[Tread]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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.

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).

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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.