Tunguska? Seriously? You're worried about a comet striking a nuclear power plant? You say very unlikely, but I still don't think you grasp how unlikely that is. And you're blowing the danger way out of proportion. Not 100,000s of years. More like decades - if this extremely unlikely event happened.

As long as you build outside of tornado alley, and away from the gulf you'll do fine with the weather. And I'll give you another chance on figuring out how to avoid dangers from volcanoes lol.

Why not bury it in a subduction zone? Like 1000 ft down or so away from human activity. Even with a half life of 100,000s of years, there's no worries. It's taken down to the earth's mantle.

Hey Tread, that is a very interesting article. I had no idea burning coal could produce that much nuclear material.
Thanks :respect:

Tracy Well, maybe. The subduction zone off of Washington and Oregon allows the Casdadia plate to slide under those states to the Cascade Mountains where molten lava formed in the subduction zone is spewed out of the volcanoes (Rainer, St. Helen's). The subduction zone is about 12 miles deep under the Cascades, offshore it is less and extends out to an offshore trench. I suppose the nuclear waste could be dumped into the trench where it would be slowly subducted. It might take a million years for the radioactive material to get to the volcanoes. Since humans will have done themselves in long before that it would not be a problem. ;)

Again you quote out of context and respond only what you wanted to read. The red text is what is missing.

It was about the Unknown. Something unexpected that happen, or something known but stronger than expected happen. It is not about how likely one of the particular Unknown things happens, but more that there are many things that could unlikely happen to one of the many nuclear facilities which let accidents happen several times a year. Most of them without a resulting disaster, but it?s only a question of time.
I thought Tunguska is a good example because it is still unclear what happen and there are lots of exceptionally theories also Asteroid/Comet or Geophysical activity are the most supposable.
Terrorists could also fly into a building, the chances are comparable low. 3 out of 4 planes hit their target at 9.11. why not a nuclear plant?

If you think the effects are only decades long, you should tell that the people who plan to build a steel concrete Sarcophagus around the Chernobyl reactor. Temporary it should last for 1000 years, but that is only an intermediate step.

Weather is much more than tornados and hurricanes. One example is that a drought could run dry rivers that are essential for the cooling of a nuclear plant.
Volcanoes are more than an eruption and lava. Your Yellowstone Caldera is out of tectonic faults and has the potential to change lakes, rivers and differences in highs of the area.

There is no proving what happens in a subduction zone. Everything is just a hypothesis. And near every subduction zone there is immense pressure, lots of earthquakes and volcanoes.
Drilling and weakening earth crust near high pressure magma could be like a man made volcano canal who could throw the radioactive waste out high into the air. (Or more visual: like a blain of radioactive waste, the pressure rises from two sides like fingers, and then it splatters all over the place).

Actually, it's about what scott441 was saying. That's who I was responding to. And my response was in response to him saying that 'This', as in the earth quake and tsunami, was the unknown. And my response to him was that the dangers to both were not unknowns.

Yes, the event of planes flying into a nuclear reactor, or some other terrorist plot, would probably be considered an unknown. And that does raise the bar on what nuclear reactors must withstand. I still believe, however, that these kinds of events can be defended against. Not with the nuclear reactors we have now, but I think it's possible to build some that are. Of course, you probably won't be able to defend a nuclear reactor against a nuclear attack (unless you build it inside a mountain), but either way, you'll have radiation.

It's clear. There are those who like to dream that other exceptionally crazy hypothesis took place, like mini black holes :lol: etc. I haven't heard any plausible geophysical based hypothesis.

So don't build nuclear reactors around Yellowstone... or other volcanoes ;)

Platetectonics is beyond the hypothesis stage. It's a very well tested theory.

Correct. Followed by (randolph and) my respond to your statement that they prepared for it but didn?t expected something that big. So it was unknown that 9.0 quake happens in front of Fukushima.
Hindsight is easy. Next time or in California they prepare for a 9.5 quake, and a 10.0 quake happen. And earthquakes could be much stronger also the Richter scale ends at 10.
What you don?t seem to grasp is that you can prepare for everything in any strength you can think about, the Unknown something you didn?t expected and it?s very likely to happen (don?t have to end in a disaster).

Again hindsight is easy, but it is always too late. You can build nuclear plants that withstand a Boeing 747 and everyone thinks it?s perfectly save until an Airbus A380 crashes into it.

I am not for preparing against every unlikely risk and spend extraordinary amounts to protect against every little accident, but I?m against irresponsible handling of risks that could have effects that can?t be estimate, like nuclear dangers or climate influences. And nuclear power plants hamper a regenerative energy management because of their inflexibility.

There were never found clear evidence of an asteroid, no visible pieces nor doubtless impact crater(s).
In the days before the Tunguska event, reports tell unusual atmospheric glows and light earthquakes in that area that could be explained by natural gas. The gas, under high pressure from geological activity, could be released and exploded in the high atmosphere. This would fit to eyewitness reports that tell about the multiple explosion and its different movements in the sky. The destruction is possible, no asteroid pieces and no doubtless crater. The possible Crater Lake Cheko could be a collapsed gas releasing spot. Google Andrei Olchowatow and Wolfgang Kundt.

Until now there are not enough evidence to prove it but the asteroid seems the most likely followed by Comet and geophysical event and far away the many dubious hypothesis.

It could also affect the rivers that went near Yellowstone and change the water supply states away. It is again the Unknown not necessary the obviously event.

Continental Drift is proven, plate tectonic is a theory, but what happens in a subduction zone is a hypothesis. What?s going on in the earth mantle is unclear.

Evidence is arriving that the hydrogen explosion at the #3 reactor building caused a breach in the containment vessel. High levels of radioactive water is leaking out. This is a further escalation of the gravity of the situation at the Fukashima(sic) power plant. Several workers were severely contaminated by the radioactive water and are in a hospital.
This further questions the wisdom of releasing steam full of hydrogen into the building containing the nuclear reactor, when it was guaranteed there would be an explosion. I am not trying to second guess what they were doing. We still do not have a clear idea of what was happening there.

Apparently the Chinese are pioneering Thorium reactor technologies which are supposedly way safer than the current stuff.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...h-thorium.html

The Chinese are taking the lead in a wide range of alternative technologies while we sit around playing politics. We are a lot like the tin horn dictators, spending all of our resources on military hardware (1.4 million for each missile lobbed into Libya) instead of planning for a future with very expensive oil. :frown:

People are scared of nuclear energy. But fact remains that other forms of energy can be dangerous as well. People have been killed in gas explosions, fires caused by oil and electrical power lines / pylons are supposed to cause cancer.
On the other hand, we have been using nuclear powered submarines for 50 odd years now and to the best of my knowledge no sailor has fallen sick so far. Food for thought here.

I don't know much about them but our nuclear submarines and ships seem to be very reliable, cant say that for the Russian ones, however. As I recall, Hymen Rickover was the developer of our nuclear submarines.

Huh huh! You said, "hymen..." ;)

That's right, his name was Hymen Rickover. A brilliant scientist, engineer.

Here is a picture of the nuclear power plant in S. California. Talk about being "on the beach". There are numerous faults offshore that could cause a massive landslide and a subsequent tsunami that would overwhelm the plant.

Yeah, I think it is retarded that even though the entire Southern California is pretty much irrigated desert, they could not find a way to move it away from the coast and pipe water to the facility. Seems like lazy planning and a disaster waiting to happen to me.