Yep but many Levees in NOLA were in fact breached.
Louis N. Molino, Sr. CET
Louis N. Molino, Sr. CET
FF/NREMT/FSI/EMSI
Training Program Manager
Fire & Safety Specialists, Inc.
Typed by my fingers on my iPhone.
Please excuse any typos.
(979) 412-0890 (Cell)
(979) 690-7559 (Office)
(979) 690-7562 (Office Fax)
From: Louis N. Molino, Sr. <lnmolino@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [californiadisasters] California's faults are not like Japan's
To: "californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com" <californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, March 17, 2011, 11:17 AM
I'd say they were over flowed but not breached.
Louis N. Molino, Sr. CET
FF/NREMT/FSI/EMSI
Training Program Manager
Fire & Safety Specialists, Inc.
Typed by my fingers on my iPhone.
Please excuse any typos.
(979) 412-0890 (Cell)
(979) 690-7559 (Office)
(979) 690-7562 (Office Fax)
LNMolino@aol.com
Lou@fireworld.com
On Mar 17, 2011, at 12:54, newnethboy <kef413@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seawalls are like farm boots. They work great until they're over-topped, and
> then they're worse than nothing.
>
> It will be interesting to see where Japan's seawalls failed to keep the
> tsunami out but kept the receding water in.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Louis N. Molino, Sr." <lnmolino@aol.com>
> To: <californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 10:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [californiadisasters] California's faults are not like Japan's
>
>
> Sendai had a seawall. I think. BTW so did Galveston, Texas.
>
>
> Louis N. Molino, Sr. CET
> FF/NREMT/FSI/EMSI
> Training Program Manager
> Fire & Safety Specialists, Inc.
> Typed by my fingers on my iPhone.
> Please excuse any typos.
> (979) 412-0890 (Cell)
> (979) 690-7559 (Office)
> (979) 690-7562 (Office Fax)
>
> LNMolino@aol.com
> Lou@fireworld.com
>
> On Mar 17, 2011, at 11:54, Kim Noyes <kimnoyes@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> None of us knows all the facts on this yet, but I will say this much: I'm
> rather surprised and curious as to why there was no sea wall protecting
> those back-up generators when the Japanese have sea walls built along other
> sections of their coast.
>>
>> As to Diablo and global warming: that 85 foot bluff should do fine with
> rising sea waters.... nobody is suggesting that the seas will rise 85 feet
> over the next 20 years by which time the plant will have been shut down.
>>
>> Due caution is a good thing and avoiding "failures of the imagination" to
> quote the 9/11 report is good.
>>
>> However, to breathlessly suggest Diablo Canyon's 85 foot bluffs are gonna
> get swallowed in the next 20 years while the plant's final run plays out is
> not supported by the climatological and oceanographic science.
>>
>> As to the plant needing to be hardened on the inside to withstand greater
> shaking, neither of us knows if that is true or not but I'm sure that is
> going to have to be looked at again and in no small measure due to the
> grandstanding of our two dauntless senators.
>>
>> Kimmer
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Patricia J Akers <delachenaie1@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> In the event in Japan the tsunami is the primary cause of the reactors
> failures that are being seen. It is noted in the following story that
> Diablo is cited at being 85 ft above sea level. This will change as climate
> change is creating higher sea levels.
>>
>>
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/west-coast-nuke-plants-are-they-safe-2011-0
> 3-14
>>
>> The Japanese plants were hit by waves at 23 feet. The earthquake(s) were
> not responsible for the damage that has led to the current scenario.
>>
>> Part of the problem in both cases is governments relying upon
> seismologists and geologists under contract with the respective utility
> companies to provide factual information. The research provided under these
> private contracts is commonly woven into official maps and public releases
> about the plants. It must be assumed because of the contractual demands of
> the utilities that this information is commonly weighted in the utility's
> favor.
>>
>> Hosgri has been known to generate earthquakes at 7.3, and Diablo is built
> to withstand a 7.5. We have the environmental groups to thank for at least
> this level of protection. PG&E's consultants maintained that this level of
> protection was unnecessary. Originally it was to be built with a safety
> factor at 6.8 because most construction in California is required to
> withstand a 6.8. Personally Diablo should be upgraded to increase its
> safety ratio. Two tenths on the scale appears to be far too low of a safety
> range.
>>
>> Reasonableness sometimes falls on the upper portion of statistical
> analysis when millions of people are at risk. Japan is a very poignant
> example as this event unfolds. It was argued that greater protection was
> just too expensive, and unwarranted...sound familiar?
>>
>> And to the authors of the press release from PG&E that generated the above
> story and the one cited by Lin, 7.3 is not a large earthquake?
>>
>> I see a spider spinning a web. We do not need a nominative subjective
> assessment of danger.
>>
>> Patricia
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Lin Kerns <linkerns@gmail.com>
>> To: Geology2 <geology2@yahoogroups.com>; California Earthquake Forum
> <californiasearthquakeforum@yahoogroups.com>; CaliforniaDisasters
> <californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thu, March 17, 2011 8:11:03 AM
>> Subject: [californiadisasters] California's faults are not like Japan's
>>
>>
>> California's faults are not like Japan's
>>
>> Geology offshore of and in California would make such a massive temblor
> unlikely, seismologists say
>>
>>
>> By David Sneed | dsneed@thetribunenews.com
>> When the Japanese earthquake occurred last week, an area the size of
> Maryland ruptured on the fault.
>>
>> To duplicate that kind of a quake in California would require a rupture
> along a very long length of a fault — and that geology does not exist in the
> faults closest to Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, says Tom Brocher,
> director of the U.S. Geological Survey's Earthquake Science Center in Menlo
> Park.
>>
>> Similarly, seismologists are not aware of any faults farther offshore that
> could produce a large quake or tsunami. "There are some offshore structures,
> but they are not the plate-boundary features that you see off of Japan or
> the Pacific Northwest," Brocher said Wednesday.
>>
>> Seismologists are unsure whether a newly discovered fault near Diablo
> Canyon and a larger fault offshore are connected and could produce a
> potentially large earthquake if they went off in tandem.
>>
>> The Japanese fault is shaped like a ramp that dips beneath the country at
> a shallow angle, with a large area of contact between two tectonic plates.
> In contrast, California's faults are thin ribbons that extend vertically
> into the ground, creating a fault zone about 10 miles deep.
>>
>> "We just don't think there is any way we can get a magnitude-9 quake in
> this part of the state," Brocher said. "The faults are just not long
> enough."
>>
>> The closest subduction fault is the Cascadia that runs down the coast of
> the Pacific Northwest into Northern California.
>>
>> The longest fault in the state is the San Andreas, which runs about 580
> miles, including through the northeast part of San Luis Obispo County.
>>
>> In order for the San Andreas to generate a massive earthquake, it would
> have to rupture along most of its length. This is considered unlikely
> because a section in the middle around Parkfield regularly has many small
> earthquakes, and that relieves some of the pressure.
>>
>> By comparison, the Hosgri Fault offshore of Diablo Canyon nuclear power
> plant is about 120 miles long. The newly discovered Shoreline Fault near the
> plant is 15 miles long.
>>
>> "The Hosgri Fault is just not long enough to give you one of the
> mega-quakes," Brocher said. Similarly, earthquakes along faults such as
> those in California do not displace the huge amounts of ocean water needed
> to create a powerful tsunami.
>>
>> "The Hosgri is a very vertical fault," Brocher said.
>>
>> Seismologists have learned a lot about the faults around Diablo Canyon
> since the 1980s, when Diablo Canyon was built, Brocher said.
>>
>> They were initially unsure of the Hosgri Fault's exact characteristics
> because it was newly discovered, he said.
>>
>> Original estimates of the Hosgri showed a quake potential of 7.0 to 7.5
> magnitude.
>>
>> At a recent meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in San Luis
> Obispo, PG&E seismologists announced that they are reducing the quake
> potential to the 6 to 6.5 magnitude.
>>
>> NRC officials at the meeting said they are studying the PG&E re-analysis
> and hope to announce whether they can verify it by the end of the year.
>>
>> Brocher said his agency has not been asked to review the PG&E report
> submitted to the NRC. However, the USGS does update its seismic mapping on a
> regular basis and includes new information that has been scientifically
> vetted, he said.
>>
>> Source
>>
>> --
>> Got Penguins?
>>
>> Penguin News Today
>> The Science of Penguins
>> The Gentoos are back! Come see them on live cam at:
>> Gentoo Penguins of Gars O'Higgins Station, Antarctica
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/
>> Read our blog at http://eclecticarcania.blogspot.com/
>> Visit me on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/derkimster
>> Visit my Myspace at http://www.myspace.com/kimusinteruptus
>> We have an Ebay store at http://stores.ebay.com/K-K-Earthwerks
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Be sure to check out our Links Section at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/links
> Please join our Discussion Group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters_discussion/ for topical but extended discussions started here or for less topical but nonetheless relevant messages.Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment