Nuclear Plant in Harvey's Bullseye

a reply to: jrod

I'd be more worried about the flooding than the winds. When they put a nuke plant there, they had to know they could get hit by anything up to a cat 5 with all the wind force that generates, so you'd think they'd have engineered for that plus something more.

But, did they foresee a hurricane coming in and stalling out for days with all the rain that implies?

a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly..Fukishima is a fine example of not having appropriate engineering foresight...not that I could of forecast those events either

a reply to: ketsuko

Not worried about the winds. That is what I meant to write.

Flooding from the surge is the concern.

The storm appears to be going more north now. That will take it closer to the plant.

'The plant site is located 10 miles inland and at an elevation of 29 feet, well above the reach of even a Category 5 storm surge. The plant was designed with watertight buildings and doors to keep emergency electric power and cooling systems fully functional. All buildings housing safety equipment are flood-proof to an elevation of at least 41 feet above mean sea level."

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

Hmmm well thays reassuring...but I always bet on our human failsafe notions, to be erroneous. Heres hoping your info is correct

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: rickymouse

I have a cheap thrills zombie apocalypse novel whose premise is that a giant hurricane with massive flooding hits the Texas gulf coast and creates a toxic swamp out of all the chemical and petro facilities down there. The resulting disaster mess mutates some type of disease like a rabies that more or less creates zombies.

Hmmmm ...

Do any of the Pharma companies down there produce scolopamine to put into meds? Yes, the zombie drug.

a reply to: FyreByrd

OK so why even worry about politicians and nuclear emergencies? How come the media did not cry out every time a reactor due to age and decline had an issue until President Trump? Is he the Nuclear regulation dept? Or the Scientists who over see the plants? No but I know the list of political names many demos who have fought for MORE Nuclear plants ($$$)to be built rather than fix the ones at critical against all advice and the collective voices of Americans who study the issues.

Terraforming...

a reply to: ketsuko

How right you are ... don't forget the Superfund sites. All lovely things to release into the water table.

originally posted by: antar
a reply to: FyreByrd

OK so why even worry about politicians and nuclear emergencies? How come the media did not cry out every time a reactor due to age and decline had an issue until President Trump? Is he the Nuclear regulation dept? Or the Scientists who over see the plants? No but I know the list of political names many demos who have fought for MORE Nuclear plants ($$$)to be built rather than fix the ones at critical against all advice and the collective voices of Americans who study the issues.

Terraforming...

People have been crying out about Nuclear power since it's inception - where have you been?

It has nothing to do with this administration.

In fact, this should make you happy, President Obama was a huge Nuclear supporter. And his administration was repeatedly call out on their nuclear policies - who do you think wanted to but money into 'upgrading' the nuclear weapons stockpile rather than decommissioning it. While safety upgrades are appropriate - building a 'new generation' of warheads is suicide.

At this moment there are 6-7 NPPs in Europe, mostly in France and Sweden that are constantly leaking radioactive material into the ground, air and water. EU authorities are not reporting the issue and maintaining full secrecy over the alarm just like it happened in Chernobyl.
This is happening due to the outdated nature of the NPPs across Europe, which are pre 70s and do not support proper safety measures to work in modern times, besides being old and degraded.