I'd shut down San Onofre since it sits between L.A. and S.D. and would cripple the U.S. for 500 years if it went up in a blast. Next build reactors that can stand a 9.0 and tsunami at a minimum.
I'd shut down San Onofre since it sits between L.A. and S.D. and would cripple the U.S. for 500 years if it went up in a blast. Next build reactors that can stand a 9.0 and tsunami at a minimum.
Big Risks wrote:
If a 7.0 quake strikes and San Onofre blows it'll contaminate the entire So Cal area and make it inhabitable for hundreds of years like the Chernobyl disaster. Can we risk that ?
yes
Any day NOW wrote:
I'd shut down San Onofre since it sits between L.A. and S.D. and would cripple the U.S. for 500 years if it went up in a blast. Next build reactors that can stand a 9.0 and tsunami at a minimum.
I live not far from the plant (outside the posted evacuation area). The reason the plant was built to withstand "only" a 7.0 quake is that there are not faults in the vicinity capable of causing same. Nobody is even talking about San Onofre around here when we talk about the Japan news.
But the economic catastrophe has been going around here for years. Due to the "efficient" nuclear power plant, electric customers in San Diego and Orange County have about the highest electric rates in the US. Same for PGE customers in the Bay Area stuck with the Diablo Canyon plant. Business leaders upset with the high electric rates were a major cause of the catastrophic California electric "free market" of a decade ago (remember Enron?) that Republicans stuck us with.
Remember this when the nuclear industry comes to your town to tel you what wonderful things they are going to do for you.
Cam Pen wrote:
We have no choice but to shut down San Onofre now and design a modern reactor that can withstand a 9.0 and has a cooling system that can withstand a tsunami. L.A. and S.D. are essential to the U.S.A.
Has that part of southern California ever had a significant tsunami? Not saying it can't happen, but there are features of seismic faultlines as well as contours of the ocean floor that cause some places (such as Crescent City, CA) to be more susceptible to tsunamis.
"Everywhere I look something reminds me of her."
Prado Dam can only hold water for a 100 year flood. When it overflows the entire OC basin will flood. But the earth can recover quickly from a flood. That's not true for a nuclear catastrophe. Chernobyl is still no-man's land.
Chernobyl may be a no mans land but there is plenty of wildlife there.
NO MANS LAND wrote:
Prado Dam can only hold water for a 100 year flood. When it overflows the entire OC basin will flood. But the earth can recover quickly from a flood. That's not true for a nuclear catastrophe. Chernobyl is still no-man's land.
These Nuclear plants need to be shut down, the risk is too much. They should certainly never be built in Earthquake zones.
I agree, it is old and will need to be shut down relatively soon anyways, so why wait - shut it down now! It is not wise to wait for a disaster. The Pacific rim is very active with earthquakes, we need to shut it down now before there is a disaster. We cannot trust Edison who is making money from the plant and not living close to it to tell us that it is safe.