I can spot a rise in the creek, especially Turkey Creek behind my dad's house. But how does one measure a millimeter of sea level?
|
I can spot a rise in the creek, especially Turkey Creek behind my dad's house. But how does one measure a millimeter of sea level?
Nebraska Flooding Threatens Nuclear Plant - Yahoo! News
Floods threaten Nebraska nuclear plants - Washington Times
http://www.mbari.org/staff/oreilly/s...asurement.html
Jean-Michel Cousteau : Ocean Adventures . In-depth: Climate Change and the Marine Environment | PBS
Sea levels rising at fastest rate in 2,000 years - Telegraph
Just food for thought.
Rivers and Flooding Module 3 Environmental Geology
Quote:
Urbanization Effects on Flooding
Urbanization has had a major impact on river systems! Many towns and cities are located next to major rivers and their tributaries. Many of these cities are sitting smack in the middle of flood plains! Highways, streets, parking lots, sidewalks, and buildings now cover large areas of ground surface-areas that "use to" absorb excess rain water, vegetated areas that slowed a stream's discharge rate.
Now the hard-covered surfaces act as conduits for excess stormwater to rapidly travel over. The time between the peak rainfall and peak discharge (called lag time) decreased drastically! The result? Increased flooding!! And, if the lag time is short enough, "flash flooding" may occur. Major disaster!
Airspace Over Flooded Nebraska Nuclear Power Plant Still Closed
"Asked about the FAA flight ban, Hanson it was due to high power lines and "security reasons that we can't reveal." He said the flight ban remains in effect."
Security reasons?
Security reasons that's breaucraticesses for get out of there
They tried not telling you anything in Japan, and we all know how well that worked. The foreign aid boats had to retreat to a safe distance, and be scrubbed to prevent contamination.
Wouldn't want anyone to lose money, never mind the other costs...
Fukushima Nuclear Fuel Leaking Into Groundwater, Tepco Says Barrier Too Expensive, Will Hurt Stock Price | Myweathertech.com
I just can't help but wonder how the compliant press would be reporting this if the President's name was Bush. 1993 another flood did damage to the Cooper plant . But the President then was Bill Clintoon so although it was covered ;it did not become a major story.
The head of the NRC will be there Monday to inspect their flood preparations. That tells me that they don't see this as urgent. This is definitely not Japan. The Japanese did not have the prep time to deal with a rushing wall of water . The Nebraska plants are prepared for the flooding .
This is also not Japan in that the operators of the Nebraska plants are not covering anything up.
BTW ;I'm surprised the press has lost interest in the Japanese plants. The crisis is far from over . They got filters for the cooling water ;but the filters have failed . That means eventually they will fill the basement with contaminated water and will have no choice but to pump it into the Pacific.
The Russians are suggesting the Chernobyl solution. That was enlisting suicide helicopter pilots to dump lead and concrete on the reactors to seal them.
We all know the solution, Tom, no more nuclear plants. So the Japs can encase their little disaster in concrete and go back to what? Generating electricity from coal. I feel a boom coming on, must go and buy some coal shares and ditch my uranium, oops! I forgot, those are already worth nothing
Maybe they should have built the concrete, and lead enclosure before they had a problem. We humans do things so backward, then wonder what happened when it goes wrong. Then we have to go through it again, and again until we get it right. Safety first, then buy the stock!
I won't be investing in nuclear. You have just outlined the capitalistic, least cost model. We once had an airline with a perfect safety record owned by our government. What happened to it, it was privatised, now it is plagued with safety problems and they are saying they will operate from Asia. Least cost model, least safe model, least service model. I wouldn't buy the stock now.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
It's the same thing with coal, and oil, profits before people, and even after people DIE, they roll them aside and keep making money. Do people really have to die or get injured so companies can make a profit?
Qantas is one of the highest rated airlines for safety and overall performance.
Profits are good . A company that doesn't profit doesn't exist long or hire employees for long. Energy profits are especially good . Most pension plans and 401-Ks are directly or indirectly invested in them.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
And think of all the money they will save on pensions if the emplyees don't live long enough to quailify to get any...Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'd like to see the stats that shows being in the energy industry is a more dangerous occupation than some other more PC acceptable industries . I imagine it is probably in line or safer than agriculture,construction and transportation .
Of the most dangerous jobs in the U.S. there isn't anything in the energy industry in the top 10. Sanitation workers, including recycling collectors, was no. 7.
So because the job doesn't make a list we should regard the deaths as the cost of doing business? That works great if you are a corporation, but not so great if its your loved on that died in preventable accidents. Especially when you find that company in violation of safety standards that were ignored, or the fines were insufficient to make changes for a safer environment.
Like the BP oil spill, or the mining disaster in Virginia, or the refinery explosions in Texas to name a few, or even including the millions exposed over the years to dangerous chemicals, or materials who develop life threatening conditions, that change there lives and that of their families. Like coal miners, or residents of communities that living over sites of natural gas deposits, that they use frakking as a means to extract the gas.
They could do better, and we all know it, no matter the industry, or occupation.
Don't be so dramatic, Tal. No one is excusing occupational injuries or deaths.
Safety is my field so I know the lengths corporations go to in order to insure a safe work place for their employees and the contractors they use. I see both ends of it as a seller of safety equipment and as a contractor - in oil country - held to those high safety standards required to set foot on their property. Those standards are what keeps the energy industry out of the top 10 most dangerous jobs.
To my mind it is a question of attitude. Of course profits are good, if they are generated responsibly. And yes there are Companies who have a genuine regard for the welfare of both their own employees and those of the general world community.
Unfortunately there are also many companies for whom profit is all at any expense. Unproperly tested products, cost-cutting exercises without a thought to the consequences etc. For other companies health and safety issues are about doing whatever minimum they need to tick the boxes without real regard for whether they work. Probably part of the reason why some health and safety rules have gone so far beyond common sense as to be a joke. As long as we don't get sued mentality.
There are still companies responsible for massive chemical leaks, tearing up natural resources without thought, failing to build in contingency safety plans etc. The indirect negative consequences of these activities won't get them on most dangerous job lists but the impact is still real.
That may have once been true Tom but recent performance has a list of problems that doesn't reassure me and management's intention to move maintenance and operational bases to Asia means it will become mediocre.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
They are now more interested in pursuing cut price operation than they are of providing a premium service
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:59 PM. |