On Apr 15, 6:25*am, dave wrote:
On 04/14/2011 03:04 PM, bpnjensen wrote:



Being in a seismically active area is not quite the same as being on a
fault line. *Fault rupture is, at any given time, a more serious issue
to local buildings than the ensuing ground shaking - it will break
your structure in two; but if you are not on a fault line, then
shaking is your key problem if you are not in danger of a landslide,
tsunami or liquefaction. *A building can be built to withstand almost
any foreseeable level of shake.

Surface cracking is localized. It is not the actual fault opening up.
EQs occur a mile or more below the surface.

Correct, but you may want to come up to the Bay Area and see what has
happened at Point Reyes, Los Trancos and elsewhere. It may be surface
cracking, but the ground does open up, and the two sides exhibit
significant displacement in three dimensions. Whether it is the
actual fault is immaterial - it will disassemble structures. I'm sure
you guys have examples in SoCal, and there are some seriously
spectacular scarps in Nevada and down near Carrizo Plain, if I'm not
mistaken.

On Apr 15, 2:32*am, RHF wrote:
On Apr 13, 9:22*am, bpnjensen wrote:





On Apr 13, 6:31*am, dave wrote:

On 04/12/2011 09:48 PM, bpnjensen wrote:

The problem Dave relates, that of further meltdown and steam
explosion, is demonstrably more immediate and dangerous locally.
Earthwide, however, not a big deal, for the same reason - dilution.
If it goes on for a LONG time, like years, I suppose it could have
effects on populations of nearby Pacific Islands, assuming favorable
wind patterns...but I'd have to see some better analysis to be
convinced.

That, from a die-hard environmentalist.

Bruce Jensen

You can't dilute radioactive particles and make them less mutagenic; you
are just dispersing them more.

When the secondary containment of F.D. reactor 3 exploded three days
into the incident its spent fuel (waste) pond was pulverized and the
contents were scattered for many kilometers around the plant. At that
point the incident was in Chernobyl category 7 territory, but the
authorities were afraid to panic rescue workers away from the region.

Yes, but higher concentrations are demonstrably more likely to cause
mutagenesis problems. *An average increase in rads above background
levels of less than 0.001% in oceanic waters is not going to cause
significant increases in cancer anywhere. *I do agree with your last
point.

Do You Own GE Stock ?
*.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have some mutual funds that may contain GE stock - not sure, and its
irrelevant.

On Apr 15, 2:31*am, RHF wrote:
On Apr 13, 6:31*am, dave wrote:





On 04/12/2011 09:48 PM, bpnjensen wrote:

The problem Dave relates, that of further meltdown and steam
explosion, is demonstrably more immediate and dangerous locally.
Earthwide, however, not a big deal, for the same reason - dilution.
If it goes on for a LONG time, like years, I suppose it could have
effects on populations of nearby Pacific Islands, assuming favorable
wind patterns...but I'd have to see some better analysis to be
convinced.

That, from a die-hard environmentalist.

Bruce Jensen

You can't dilute radioactive particles and make them less mutagenic; you
are just dispersing them more.

When the secondary containment of F.D. reactor 3 exploded three days
into the incident its spent fuel (waste) pond was pulverized and the
contents were scattered for many kilometers around the plant. At that
point the incident was in Chernobyl category 7 territory, but the
authorities were afraid to panic rescue workers away from the region.

Oops... I Agree With Dave :
It's Dangerous & It's Deadly
and The Ostrich Act Won't Make It Go Away
*.
*.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I could say the same thing to you about SO MANY things. Tell ya what
- get out some real numbers and real math, because that's what I deal
in, and then we can talk.

On Apr 15, 4:19*am, RHF wrote:
On Apr 15, 3:55*am, "Burr" wrote:

- Japan nuclear plant owner must pay $600M

"America Tonight" -host- Kate Delaney is talkinghttp://www.gcnlive.com/programs/americaTonight/
about that right now $12K per Family ain't nothing
for being forced our of Home, Job, Work, School
and the Town/City you Live and Grew-up in...
* "America Tonight" -host- Kate Delaneyhttp://www.americatonight.net/
* "America Tonight" : Radio Stationshttp://www.gcnlive.com/programs/americaTonight/affiliateList.pdf

Just how does $600M or $600B or $600T adequately
compensate the 12~36 Million Japanese who will be
displaced by this Nuclear Contaminated Radiative
Zone that will make the take-up the Northern 1/3rd
of Honshu Island the Main Japanese Home Island
will be a No Man's Land [Uninhabitable] within a
Decadehttp://ahoy.tk-jk.net/MoreImages/MapJapan.jpg
*.
First Japan Coastal Waters and Then Complete
and Total Global Contamination Ocean Waters
with Toxic Radioactive Within Five Yearshttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/bbbf78052cf964f8
*.
Criminal Japanese Radioactive Toxic Polluters of All
the World's Ocean Waters : Global Radioactive-Rainhttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/6c555871d73da57a
*.
*.

Some number of money will, in fact, provide compensation. However, to
the Earth, no amount will ever be enough...and that's true everywhere
it happens.

On 04/15/2011 11:20 AM, bpnjensen wrote:

Surface cracking is localized. It is not the actual fault opening up.
EQs occur a mile or more below the surface.

Correct, but you may want to come up to the Bay Area and see what has
happened at Point Reyes, Los Trancos and elsewhere. It may be surface
cracking, but the ground does open up, and the two sides exhibit
significant displacement in three dimensions. Whether it is the
actual fault is immaterial - it will disassemble structures. I'm sure
you guys have examples in SoCal, and there are some seriously
spectacular scarps in Nevada and down near Carrizo Plain, if I'm not
mistaken.

http://www.cnsm.csulb.edu/department...edroFeb06L.jpg

On Apr 15, 2:20*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Apr 15, 6:25*am, dave wrote:

On 04/14/2011 03:04 PM, bpnjensen wrote:

Being in a seismically active area is not quite the same as being on a
fault line. *Fault rupture is, at any given time, a more serious issue
to local buildings than the ensuing ground shaking - it will break
your structure in two; but if you are not on a fault line, then
shaking is your key problem if you are not in danger of a landslide,
tsunami or liquefaction. *A building can be built to withstand almost
any foreseeable level of shake.

Surface cracking is localized. It is not the actual fault opening up.
EQs occur a mile or more below the surface.

Correct, but you may want to come up to the Bay Area and see what has
happened at Point Reyes, Los Trancos and elsewhere. *It may be surface
cracking, but the ground does open up, and the two sides exhibit
significant displacement in three dimensions. *Whether it is the
actual fault is immaterial - it will disassemble structures. *I'm sure
you guys have examples in SoCal, and there are some seriously
spectacular scarps in Nevada and down near Carrizo Plain, if I'm not
mistaken.

Absolutely and positively : True . Entire villages/settlements are
known to have disappeared during such seismic activity . No structure
is safe under these extreme conditions .