[ExI] THE END for nuclear power
rpwl at lightlink.com
Wed Mar 30 16:12:03 UTC 2011
Kelly Anderson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I want to be polite here. I think you are in error. The tsunami wave
>> travels across deep water with a small amplitude. Then, when it
>> reaches shallow water near shore, it piles up to its maximum height,
>> and, as the photos from both Japan and the Indian Ocean tsunami show,
>> it flows inland. And of course houses and cars and most everything
>> else is tumbled into flotsam. I do not believe there is much in the
>> way of a "shock" from the impact.
> Yet, there is tremendous force, applied without rest.
I didn't bother to reply this originally (Jeff's crtique was directed at
me), but now that you have replied, let me add to Kelly's cogent
analysis by saying that what happens in this case is that even if the
tsnuami barrier is strong enough to withstand the force (which I worked
out to be roughly 700,000 Newtons/square meter), and even if it can cope
with the scouring, there is still the problem of overtopping: the water
will not be *reflected* back by the wall, it will build up behind it,
because it is travelling at 50 mph.
As a result, the depth will just increase behind the wall until it goes
over the top, and all the people behind the wall -- who thought they
were safe, because they read Jeff's analysis -- have to get out their
>>> "Bogus" problem of rising sea levels due to global warming??! You are joking, yes?
>> Regarding this, my characterization of the global warming ocean rise
>> as "bogus", let me explain.
Jeff's account of "bogus" sea level rise appears to be (if we get to the
core of his remarks) that (a) the problem will be spread out over many
decades, which therefore means that (b) smart engineers and scientists
will have time to find a remedy, which therefore means that (c) it can
in the mean time be described as a "bogus" problem.
More information about the extropy-chat