have stems from the "Richter scale" versus the MMS scale.

They have some Wiki material here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale

[PA5COR]

http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html
Remember me mentioning Kyshtym? Sellafield and others, you seem to have a very selective memory.....

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission rates the plant as the seventh most likely (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42103936/ns/world_news-asiapacific/) to receive core damage from a quake. But they say the chances of that are only 1 in 22,727.
According to the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME), the Virginia Tech Seismological Observatory (VTSO) removed all seismographs from around the plant (http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DMR3/earthquakes.shtml) in the 1990s due to budget cuts.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/07/meltdown-what-really-happened-fukushima/39541/

, Bloomberg reported on May 19 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2011-05-19/fukushima-may-have-leaked-radiation-before-quake.html) that a radiation alarm went off 1.5 kilometers from the number one reactor on March 11 at 3:29 p.m., minutes before the tsunami reached the plant.


The cracks in the pipes were not due to earthquake damage; they came from the simple wear and tear of long-term usage. On March 2, 2011, nine days before the meltdown, the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) warned TEPCO of its failure to inspect critical pieces of plant equipment, including the recirculation pumps. TEPCO was ordered to make the inspections, perform repairs if needed and report to NISA on June 2nd. It does not appear that the report has been filed as of this time.

Workers in the plant told:
“It felt like the earthquake hit in two waves, the first impact was so intense you could see the building shaping, the pipes buckling, and within minutes, I saw pipes bursting. Some fell off the wall. Others snapped.
I was severely alarmed because as I was leaving I was told, and I could see, that several pipes had cracked open, including what I believe were cold water supply pipes. That would mean that coolant couldn’t get to the reactor core. If you can’t get sufficient coolant to the core, it melts down. You don’t have to be a nuclear scientist to figure that out.”\
All before the tsunami hit.

http://vimeo.com/26231562



On May 15, TEPCO went some way toward admitting at least some of these claims in a report called “Reactor Core Status of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit One.” The report said there might have been pre-tsunami damage to key facilities including pipes. “This means that assurances from the industry in Japan and overseas that the reactors were robust is now blown apart,” said Shaun Burnie, an independent nuclear waste consultant. “It raises fundamental questions on all reactors in high seismic risk areas.”

http://houseoffoust.com/group/?p=1692
Eyewitness Accounts; Fukushima Pipes Burst, Reactors Damaged By Quake

[n2ize]

This time the plant survived, just, as the authorities admitted.
Company admits Virginia nuke plant only designed to withstand a magnitude 5.9 – 6.1 earthquake — Today’s quake was 5.9
(http://forums.hamisland.net/company-admits-virginia-nuke-plant-only-designed-withstand-magnitude-59-61-earthquake-todays-quake-59)


The amount of seismic energy released from a magnitude 5.9 quake is approximately 45x10^12 joules. The amount of energy released by a 6.1 quake is twice that of a 5.9 quake or 90x10^12 joules. So while the difference in magnitude is small (i.e. 0.2) the difference in seismic energy is significant i.e. twice that of yesterdays quake. So the plant was designed to handle a quake with twice the seismic energy yield of yesterdays quake.



About the generators kicking in, one failed of the 4...
Taking lots of chances are we? always nice to know you have nuke plants on faultlines, worked too for Japan.

Yet they still ran fine on only three generators. Could it possibly be that the considered redundancy when they designed the plant ? In other words you can run on two or three generators but you throw in an extra one or two generators to accommodate the possibility of failure when they are pressed into service ?

[PA5COR]

As i wrote before, i'm more then happy this time as far we know now nothing serious happened.
2 times the power in an earthquake is easy, nobody thought?? this would happen even knowingly the plant is on an earthquake fault.


With the consequences of a failing cooling even after a scramble i would expect all diesel generators to work mandatory weekly tests?
25% failiure rating in critical last ditch safety equipment is a bit high looking at the consequences isn't it?


The amount of seismic energy released from a magnitude 5.9 quake is approximately 45x10^12 joules. The amount of energy released by a 6.1 quake is twice that of a 5.9 quake or 90x10^12 joules. So while the difference in magnitude is small (i.e. 0.2) the difference in seismic energy is significant i.e. twice that of yesterdays quake. So the plant was designed to handle a quake with twice the seismic energy yield of yesterdays quake.



Yet they still ran fine on only three generators. Could it possibly be that the considered redundancy when they designed the plant ? In other words you can run on two or three generators but you throw in an extra one or two generators to accommodate the possibility of failure when they are pressed into service ?

[X-Rated]

Yes, I am familiar with bell curves. Very common in statistics...



So, how many times has this plant failed, vs. the number of hours in operation?

Nice re-framing the subject. Makes me wonder if you just want to argue or if you are truly interested in the subject. I assume the latter.

First of all, your statement earlier was that the result of this nuclear power plant was one subject. Engineering includes margins for errors and for the ranges of the operating ranges. One such method is looking at the probabilities through the bell shaped curve or the CpK analysis. Let's look at the numbers dictating quality engineering practices... http://www.qimacros.com/formulas/cp-cpk-formula.html A ways down, we see the formula that will help put real magnitudes into our sigma values with a relatively small number of data points. Suffice to say, good engineering practices include over-engineering by a safe margin based on real possibilities for possible failure and environmental impacts. For example, you buy a 12V mobile rig. You install it in your car and it burns up because it wasn't designed for 12.1 V. Would anyone be content to say, "Well, how would the engineers have known that I would hook up a radio at 12.1V anyway. It's cool with me that I burned up this $1000 rig." Be real. Engineers are looking at the possibilities that you may hook it up to much higher voltages because it could happen. Good engineering takes measures to assure there is no failures within a large range of 12V. Fast forward to yesterday. There have been over a dozen earthquakes in Virgina that have been large enough to be felt and yesterday's that was large enough to make damage. If the engineers designed the plant for a M5.8 earthquake and they actually have a M5.8 earthquake, that is not a "good engineering" practice. The project manager needs to look at the area, realize that this is in the middle of a seismic zone and design accordingly. The bell shaped curve will NOT have incidents anywhere close to what we have been seeing in TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Nebraska, Alabama, and yes, Virginia in our lifetimes if even a CpK of 1.5 is met. There are years of classes involved in this subject. I can't fault you for not understanding this on simple web posts. (Especially with me trying to explain this)

Secondly, the other topic you have now is whether the plant failed or not. That is a totally different subject. First we need to define what a "failure" actually is. In football, is "failure" defined by losing a game, or is "failure" defined by not showing up to the game? Sometimes I think that many feel that "failure" for nuclear power plants is defined by whether or not the human species survives a reactor event. Worldwide, there are many documented "accidents". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents North Anna is not on that list. But if the bar is at whether or not there were "events", then North Anna and all nuclear plants have failed at some point. So where do you place the bar for failure?

[X-Rated]

Good observation. Based on the older Richter scale "M(sub L) which has been superseded by the Moment Magnitude Scale "M(sub W)". Both however are based on logarithms to the base 10.

The case I was describing above is for the simplest concept behind the "Richter base10" scale in which case if your seismograph measures an amplitude of A then the Magnitude of the quake is simple the base 10 log of A or "Log(A) = M. Thus for each unit increase in magnitude we have a 10 fold increase in amplitude.

However, since most earthhquakes are measured by numerous siesmographs at varying distances from the epicentre they would "adjust" the basic log formula above using a base 10 function relating the average readings and their respective distances. So the formula becomes something more like
M = Log(A / log(f(a)) where A is amplitude, f is some function and a some average. Don;t ask me for the details on exactly how the "adjustment; was determined as I'm not familiar with the precise methodology

They Richter scale has been replaced by the "Moment Magnitude Scale" because it gives a better representation of the overal energy released by a quake. I suspect the chart on the Wiki page is based on this modern scale. In this scale each unit increase in magnitude corresponds to an approximately 32 fold increase in energy which would explain the (base 31.5) . So in this scale a single unit step in magnitude represents a 32 fold increase in energy and a 2 step increase in magnitude represents an approx 1000 fold increase in energy released i.e. (32^3)/(32^1) = 1024 (appx 1000).

In many respects doing it this way does make more sense as magnitudes versus energy units (i.e. joules) better correlates between the size of an earthquake and its overall effects. However, I suspect that some of the confusion people have stems from the "Richter scale" versus the MMS scale.

They have some Wiki material here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale

Thanks John. This information is golden.

[n2ize]

Mag 12 isn't double the intensity of a Mag 6, either. The scale is logarithmic. It would be hundreds of thousands of times more powerful.

On the order of 32^6 x as powerful in terms of energy released.

[KC2UGV]

Nice re-framing the subject. Makes me wonder if you just want to argue or if you are truly interested in the subject. I assume the latter.

First of all, your statement earlier was that the result of this nuclear power plant was one subject. Engineering includes margins for errors and for the ranges of the operating ranges. One such method is looking at the probabilities through the bell shaped curve or the CpK analysis. Let's look at the numbers dictating quality engineering practices... http://www.qimacros.com/formulas/cp-cpk-formula.html A ways down, we see the formula that will help put real magnitudes into our sigma values with a relatively small number of data points. Suffice to say, good engineering practices include over-engineering by a safe margin based on real possibilities for possible failure and environmental impacts. For example, you buy a 12V mobile rig. You install it in your car and it burns up because it wasn't designed for 12.1 V. Would anyone be content to say, "Well, how would the engineers have known that I would hook up a radio at 12.1V anyway. It's cool with me that I burned up this $1000 rig." Be real. Engineers are looking at the possibilities that you may hook it up to much higher voltages because it could happen. Good engineering takes measures to assure there is no failures within a large range of 12V. Fast forward to yesterday. There have been over a dozen earthquakes in Virgina that have been large enough to be felt and yesterday's that was large enough to make damage. If the engineers designed the plant for a M5.8 earthquake and they actually have a M5.8 earthquake, that is not a "good engineering" practice. The project manager needs to look at the area, realize that this is in the middle of a seismic zone and design accordingly. The bell shaped curve will NOT have incidents anywhere close to what we have been seeing in TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Nebraska, Alabama, and yes, Virginia in our lifetimes if even a CpK of 1.5 is met. There are years of classes involved in this subject. I can't fault you for not understanding this on simple web posts. (Especially with me trying to explain this)


I understand what you are saying. The fact of the matter is, the system, as designed, is capable of withstanding an earthquake of twice the amount of energy than it was exposed to, which is a very, very rare occurrence. In fact, from how often they occur (Every 50 years or so), it was most likely assumed that before a quake the magnitude of which would be unsafe, the system would be replaced.

Coupled with the redundant systems in place, even if one major seismic event occurred, and caused a failure of the primary systems, the failsafes would then kick in.



Secondly, the other topic you have now is whether the plant failed or not. That is a totally different subject. First we need to define what a "failure" actually is. In football, is "failure" defined by losing a game, or is "failure" defined by not showing up to the game? Sometimes I think that many feel that "failure" for nuclear power plants is defined by whether or not the human species survives a reactor event. Worldwide, there are many documented "accidents". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents North Anna is not on that list. But if the bar is at whether or not there were "events", then North Anna and all nuclear plants have failed at some point. So where do you place the bar for failure?

Accidents are where there is a dangerous amount of radiation released. TMI even borders on a non-event due to the little amount of radiation released, however, for the sake of discussion, I'll go ahead and include it here.

[WØTKX]

Log scale should be familiar to hams... Decibels anyone?

[PA5COR]

Ooops
Seems they have some problems
Minor releases of radio active material.

On Dec. 16, 1811, a magnitude 7.7 earthquake hit the New Madrid fault line (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1811-1812.php#december_16), which lies on the border region of Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi. It’s by far the largest earthquake ever to strike the United States east of the Rockies. Up to 129,000 square kilometers [50,000 square miles] were hit with “raised or sunken lands, fissures, sinks, sand blows, and large landslides,” according to the U.S. Geological Service. “Huge waves on the Mississippi River overwhelmed many boats and washed others high onto the shore. High banks caved and collapsed into the river; sand bars and points of islands gave way; whole islands disappeared.” People as far away as New York City were awakened by the shaking.More quakes, of a similar size, followed. But the loss of life was minimal: Not too many people lived in the area at the time. Today, there are more than 15 million people living in the quake zone (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-fault-lines-siesmic-concern/story?id=13140354). If a similar quake hit, “7.2 million people could be displaced, with 2 million seeking temporary shelter” in the first three days, FEMA Associate Adminsitrator William Carwile told a Congressional panel in 2010 (http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=9611289f-8d83-4b1f-aec4-d829e83427e1) (.pdf). “Direct economic losses for the eight states could total nearly $300 billion, while indirect losses at least twice that amount.”

Fukushima on the Mississippi. 15 nuclear power plants are in the New Madrid seismic zone (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/28/preps-nuclear-disaster-drills-scientists-reassure-quake-zone-facilities/).Following the Japan disaster, a task force assembled by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission “recommended sweeping changes to the agency’s regulatory approach to safety issues… [and] order utilities to conduct reviews of seismic safety using the latest research, and, potentially, agree to costly upgrades,” the Wall Street Journal reported last month. “A major area of concern, federal officials say, is the New Madrid seismic zone (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303795304576453842076898316.html?_ nocache=1314136415864&mg=com-wsj&mg=reno-secaucus-wsj).”
Will another 1811-style earthquake hit the midwest again? At the Aspen forum, Stockton insisted that “we’re overdue.” That’s overblown, if an independent panel (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/aboutus/nepec/reports/NEPEC_NMSZ_expert_panel_report.pdf) (.pdf) convened by the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council is to be believed. There’s a one-in-50 chance of a mega-quake every 50 years. Before 1811, the big ones happened in approximately the years 1450 and 900. Still, this is all a game of percentages. No one can say for sure when the next disaster will strike. And it’s worth noting that New Madrid is considered the most active earthquake region east of the Rockies (http://www.dnr.mo.gov/geology/geosrv/geores/techbulletin1.htm).

Hurricane Irene gusting to 150 mph — Forecast shows eye coming ashore at Connecticut nuke plant by Sunday evening

[n2ize]

Hurricane Irene gusting to 150 mph — Forecast shows eye coming ashore at Connecticut nuke plant by Sunday evening

Nothing like creating disasters before we they even happen. tell me, is the eye going to center itself directly over the nuke plant ?

[PA5COR]

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphics/AT09/refresh/AL0911W5_NL+gif/025514W5_NL_sm.gifhttp://enenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ireneCT.jpg

[KC2UGV]

Nothing like creating disasters before we they even happen. tell me, is the eye going to center itself directly over the nuke plant ?

Might do worse...

If the hurricane hits any of the tobacco fields, it'll disperse the radioactive particles dropped into the soil over the past 75 years... We'll all be sucking down lead-210 and polonium-210. It'll make Chernobyl look like a "near miss".

[KJ3N]

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphics/AT09/refresh/AL0911W5_NL+gif/025514W5_NL_sm.gifhttp://enenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ireneCT.jpg

Yep, it's going to get entertaining around here by Sunday.

[X-Rated]

The amount of seismic energy released from a magnitude 5.9 quake is approximately 45x10^12 joules. The amount of energy released by a 6.1 quake is twice that of a 5.9 quake or 90x10^12 joules. So while the difference in magnitude is small (i.e. 0.2) the difference in seismic energy is significant i.e. twice that of yesterdays quake. So the plant was designed to handle a quake with twice the seismic energy yield of yesterdays quake...

Interesting argument. The problem is that initially, it was reported to be a 6.0. Also, the North Anna station is located on 2 types of earth material. Part of the reactor area is located on softer dirt and the other is located on more solid rock. The softer dirt area is good to M6.0 or M6.1. The harder rock area was designed for M5.9. So why would the initial reports say M6.0 and the later report say M5.8? I can imagine 2 reasons for this. Let's just dispose of the first reason and that was to play CYA for the Project Managers who set up the design for the plant, and the other is that discerning the difference between a M6.0 and a M5.8 really isn't that easy. If the detection instrumentation cannot easily discern the difference between a M5.8 and a M6.0, how can the concrete, containment walls, backup generators, etc. do a better job at discerning this multi-megajoule difference? If you have a good answer for this, you can get very rich by patenting the concrete materials (or other materials) that detect and make this distinction better than the instruments we already have on the market today.

I am rooting for you.

[KC2UGV]

Interesting argument. The problem is that initially, it was reported to be a 6.0. Also, the North Anna station is located on 2 types of earth material. Part of the reactor area is located on softer dirt and the other is located on more solid rock. The softer dirt area is good to M6.0 or M6.1. The harder rock area was designed for M5.9. So why would the initial reports say M6.0 and the later report say M5.8? I can imagine 2 reasons for this. Let's just dispose of the first reason and that was to play CYA for the Project Managers who set up the design for the plant, and the other is that discerning the difference between a M6.0 and a M5.8 really isn't that easy. If the detection instrumentation cannot easily discern the difference between a M5.8 and a M6.0, how can the concrete, containment walls, backup generators, etc. do a better job at discerning this multi-megajoule difference? If you have a good answer for this, you can get very rich by patenting the concrete materials (or other materials) that detect and make this distinction better than the instruments we already have on the market today.

I am rooting for you.

Initial reports are generally wrong. Earthquake magnitudes must be based on mutliple site reports, and generally, the initial report is only inclusive of 2.

[n2ize]

Interesting argument. The problem is that initially, it was reported to be a 6.0. Also, the North Anna station is located on 2 types of earth material. Part of the reactor area is located on softer dirt and the other is located on more solid rock. The softer dirt area is good to M6.0 or M6.1. The harder rock area was designed for M5.9. So why would the initial reports say M6.0 and the later report say M5.8? I can imagine 2 reasons for this. Let's just dispose of the first reason and that was to play CYA for the Project Managers who set up the design for the plant, and the other is that discerning the difference between a M6.0 and a M5.8 really isn't that easy. If the detection instrumentation cannot easily discern the difference between a M5.8 and a M6.0, how can the concrete, containment walls, backup generators, etc. do a better job at discerning this multi-megajoule difference? If you have a good answer for this, you can get very rich by patenting the concrete materials (or other materials) that detect and make this distinction better than the instruments we already have on the market today.

I am rooting for you.

Why did they originally say 6 and then 5.9. ? I don't know. I am not a seismologist nor do I work for the agencies responsible for compiling the data. I would say that the most likely reason is that as they received more detailed data from various seismological stations they were better able to determine the exact location of the epicenter and also refine their calculations to give a more precise measurement of the actual quake magnitude. This has occurred in the past with other quakes. More data = greater refinement in calculations.

As far as the concrete well, since the magnitude between a 5.9 and a 6.1 only differs by a factor of 0.2 but this still represents double the energy released then I would say that the difference to the concrete is affected by the stresses this energy puts on the concrete. In the 5.9 quake there is half as much energy transferred into the surroundings as a 6.1 thus the concrete is more likely to withstand. Much like a house might withstand a 40 mph wind with no damage. But expose it to a 80 mph wind it may sustain damage. Greater energy = Higher wind velocity = more work done on objects in the path of the energy field. Hence more shingles have to be replaced.

[X-Rated]

You guys have an opportunity of getting very rich. Write a patent. Be famous. Be wealthy. Remember us little guys when you make it big.

[KC2UGV]

You guys have an opportunity of getting very rich. Write a patent. Be famous. Be wealthy. Remember us little guys when you make it big.

Get wealthy from what? Understanding the processes behind calculating the magnitude of an earthquake?

This is quite widely available information. If you want to see how earthquake magnitudes are calculated, Wikipedia is a great starting point, as the articles are well-referenced.

Let's say for a moment, the earthquake WAS a 6.0.

The power station survived, intact, with no issues. So, we know it can pass it's design limits. This is a good thing, and an example of over-engineering.

Officially, the site is only designed for 6.0. In reality, it could be fine up to a 6.5.

[X-Rated]

You can get wealthy from developing measurement techniques better than what we have today. Something about the structures knows more about the terajoules difference between a M5.9 and an M6.0 and the measurement systems we have today is not that quickly accurate. If you patent a device that knows instantly that an earthquake is indeed a M5.9 within seconds of the event, like the structure of a nuclear power plant would know, you would be very wealthy.

Remember us on your way to the top.

[PA5COR]

There will be a large market for it too.


According to the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME), the Virginia Tech Seismological Observatory (VTSO) removed all seismographs from around the plant in the 1990s due to budget cuts.
So please tell, how can they be sure it was a 6.0 or 5.8 or whatever?

[KC2UGV]

You can get wealthy from developing measurement techniques better than what we have today. Something about the structures knows more about the terajoules difference between a M5.9 and an M6.0 and the measurement systems we have today is not that quickly accurate. If you patent a device that knows instantly that an earthquake is indeed a M5.9 within seconds of the event, like the structure of a nuclear power plant would know, you would be very wealthy.

Remember us on your way to the top.

Huh? You're passing into incoherence...

[n2ize]

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphics/AT09/refresh/AL0911W5_NL+gif/025514W5_NL_sm.gifhttp://enenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ireneCT.jpg

Yes, no doubt the storm is going to slam the east coast very hard. It is definitely going to affect my area. At the very least I am assuming we will have flooded out roads from the 10+ inches of rain its going to dump. But, due to the high wind gusts I am also assuming we'll see plenty of downed tree limbs and power outages. Of course it is going to depend on the strength of the storm by the time it reaches here and how far we are from the centre. As of now the weather radio is calling for tropical storm force winds for this area. The reported strength at this time is Cat 3 but some intensification is expected over the next 24 hrs. From the map you posted as far as local area goes it seems like Long Island is going to get hit the hardest.

However, I am not going to assume that the nuke plant is going to melt down at this point in time.

[X-Rated]

Huh? You're passing into incoherence...

Simply because I am agreeing with yours and IZE's logic. On one hand, you guys argue that the difference between a M5.9 and a M6.1 is monstrous when we view it from the angle of engineering nuclear power plant susceptibilities. On the other hand, you claim that the difference is miniscule when trying to discern the difference between these magnitudes in measurement capabilities. In my post, I am implying that, Yes. You can have it both ways. The way you can do it is claim that the measurement techniques are no good and that you have better ways of doing this task. What's more, you have Wikipedia and other web sites that have volumes of information on this to make you very very wealthy when working on a new patent on a new magnitude measurement system. You have the knowledge of the fact that a M0.2 difference is BOTH monstrous and at the same time miniscule. That is a concept that many of the rest of us have a hard time grasping. I doubt I will ever get to be that smart.

[n2ize]

There will be a large market for it too.


So please tell, how can they be sure it was a 6.0 or 5.8 or whatever?

Let's not be ridiculous.

[WØTKX]

Oooooooo, it's twilight in the well of perception... :snicker:

[ki4itv]

Yes, no doubt the storm is going to slam the east coast very hard. It is definitely going to affect my area. At the very least I am assuming we will have flooded out roads from the 10+ inches of rain its going to dump. But, due to the high wind gusts I am also assuming we'll see plenty of downed tree limbs and power outages. Of course it is going to depend on the strength of the storm by the time it reaches here and how far we are from the centre. As of now the weather radio is calling for tropical storm force winds for this area. The reported strength at this time is Cat 3 but some intensification is expected over the next 24 hrs. From the map you posted as far as local area goes it seems like Long Island is going to get hit the hardest.

However, I am not going to assume that the nuke plant is going to melt down at this point in time.

Might want to take this one very seriously. There is high confidence in the models, and they were crammed full of extra ( highly unusual) dropsonde data every six hours. from all over the continental US yesterday.
These models are as tight as they can get right now.
I'm guessing Megalopolis should get used to the idea of not having power for an extended period of time. This could be bad. Real Bad.

[ki4itv]

Oh yeah, had another earthquake last night between 1 and 2 AM. Woke my ass up.

[X-Rated]

Might want to take this one very seriously. There is high confidence in the models, and they were crammed full of extra ( highly unusual) dropsonde data every six hours. from all over the continental US yesterday.
These models are as tight as they can get right now.
I'm guessing Megalopolis should get used to the idea of not having power for an extended period of time. This could be bad. Real Bad.

If you have a car, get a power inverter for a few thousand watts. It helps.

Edit: Or build a personal nuke plant that will withstand these hurricane force winds and ocean surge.

[n2ize]

There will be a large market for it too.<br>
<br>
<br>
So please tell, how can they be sure it was a 6.0 or 5.8 or whatever?<br><br>

Let's not be ridiculous.

[n2ize]

Might want to take this one very seriously. There is high confidence in the models, and they were crammed full of extra ( highly unusual) dropsonde data every six hours. from all over the continental US yesterday.
These models are as tight as they can get right now.
I'm guessing Megalopolis should get used to the idea of not having power for an extended period of time. This could be bad. Real Bad.

I'm taking it very seriously. How bad it is in my immediate area is going to depend on exactly where is smashes into the coast. If it smashes right into New York harbor then we will have full blown hurricane force winds here flooding and lots of downed trees and wires. If it smashes a further out on the south shore it may not be as bad, perhaps just tropical force winds and huge amounts of rain. It is going to depend on how strong the storm is and the exact track.

A number of years ago (1990) we had a very powerful hurricane that plowed into long island. We got a lot of rain here, flooding,m and some wind damage but all in all things were not too bad. But not too far away on Long Island things were much much worst. Lot's of downed trees, some crashed through homes, lots of areas had to make do without electricity for many weeks.

The good part about this area is that I'm not near an ocean and not in a flood prone area. So we mostly have to contend with rain and wind. But large parts of NYC are. That could be problematic. During the great Nor'easter of Dec 1992 large areas of Manhattan had very bad flooding. Lot of people were stranded.

Right now a thunderstorm is coming through. As if we need the extra rain.

Looking forward to winter.

[ki4itv]

Storm Surge Interactive Risk Maps (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ssurge/risk/index.shtml?gm)

Check out the slosh model for storm surge around NYC at CAT3. It's totally within the realm of possibility.

[ka4dpo]

At about one oclock this morning we had a 4.5 aftershock. It woke me up but it was not as scary as the bigger one. Now we are going to get a hurricane. I tell you this is it, anyone who is interested in my Doomsday Shelters had better act quickly. My shelters are made of the highest quality stuff and fully stocked with all of the necessary food groups.

Best of all, every Doomsday Shelter comes with a money back guarantee if it fails to protect you from the end of the world. So act now, before it's too late.

[n2ize]

At about one oclock this morning we had a 4.5 aftershock. It woke me up but it was not as scary as the bigger one. Now we are going to get a hurricane. I tell you this is it, anyone who is interested in my Doomsday Shelters had better act quickly. My shelters are made of the highest quality stuff and fully stocked with all of the necessary food groups.

Best of all, every Doomsday Shelter comes with a money back guarantee if it fails to protect you from the end of the world. So act now, before it's too late.

Good luck. Are you near the ocean or in an area that is affected by storm surges ? Right now I am worried about a few people I know who live out on Long Island and in Brooklyn near the water. If this storm stays on track they may have to evacuate.

[W7XF]

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphics/AT09/refresh/AL0911W5_NL+gif/025514W5_NL_sm.gifhttp://enenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ireneCT.jpg

Thank the goddesses I'm going to Colorado today!!!!!!!

[KC2UGV]

Simply because I am agreeing with yours and IZE's logic. On one hand, you guys argue that the difference between a M5.9 and a M6.1 is monstrous when we view it from the angle of engineering nuclear power plant susceptibilities. On the other hand, you claim that the difference is miniscule when trying to discern the difference between these magnitudes in measurement capabilities. In my post, I am implying that, Yes. You can have it both ways. The way you can do it is claim that the measurement techniques are no good and that you have better ways of doing this task. What's more, you have Wikipedia and other web sites that have volumes of information on this to make you very very wealthy when working on a new patent on a new magnitude measurement system. You have the knowledge of the fact that a M0.2 difference is BOTH monstrous and at the same time miniscule. That is a concept that many of the rest of us have a hard time grasping. I doubt I will ever get to be that smart.

Can you tell the difference between 160 dB and 200 db of sound? I thought not.

[PA5COR]

If you want to react to my post, please quote the whole post, not selectively leave important parts out, again:

There will be a large market for it too.


According to the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME), the Virginia Tech Seismological Observatory (VTSO) removed all seismographs from around the plant in the 1990s due to budget cuts.


So please tell, how can they be sure it was a 6.0 or 5.8 or whatever?

If all seismographs were removed near the plant, how can you tell us how strong the quake was at the plant?
Looking at the difference in underground, the effects will be different too.
So, who's rediculous?


We’re still evaluating the information that’s coming in regarding the epicenter and the strength of the quake and all of the instrumentation that’s at North Anna,” [NRC spokesman Scott Burnell] said. “We’re determining what sort of forces North Anna dealt with.”

If there had been working seismographs they would have known instantly.
And take steps in case of an emergency not having to wait till the smoke becomes visible for everyone.

Comedy on:
EARTHQUAKE SENSORS....WE DONT NEED NO STINKING SENSORS!! WE GOT TANTO WHO CAN PUT HIS EAR TO THE GROUND AND HEAR IF THERE'S ANY RUMBLING DEEP UNDERNEATH, SHOW EM TANTO!!

Comedy off.






Let's not be ridiculous.

[rot]

Can you tell the difference between 160 dB and 200 db of sound? I thought not.

I think what Jerry is saying is
For your case if his ears can do +/- 20db prolly not....
with a hearing aid (analgous to measurement device improve for arguement) +/- 2 db can do.
Not putting words in his mouth..just for sitting back here and digesting stuff.

improvement of measurement (precision,accuracy) makes a large diff.

[KC2UGV]

If you want to react to my post, please quote the whole post, not selectively leave important parts out, again:
There will be a large market for it too.


According to the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME), the Virginia Tech Seismological Observatory (VTSO) removed all seismographs from around the plant in the 1990s due to budget cuts.


So please tell, how can they be sure it was a 6.0 or 5.8 or whatever?

If all seismographs were removed near the plant, how can you tell us how strong the quake was at the plant?
Looking at the difference in underground, the effects will be different too.
So, who's rediculous?



If there had been working seismographs they would have known instantly.
And take steps in case of an emergency not having to wait till the smoke becomes visible for everyone.

Comedy on:
EARTHQUAKE SENSORS....WE DONT NEED NO STINKING SENSORS!! WE GOT TANTO WHO CAN PUT HIS EAR TO THE GROUND AND HEAR IF THERE'S ANY RUMBLING DEEP UNDERNEATH, SHOW EM TANTO!!

Comedy off.





If you have 100 listening stations, trying to direction find another station; can one still to the DF'ing if you only have 3 stations?

With 3 vs. 100 listening stations, can one still derive an accurate measurement of the signal strength, as well as location? Does accuracy improve the more stations you add?

Now, let's get down to 1 listening station. Can one derive a location and accurate strength of the signal?

Now, you're starting to undestand why the initial report was most likely off (Only 1 or two stations reporting) vs. the later report when all 1000 stations around the globe report.

This is simple wave physics, something I thought amateur radio people would understand easily.

[KC2UGV]

I think what Jerry is saying is
For your case if his ears can do +/- 20db prolly not....
with a hearing aid (analgous to measurement device improve for arguement) +/- 2 db can do.
Not putting words in his mouth..just for sitting back here and digesting stuff.

improvement of measurement (precision,accuracy) makes a large diff.

And, with your analogy, 1 or 2 dB is double the energy. Something very easy to get wrong with a single measuring device. When you add in 5, 10, or 100, the accuracy and DF'ing get's very accurate.

[KC2UGV]

I'm still wondering when we're going to shut down and close all the tobacco fields... The amount of radioactive contamination from those areas, when hit by a hurricane, will spread around the globe, making TMI look like a sneeze in a hurricane...

I hope you guys like Lead-210 and Polonium-210 in your air...

[rot]

And, with your analogy, 1 or 2 dB is double the energy. Something very easy to get wrong with a single measuring device. When you add in 5, 10, or 100, the accuracy and DF'ing get's very accurate.

OK im wif you now(I think).
You are increasing sample size which is cool. Using a simlar device 5,10, or 500 times will not change the accuracy and precision of the said device.
Your estimates will approach true due to more measuring(sampling)...
but iffen you could could make a better device accuracy and precision-wise, you could approach the true value as well and do less sampling...or be a rich guy.
rot

[X-Rated]

OK im wif you now(I think).
You are increasing sample size which is cool. Using a simlar device 5,10, or 500 times will not change the accuracy and precision of the said device.
Your estimates will approach true due to more measuring(sampling)...
but iffen you could could make a better device accuracy and precision-wise, you could approach the true value as well and do less sampling...or be a rich guy.
rot

Increasing the sample size is what helps in discerning small differences. Corey and John have already established that the difference between M5.9 and M6.1 is monstrous. Why do we need larger sample sizes to discern very large differences? It seems to me that this would be easy to do. Either the difference between a M5.9 and M6.1 is small, or it is large. We should not be able to make it what we want based on the angle of our argument.

[PA5COR]

That will give the epicenteer and the roughly strength of the quake in GENERAL.
Not at the plant itsself and the G forces at the plant itsself, you can guess, but measuring it is the only way at the spot.

Quote: have 100 listening stations, trying to direction find another station; can one still to the DF'ing if you only have 3 stations?



With 3 vs. 100 listening stations, can one still derive an accurate measurement of the signal strength, as well as location? Does accuracy improve the more stations you add?

Now, let's get down to 1 listening station. Can one derive a location and accurate strength of the signal?

Now, you're starting to undestand why the initial report was most likely off (Only 1 or two stations reporting) vs. the later report when all 1000 stations around the globe report.

This is simple wave physics, something I thought amateur radio people would understand easily.[/QUOTE]

[PA5COR]

Nah, the rain will keep it on the ground.





I'm still wondering when we're going to shut down and close all the tobacco fields... The amount of radioactive contamination from those areas, when hit by a hurricane, will spread around the globe, making TMI look like a sneeze in a hurricane...

I hope you guys like Lead-210 and Polonium-210 in your air...

[X-Rated]

...
This is simple wave physics, something I thought amateur radio people would understand easily.

It seems to have certainly got lost somewhere.

[X-Rated]

I'm still wondering when we're going to shut down and close all the tobacco fields... The amount of radioactive contamination from those areas, when hit by a hurricane, will spread around the globe, making TMI look like a sneeze in a hurricane...

I hope you guys like Lead-210 and Polonium-210 in your air...

I am in that choir you are singing to here. Banning toobackie is fine with me.

[rot]

Increasing the sample size is what helps in discerning small differences. Corey and John have already established that the difference between M5.9 and M6.1 is monstrous. Why do we need larger sample sizes to discern very large differences? It seems to me that this would be easy to do. Either the difference between a M5.9 and M6.1 is small, or it is large. We should not be able to make it what we want based on the angle of our argument.
Well the only thing about sample size that is important is the nature of the sample itself. If all samples represent what you want then the extra work does not mean better value. If the samples tend to stray representation-wise then yep you gotta get a bunch of em. The largeness or smallness is only relative to measurement quality. I am assuming that what is desired here is the ability to tell the difference between M5.9 and M6.1 and the range of the device will handle this span. If this is not the case then I stand corrected.
rot

[X-Rated]

Well the only thing about sample size that is important is the nature of the sample itself. If all samples represent what you want then the extra work does not mean better value. If the samples tend to stray representation-wise then yep you gotta get a bunch of em. The largeness or smallness is only relative to measurement quality. I am assuming that what is desired here is the ability to tell the difference between M5.9 and M6.1 and the range of the device will handle this span. If this is not the case then I stand corrected.
rot

There's the rub. They claim the measurement quality of the reactor location can somehow better discern the difference between a M5.9 and a M6.1. When they talk about the difference in quake levels, they use the linear measurement to exaggerate the differences in levels and when they discuss the measurement instrumentation techniques, then they use the magnitude logarithmic expressions to minimize the differences and show that there is little difference. Then Corey sprinkles tobacco and 160 dB sound levels in there for a bit of confusion factors.

[n2ize]

Simply because I am agreeing with yours and IZE's logic. On one hand, you guys argue that the difference between a M5.9 and a M6.1 is monstrous when we view it from the angle of engineering nuclear power plant susceptibilities. On the other hand, you claim that the difference is miniscule when trying to discern the difference between these magnitudes in measurement capabilities. In my post, I am implying that, Yes. You can have it both ways. The way you can do it is claim that the measurement techniques are no good and that you have better ways of doing this task.

There is nothing wrong with the measurement techniques. The magnitudes are computed values. The machines measure an amplitude which is readily discernible with respect to strength. The amplitudes correspond to energy levels and the magnitude is computed as a logarithm,
The point being made was that while the difference between a 5.9 and a 6.1 comes out to 6.1-5.9 = 0.2 the value of 0.2 represents a large difference in energy (approx 45x10^12 Joules). So, worded differently a difference in magnitude of 0.2 is actually a very large difference even though it looks little.




What's more, you have Wikipedia and other web sites that have volumes of information on this to make you very very wealthy when working on a new patent on a new magnitude measurement system.

That is assuming it is better to measure magnitudes directly than say perhaps shaking amplitudes and converting them into units of magnitude.



You have the knowledge of the fact that a M0.2 difference is BOTH monstrous and at the same time miniscule. That is a concept that many of the rest of us have a hard time grasping. I doubt I will ever get to be that smart.

No, nobody ever said that. In the case described above 0.2 represents a large difference.

[X-Rated]

There is nothing wrong with the measurement techniques. ...

Then there is no excuse for the early measurements of the Japan earthquake being off by M0.2 and early measurements of the Virginia quake being off by M0.2.

Face facts. The engineering of these plants will not include the discernment between the M5.9 and M6.1. Engineering techniques are not that good. Face facts. Hopefully we got lucky this time and there is no release of radiation from the quake experience. Face facts. There is little measurable or perceivable difference between a M5.9 and a M6.1 earthquake.

[n2ize]

There's the rub. They claim the measurement quality of the reactor location can somehow better discern the difference between a M5.9 and a M6.1. When they talk about the difference in quake levels, they use the linear measurement to exaggerate the differences in levels and when they discuss the measurement instrumentation techniques, then they use the magnitude logarithmic expressions to minimize the differences and show that there is little difference. Then Corey sprinkles tobacco and 160 dB sound levels in there for a bit of confusion factors.


So you are implying that a logarithmic scale was deliberately chosen to minimize the difference between earthquakes ? I am sorry but there is no such conspiracy here. The whole discussion began as an innocent attempt to clear up the confusion a poster had with regards to the reported magnitude of a quake and the difference in the power of the quake. The only other thing that was pointed out here was that the energy released in a 5.9 versus a 6.1 quake is approximately on the order of (47x10^12 joules based on my own crude calculation in my head) or twice the energy of a 5.9 quake i.e. 10^0.2.

Somehow this became equated with getting rich inventing new machines, covering up for the evil nuke industry, deceiving the public, using Wikipedia to get rich, using logarithms to make people confused and other assorted rubbish.

This is why I generally don;t like to contribute anything to these forums. Even if you mean no harm and are merely trying to share information to help someone in the most innocent of context, someone will come along and twist it into some sort of nefarious agenda. In the future I should probably refrain from sharing any information, even if it means letting someones questions go unanswered.

[KC2UGV]

Increasing the sample size is what helps in discerning small differences. Corey and John have already established that the difference between M5.9 and M6.1 is monstrous. Why do we need larger sample sizes to discern very large differences? It seems to me that this would be easy to do. Either the difference between a M5.9 and M6.1 is small, or it is large. We should not be able to make it what we want based on the angle of our argument.

Sigh... I think you need to go and re-read to better understand what earthquake measurements are...


That will give the epicenteer and the roughly strength of the quake in GENERAL.
Not at the plant itsself and the G forces at the plant itsself, you can guess, but measuring it is the only way at the spot.


Sigh... The initial report was not done at the reactor site... It was reported from a lab in NYS, and one in Delaware.


Nah, the rain will keep it on the ground.

Oh, in that case, I hope you like Lead-210 and Polonium-210 in our groundwater... Methinks you've never seen the wind associated with a hurricane, huh? It picks up trees, cars, buses, trucks. You think it wont pick up some mud?


I am in that choir you are singing to here. Banning toobackie is fine with me.

Tell that to the mini-radiation contaminator 'Cor. He says no radiation is safe, yet walks around irradiating everything around him...


There's the rub. They claim the measurement quality of the reactor location can somehow better discern the difference between a M5.9 and a M6.1. When they talk about the difference in quake levels, they use the linear measurement to exaggerate the differences in levels and when they discuss the measurement instrumentation techniques, then they use the magnitude logarithmic expressions to minimize the differences and show that there is little difference. Then Corey sprinkles tobacco and 160 dB sound levels in there for a bit of confusion factors.

The measurement was not done at the reactor site, and you need to re-read how earthquake magnitudes are, and how they are measured.


Then there is no excuse for the early measurements of the Japan earthquake being off by M0.2 and early measurements of the Virginia quake being off by M0.2.

Face facts. The engineering of these plants will not include the discernment between the M5.9 and M6.1. Engineering techniques are not that good. Face facts. Hopefully we got lucky this time and there is no release of radiation from the quake experience. Face facts. There is little measurable or perceivable difference between a M5.9 and a M6.1 earthquake.

There's a whole lot of measurable difference. Double the amount of energy, in fact. It's like saying there's no difference between Fat Man and Little Boy. Sure, both devastated cities, but one was in fact much more powerful (Double the energy released, in fact).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale#Comparison_with_Richter_sca le

T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale#Comparison_with_Richter_sca le)hat section talks about the difference between the types of measurements, where they break down, and what they mean. In order to obtain it, one must in fact NOT be at the epicenter of the quake.

[n2ize]

Then there is no excuse for the early measurements of the Japan earthquake being off by M0.2 and early measurements of the Virginia quake being off by M0.2.

Why not have an official seismograph in a single location take a single reading and then take M = log(A) where A is the amplitude on the seismograph and report that as the official world magnitude. No need for taking averages, worrying about sample sizes, or complicating things with distributions, etc. It would follow the KISS principle and would give us an idea of how strong any given quake was. Of course it might be a problem if the seismograph is replaced or something breaks and is replaced. But then so what. An earthquake is an earthquake it an earthquake. If your house falls down who cares what the number was. Do we have to attach a number to everything in life. Why not just have an even simpler scale ? "Strong...Medium..Weak". No seismograph needed. Just go by the amount of damage and the experiences of people affected.



Face facts. The engineering of these plants will not include the discernment between the M5.9 and M6.1. Engineering techniques are not that good. Face facts. Hopefully we got lucky this time and there is no release of radiation from the quake experience. Face facts. There is little measurable or perceivable difference between a M5.9 and a M6.1 earthquake.

So then screw the numbers. If they want to make a plant to survive and earthquake just make a "strong plant". Shore it up with lots of big ol' rocks and lots of cement and granite and metal and stuff and there it is, a strong plant.

People shouldn't be wasting their talents attaching numbers to earthquakes anyway. They should be doing abstract (pure) mathematics. Or, writing classical symphonies. Or, composing beautiful poetry.

BTW with respect to sample sizes and earthquake measurements there is at least 1 important point about the "sample" being missed.

[KC2UGV]

They should be doing abstract (pure) mathematics. Or, writing classical symphonies. Or, composing beautiful poetry.

I think, IMO, these three are synonymous. Not meaning to steer this towards a philosophical debate :wink:

[rot]

BTW with respect to sample sizes and earthquake measurements there is at least 1 important point about the "sample" being missed.
I'm listening. What is it?
rot

p.s. I'm thinking IZE will go Poisson distribution....this could get juicy.:-D

[X-Rated]

So you are implying that a logarithmic scale was deliberately chosen to minimize the difference between earthquakes ? Nope. I implied that it was developed to better show us how we discern and nature discerns levels.
I am sorry but there is no such conspiracy here. The whole discussion began as an innocent attempt to clear up the confusion a poster had with regards to the reported magnitude of a quake and the difference in the power of the quake. Corey made a point that this was "good engineering" in response to Cor saying it was "luck". It was indeed "luck".
The only other thing that was pointed out here was that the energy released in a 5.9 versus a 6.1 quake is approximately on the order of (47x10^12 joules based on my own crude calculation in my head) or twice the energy of a 5.9 quake i.e. 10^0.2. Right. That is when I said you guys who believe that an added 47x10^12 joules to a M5.9 quake really makes all that much difference should get rich quick on a patent while inventing a system that can easily discern the difference between a M5.9 and a M6.1 quake within seconds giving the USGC the opportunity to release accurate measurements immediately rather than releasing a bogus number then having to spend time crunching numbers to get the right magnitude to report. I mean, you just posted right here, right now that the difference is near 47x10^12 joules. Any idiot can tell this kind of difference into the tera-joules.


Somehow this became equated with getting rich inventing new machines, covering up for the evil nuke industry, deceiving the public, using Wikipedia to get rich, using logarithms to make people confused and other assorted rubbish. Not covering up. Not deceiving. Not confusing anyone. Just inventing a measurement device that can easily discern the difference between a M5.9 and 47x10^12 joules more in a matter of seconds. Sounds like it should be a cake walk for you. The technology does not presently exist.


This is why I generally don;t like to contribute anything to these forums. Even if you mean no harm and are merely trying to share information to help someone in the most innocent of context, someone will come along and twist it into some sort of nefarious agenda. In the future I should probably refrain from sharing any information, even if it means letting someones questions go unanswered. I am not trying to twist anything. I am not meaning harm. But if you can see that these differences of shaking are easy to discern because of your multi tera joule numbers, I am merely trying to help you to become very wealthy. There should be no excuse for the present measurement system to be off by 47 terajoules even for short measurement times.

I appreciated your explanation of the magnitude of the quakes. I tried to thank you for that in my way. But somehow the politics always gets in the way in these discussions. Sorry. I'll quit.

[PA5COR]

Still did nnot give the exact quake figures at the plant, reason why the NRC is now looking into that.....

Tornado's storms take mud with them, and dump it within 20 - 30 miles not trannsport it around the world.
Howw does pollonium and lead come into that crop/ground? because it was already there in the first place.


Sigh... I think you need to go and re-read to better understand what earthquake measurements are...



Sigh... The initial report was not done at the reactor site... It was reported from a lab in NYS, and one in Delaware.



Oh, in that case, I hope you like Lead-210 and Polonium-210 in our groundwater... Methinks you've never seen the wind associated with a hurricane, huh? It picks up trees, cars, buses, trucks. You think it wont pick up some mud?



Tell that to the mini-radiation contaminator 'Cor. He says no radiation is safe, yet walks around irradiating everything around him...



The measurement was not done at the reactor site, and you need to re-read how earthquake magnitudes are, and how they are measured.



There's a whole lot of measurable difference. Double the amount of energy, in fact. It's like saying there's no difference between Fat Man and Little Boy. Sure, both devastated cities, but one was in fact much more powerful (Double the energy released, in fact).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale#Comparison_with_Richter_sca le

T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale#Comparison_with_Richter_sca le)hat section talks about the difference between the types of measurements, where they break down, and what they mean. In order to obtain it, one must in fact NOT be at the epicenter of the quake.

[WØTKX]

The narcissism of "Poisson distribution"?

Or, since this is a ham radio site (sort of)...

The narcissism of "shot noise"? ;)

[kb2vxa]

I'm used to seeing wizards trying to out wiz each other on a couple of other sites (one in particular) you guys are particularly fond of but why now are you covering our sand with zee mud??? Gee, I never though a few decimal points would create such a mess! Let me know when you're finished so I can get the old Zambababooie out, meanwhile I'll be in my hammock sucking down a Mai Tai.

[n2ize]

Nope. I implied that it was developed to better show us how we discern and nature discerns levels. Corey made a point that this was "good engineering" in response to Cor saying it was "luck". It was indeed "luck"

I wouldn't say it was entirely "luck" The plant was designed to withstand a certain degree of force... to within whatever accuracy and method of determination they used. I'm not an Engineer so you'll have to fill in exactly how they make the determination. Obviously it d'd withstand an earthquake under 6.1.


. Right. That is when I said you guys who believe that an added 47x10^12 joules to a M5.9 quake really makes all that much difference

I didn't say that. I said that it is a large amount of energy. Twice that of a 5.9. Less energy = less impact and stress on the structure = less chance of destruction.



should get rich quick on a patent while inventing a system that can easily discern the difference between a M5.9 and a M6.1 quake within seconds giving the USGC the opportunity to release accurate measurements immediately rather than releasing a bogus number then having to spend time crunching numbers to get the right magnitude to report. I mean, you just posted right here, right now that the difference is near 47x10^12 joules. Any idiot can tell this kind of difference into the tera-joules.

Perhaps you know more about seismology than I do. I am not a seismologist so I cannot speak for their precise methods or their accuracy. If their methodology is such that they adjust their measurements according to an average of different readings then that would mean that the first numbers are not necessarily bogus and as they get additional data the number is refined. This happens in the measurement of many different types of natural phenomenon, i.e. strenths of storms, wind velocities, temperatures, etc. As far as building this super accurate device how many would be needed ? Where would they be located. What if different ones give different readings at different locations. Why would this be better than the present method ? Like I said early on, i don't fully understand how they determine their adjustment.


Not covering up. Not deceiving. Not confusing anyone. Just inventing a measurement device that can easily discern the difference between a M5.9 and 47x10^12 joules more in a matter of seconds. Sounds like it should be a cake walk for you. The technology does not presently exist.

Again, I am not an engineer nor am I a seismologist. I don;t even pretend to have the knowledge and expertise in seismology to determine whether some device I build is going to work better and faster than their present methods



I am not trying to twist anything. I am not meaning harm. But if you can see that these differences of shaking are easy to discern because of your multi tera joule numbers, I am merely trying to help you to become very wealthy. There should be no excuse for the present measurement system to be off by 47 terajoules even for short measurement times.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. The number I cam up with was the result of a brief interpolation I did on my head from the chart along with the understanding that the exponential difference in energy levels is a factor of two. Now you say this is unacceptable but, what qualifies you to say that ? Do you have a background in seismology and an understanding of the methodology and whatever pitfalls may arise in determining the approximate power of any given quake ? I cannot say there is a definite problem to be fixed or how to fix it until I obtain a thorough working knowledge of the hows and why's or seismology today.



I appreciated your explanation of the magnitude of the quakes. I tried to thank you for that in my way. But somehow the politics always gets in the way in these discussions. Sorry. I'll quit.

Yes it does. All I really meant to do was to point out a very minor point to someone. I never intended to post another word about it.

[X-Rated]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904875404576528472240850378.html#p roject%3DUSQUAKE_082311%26articleTabs%3Darticle


"Tuesday's earthquake underscores the importance of the earthquake analysis that the NRC already is doing of areas that didn't used to be considered a seismic risk," said Stephen Maloney, an analyst at Azuolas Risk Advisors, who studies the impact of earthquakes on utilities.

I don't know jack about sizemic riscs, but the few here who do are truly in demand. I'm telling you guys. You will be very rich. Very rich.

[NQ6U]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2ZXco32IRU

DAY AFTER DAY
(Tommy Reynolds / Stuart Margolin / Jerry Riopelle)

Shango

Day after day, more people come to L.A.
Ssh! Don't you tell anybody the whole place is slippin' away.
Where can we go when there's no San Francisco?
Ssh! Better get ready to tie up the boat in Idaho.

Do you know the swim? You better learn quick, Jim.
Those who don't know how to swim, better sing the hymn.
Tuna at the bowl. Fine fillet o' much sole.
Whoo! Whoo! What can we do with a bushel of wet gold?

Day after day, more people come to L.A.
Ssh! Don't you tell anybody the whole place is shakin' away.
Where can we go when there's no San Francisco?
Ssh! Better get ready to tie up the boat in Idaho.

Where can we go when there's no San Diego?
Ssh! Better get ready to tie up the boat in Idaho.

Do you know the swim? You better learn quick, Jim.
Those who don't know how to swim, better sing the hymn.
Tuna at the bowl. Fine fillet o' much sole.
Whoo! Whoo! What can we do with a bushel of wet gold?

Day after day, more people come to L.A.
Ssh! Don't you tell anybody the whole place is shakin' away.
Where can we go when there's no San Francisco?
Ssh! Better get ready to tie up the boat in Idaho. Better get ready to tie up the boat in Idaho(repeat to fade)

[PA5COR]

I just made some fresh onion soup.
;)

[KC2UGV]

Still did nnot give the exact quake figures at the plant, reason why the NRC is now looking into that.....


Sigh... We can take all the quake measurements we want. We don't care about what the measurements are at the plant, because you have to be 100Km away from the epicenter of the event in order to measure it.

Ideally, we would need a set of three seismographs around each plant, to determine the Moment Magnitude at the plant, if it happened to be the epicenter.



Tornado's storms take mud with them, and dump it within 20 - 30 miles not trannsport it around the world.
Howw does pollonium and lead come into that crop/ground? because it was already there in the first place.

No, it ends up in the water because of flooding which carries out the radionucleoides into the water table... All because you want your tobacco. Thanks for irradiating us Cor.

[PA5COR]

You can measure the G forces that the plant endures, it is even in the requirements for the plant to which G forces the plant has to survive.
Since the plant ( as i wrote before) sits on 2 fully different soil structures the G forces will be different for the part of the plant that sit on these different soil structure.

The G forces determine the physical stress on the plant and content, think piping and the frequency the pipes will shake, depending on the way they are fastened.
The pipes under the building which cannot easily be inspected can be torn easy if the underground shaking and G forces stress the welds and fastenings too much, these pipes as was shown in the reports are weakened the most being in moist ground, see the reports of the leaking in 75+ % of the nuke plants.
Meaning already these pipes are weakened or already leaking.

Since the seismographs were removed around the plant they cannot give any indication of what the forces were AT the plant and a risk determination cannot be made reliable.

The Dam at the plant that keeps the water in the artificial lake needed for cooling the reactors is under suspicion as high rated risk for quakes, the water fell 20+ inches in that lake after the quake... no water = no cooling = meltdown..


The American Society for Civil Engineers’ most recent “report card” on national infrastructure lists a number of trouble spots in Virginia — including 143 “high-hazard” dams, one of which sits on Lake Anna near the North Anna nuclear power plant.
“A high hazard dam is defined as a dam whose failure would cause a loss of life and significant property damage,”
So, it seems the risks are not just the plant itself, also the infrastructure is at risk if you build for too low earthquake figures...

WARNING: 130+ mph hurricane forecast to make landfall nearby NC nuke plant that’s only “built to withstand winds of 128 mph” — Could be a “once-in-50-year” event for Northeast .

Seems the designers took their chances when designing nuke plants cutting costs and turning the risk to the people living there isn't it?
Lots of "accidents"with nuke plants that were a once in 50 - 100 or whatever timespan events...

Lets hope nothing serious happens, but it is clear too much chances were taken designing and building the plants.
Looking at the effects of Fukuushima or Chernobyl it should be clear as a bell you design the plants for the worst and add 300% redundant security in it, in the long run cheaper as clearing up a multi trillion costing nuke plant in a ,melt through and lose valuable land for decades or even centuries and the cost of lots of people's life.

The radio isotopes from tobacco were already in the ground so it is moot what happens, something you cleverly try to circumvent.
Tobacco plants cannot create hot radio isotopes on themselves they take them up from the soil they feed from.
Nice try, no cigar ;)



Sigh... We can take all the quake measurements we want. We don't care about what the measurements are at the plant, because you have to be 100Km away from the epicenter of the event in order to measure it.

Ideally, we would need a set of three seismographs around each plant, to determine the Moment Magnitude at the plant, if it happened to be the epicenter.



No, it ends up in the water because of flooding which carries out the radionucleoides into the water table... All because you want your tobacco. Thanks for irradiating us Cor.

[rot]

Well in my pee brain if you design for 5.9 mag and throw in 2x buffer from risk benefit that would give ya an expectation of holding up to a 6.1.
Now if you change all those criteria ex post facto and then say no use Moment Magnitude cause it is more real or add in 300% for redundancance you are in essence redefining risk/benefit at a later date...which is cool...but for sake of discussion makes it hard to follow. The redo of the measure may absorb some of the risk/benefit due to the correctness or whatever of what you want define stuff on. We may learn more leeway is needed for low prob events which are no so low prob as we learn more. Hope we can correct upgrade and be safe. I am not antinuke...just anticonfuse...Nothing is 100% safe...and never will be...but one would think in these days we could do the best we could do, strive for excellence and get beyond the "well it worked ok this time so we're cool" mentality.
Be Safe...Live Long...and Prosper.
rot

[KC2UGV]

You can measure the G forces that the plant endures, it is even in the requirements for the plant to which G forces the plant has to survive.
Since the plant ( as i wrote before) sits on 2 fully different soil structures the G forces will be different for the part of the plant that sit on these different soil structure.


So, what G forces was the structure designed for? G forces are not the same as Moment Magnitude...



The radio isotopes from tobacco were already in the ground so it is moot what happens, something you cleverly try to circumvent.
Tobacco plants cannot create hot radio isotopes on themselves they take them up from the soil they feed from.
Nice try, no cigar ;)

No, the Lead-210 and the Polonium-210 were added by humans during the fertilization of those fields... They are not "already in the ground.

But, if they were, then we're already contaminated by radiation, so your idea of "no safe radiation levels" is a false one.


Well in my pee brain if you design for 5.9 mag and throw in 2x buffer from risk benefit that would give ya an expectation of holding up to a 6.1.
Now if you change all those criteria ex post facto and then say no use Moment Magnitude cause it is more real or add in 300% for redundancance you are in essence redefining risk/benefit at a later date...which is cool...but for sake of discussion makes it hard to follow. The redo of the measure may absorb some of the risk/benefit due to the correctness or whatever of what you want define stuff on. We may learn more leeway is needed for low prob events which are no so low prob as we learn more. Hope we can correct upgrade and be safe. I am not antinuke...just anticonfuse...Nothing is 100% safe...and never will be...but one would think in these days we could do the best we could do, strive for excellence and get beyond the "well it worked ok this time so we're cool" mentality.
Be Safe...Live Long...and Prosper.
rot

Richter is used for smaller quakes. The scale breaks down for larger quakes. So, for 4.5+, they use moment magnitude, which is less accurate at measuring smaller quakes.

By and large, from 3-4.5; both scales work.

[rot]

Richter is used for smaller quakes. The scale breaks down for larger quakes. So, for 4.5+, they use moment magnitude, which is less accurate at measuring smaller quakes.

By and large, from 3-4.5; both scales work.

Well cool...somehow I missed this point or it didn't stick nogginwise....makes sense.
rot

[rot]

Ya know...the moment magnitude is alot like the exoplanet detect n3aiu was discussing wayback when he went to Chile at that bitchin observatory.
Each uses multilple instruments seperated by a distance requirement which is recombined to observe a movement event. Mirrors in one case, seismo's in the other. Now if the two could work each in their own seperate domains to yield some common concept of predictability of occurance/how big junk...that would be hawtstuff.
Stick me with a fork...
rot

[X-Rated]

...strive for excellence and get beyond the "well it worked ok this time so we're cool" mentality.
Be Safe...Live Long...and Prosper.
rot

Amen. Why can't I say what I was trying to say like you do? Thank you.

[NQ6U]

Amen. Why can't I say what I was trying to say like you do? Thank you.

Don't feel bad. There's a reason Rot was made Island Poet Laureate, after all.

[PA5COR]

That was not the Q but i'll dig for the G forces they had and the design saw for.
So USA farmers added lead and pollonium and poison us then,that's funny...blame the farmers then.

My no safe radiation level stands, just a pity to see even US farmers adding to the problem...


So, what G forces was the structure designed for? G forces are not the same as Moment Magnitude...



No, the Lead-210 and the Polonium-210 were added by humans during the fertilization of those fields... They are not "already in the ground.

But, if they were, then we're already contaminated by radiation, so your idea of "no safe radiation levels" is a false one.



Richter is used for smaller quakes. The scale breaks down for larger quakes. So, for 4.5+, they use moment magnitude, which is less accurate at measuring smaller quakes.

By and large, from 3-4.5; both scales work.

[KC2UGV]

That was not the Q but i'll dig for the G forces they had and the design saw for.


When you find that, come on back...



So USA farmers added lead and pollonium and poison us then,that's funny...blame the farmers then.

My no safe radiation level stands, just a pity to see even US farmers adding to the problem...

Actually, I blame the people who continue to buy the product. Which means you are promoting the contamination of our land, land in Turkey, and land in India.

[n2ize]

When you find that, come on back...



Actually, I blame the people who continue to buy the product. Which means you are promoting the contamination of our land, land in Turkey, and land in India.

I must admit I both buy and enjoy the product. I smoked a nice bowl of a rich Latakia English mixture out of a Calabash today and it was divine. had there been any cannabis mixed in I would have probably thought I was smoking in 19th century England with the local gentry. I probably won't smoke again for a few weeks, I am an occasional smoker but I have to admit, I do enjoy that product .

[KC2UGV]

I must admit I both buy and enjoy the product. I smoked a nice bowl of a rich Latakia English mixture out of a Calabash today and it was divine. had there been any cannabis mixed in I would have probably thought I was smoking in 19th century England with the local gentry. I probably won't smoke again for a few weeks, I am an occasional smoker but I have to admit, I do enjoy that product .

But, you are not the one here claiming "Zero tolerance for radiation" :)

[n2ize]

But, you are not the one here claiming "Zero tolerance for radiation" :)

very true. Guess I was being a bit overly defensive :)

[PA5COR]

It was the USA tobacco industry agressiveely promoting their product including paying doctors to teell us smoking was good for you.
Game set and match, US farmers and doctors contaaminate your country LOL


When you find that, come on back...



Actually, I blame the people who continue to buy the product. Which means you are promoting the contamination of our land, land in Turkey, and land in India.

[PA5COR]

The question -- what size earthquakes can U.S. nuclear power plants withstand -- seems urgent in light of this week's surprising magnitude-5.8 quake on the East Coast. Alas, there's no simple answer and that worries industry critics.
Earthquakes are routinely measured by magnitude, or energy released. But the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)requires the nation's 104 nuclear reactors to withstand a predicted level of ground motion, or acceleration -- something called g-force.


This muddiness heightens the concerns of industry critics, who have urged stricter safety rules after reactors at Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant nearly melted down due to a magnitude-9.0 earthquake and tsunami on March 11.
A task force mandated by President Obama recommended in July that each U.S. plant be re-examined, given ongoing NRC research that shows the seismic risks for Eastern and Central U.S. nuclear power plants have increased.
"The Virginia earthquake is now our local 911 call to stop delaying the implementation of stricter safety standards," Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., wrote in a letter this week to the NRC.


Jim Norvelle, spokesman of Dominion Virginia Power, which operates the North Anna plant, says its two reactors were built to withstand ground motion of 0.12g to 0.18g, depending on soil composition. He says that translates into magnitudes of 5.9 to 6.2.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/story/2011-08-25/Earthquake-readiness-of-US-nuclear-power-plants-is-unclear/50141704/1


The NRC has been aware of possible gaps in earthquake protection in U.S. nuclear plants since at least 2005, when some utilities, including Dominion, began planning new reactors.

Now compare the above with this:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/global/shake/082311a/#Peak_Ground_Acceleration
( click any blue spot to get the data.


It’s true that most engineering is a highly refined process however it is not exact. If someone says the plant was designed for a 6.2 earthquake and this one was only 5.9 so whew, we dodged the bullet, I have to laugh, because from an engineering perspective there may not be any difference between the two. There are simply too many variables to account for.
We can calculate the engineering strength of a piece of material – say a piece of steel – but the actual strength is going to be different. That’s because there are very many assumptions in my calculation. I assume the material is alloyed precisely to the recipe, and manufactured precisely to dimension. I assume there are no defects in the material – either corrosion or large dents or scratches. I assume the material is installed per the design and not damaged during the install, and I assume the loads are exactly as I had anticipated. I assume the piece of steel hasn’t been subjected to undue temperatures (fire) or chemicals during its lifetime. I also assume the testing which determined my strength calculation tables (either manual or automated in the design software) was accurate and no transcription errors occurred when the data was published.
That’s a lot of assumptions – any incorrect one of which could throw off the accuracy of my calculation for that component. Now a device is made up of many components (nuclear reactors, many, many components) – all with a set of assumptions or “tolerance” in the calculation . Now let’s add all of those assumptions up for every major structural component of the facility – this is called tolerance stacking, and will give you an overall variability of the project.
Let’s say you add it all up and you get a + or – 30% tolerance. Well, then, you need to design everything at least 30% stronger than you think in order to account for this. The you are generally OK, because random variations occur both up and down, and most of the time the strength calculations come out pretty close. Additionally, engineers will often will add much more than the required 30% as a safety margin or safety factor, they might add 50% or 100% or not unusually 200% – 400% on critical components.
So I’m personally not worried about the reactor designed for 6.2 and this was a 5.9 as being close. I think arguing that point shows ignorance.
Certainly if we look at the time of use of the plant, wearing down components, proved by leaks in piping over the lifetime cycle it already has, etc.

What I think this situation is useful for is to demonstrate how close this reactor is to a major metro area in the US – how critically these nuclear reactors rely on backup power, how much nuclear material is onsite, and how Fukushima has proven that residents pretty far from the plant should always be cognisant that the plant could melt down and you might have to abandon your home and belongings forever on very short notice.

[KC2UGV]

So I’m personally not worried about the reactor designed for 6.2 and this was a 5.9 as being close. I think arguing that point shows ignorance.


Thank 'Cor for proving my point here.

[KC2UGV]

It was the USA tobacco industry agressiveely promoting their product including paying doctors to teell us smoking was good for you.
Game set and match, US farmers and doctors contaaminate your country LOL

No, the users of the product do. If it weren't for the consumers, those products would not be getting made.

[n2ize]

So I’m personally not worried about the reactor designed for 6.2 and this was a 5.9 as being close. I think arguing that point shows ignorance.

:wall::wall::wall::wall:

[PA5COR]

Wrong, for creating costumers you first need to create the product and aggressively push it on the market.


No, the users of the product do. If it weren't for the consumers, those products would not be getting made.

[PA5COR]

Retry reading the full post, not just what you want to read in it.


Thank 'Cor for proving my point here.

[KC2UGV]

Retry reading the full post, not just what you want to read in it.

It's called "summation", an art used in writing essays. You summarize your points at the end:

So I’m personally not worried about the reactor designed for 6.2 and this was a 5.9 as being close. I think arguing that point shows ignorance.