Quote:
Originally Posted by Tread
It was about the Unknown. Something unexpected that happen, or something known but stronger than expected happen.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott441
This is the very reason not to build them, The Unknown.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tread
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.
|
It's clear. There are those who like to dream that other exceptionally crazy hypothesis took place, like mini black holes
etc. I haven't heard any plausible geophysical based hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tread
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.
|
So don't build nuclear reactors around Yellowstone... or other volcanoes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tread
There is no proving what happens in a subduction zone. Everything is just a hypothesis.
|
Platetectonics is beyond the hypothesis stage. It's a very well tested theory.