On Mar 22, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Shane Mage wrote:
Seems I underestimated--recalled inexactly-- how badly the possible stress was underestimate (from today's NYT):
"Shinji Toda, a professor of geology at Kyoto University in Japan, said a government committee recently concluded that there was a 99 percent chance of a magnitude-7.5 earthquake in the next 30 years, and warned there was a possibility for an even larger magnitude-8.0 quake.
So much for planning. Although Japan’s foresight probably saved tens of thousands of lives, it could not prevent the vast destruction of a magnitude-9.0 temblor, which releases about 30 times as much energy as a magnitude-8.0 quake. It was the largest ever recorded in Japan, and tied for fourth largest in the world since 1900. Thirty-foot tsunamis washed over the sea walls and swept inland for miles. The death toll is expected to be more than 20,000, and nearly 500,000 are now in shelters.
“I was surprised,” Dr. Toda said. “Nobody expected magnitude 9.”
>
> On Mar 22, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
>
>> Shane: "There was no "blunder," just a universally accepted
>> "scientific" consensus that turned out to be wrong by a factor of
>> hundreds of percent. "
>>
>> [WS:] Do you know that for a fact - and if so, how - or is it just
>> your opinion about the state of knowledge pertaining to nuclear plant
>> design?
>
> The very first reports on the earthquake said that--based on
> historical experience and geological knowledge--the maximum
> conceivable was 8.5 (which the design would have withstood) and the
> quake/tsunami came in at 9.1.
>
>
> Shane Mage
>
> "Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk