On 22 mars 11, at 21:39, Andy wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Andy: "You miss my point, which is if they've managed to neglect something as
>> obvious as putting equipment out of the way of a tsunami, what else
>> has been missed? It's not specific to tsunami zones."
>>
>> [WS:] Good question (WTF were they thinking?) , but the conclusion is
>> a non sequitur. You would not reach that conclusion about air travel
>> safety after a plane crash.
>
> I can't imagine anything that could be comparable in air travel.
> Maybe leaving seatbelts out for 40 years?
The wave is estimated to have been _over_ 14 meters high in that particular spot.
14 meters
And they had only planned for a wave about 1/3 that high, which means that most probably a wave even half that would not have harmed the plant anywhere as bad as it did. And that's already 7 meters.
http://mainichi.jp/select/science/news/20110322k0000m040115000c.html
Jean-Christophe Helary