[PLUG-TALK] Risk of earthquake based nuclear problems in USA

Michael Rasmussen michael at jamhome.us
Sat Mar 19 11:08:21 PDT 2011


On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:46:11AM -0700, Denis Heidtmann wrote:
> But look at this:
> 
> http://www.dailytech.com/EDITORIAL+US+NRC+Confirms+MSNBCcom+Reporter+Mislead+Sensationalized+Story/article21170.htm
> 
> 
> Someone selling "news" (and maybe someone selling nuclear power.)
 
That's a good something to look at.
When I looked at the original "alarmist" story my take away was:
    one in 74,000 worse case probability for any area
    meaning zero concern for an individual
    meaning better plan on how to evacuate a few million people
      if you are responsible for NYC because the harm level is so high
    the closest nuke plant to PDX is Hanford, prevailing winds don't come this way
    I'll worry about my basement flooding.
    I'll worry about a local quake bouncing my house off the foundation
      or for a high risk 
    I'll go exercise to reduce my chance of diabeties or heart disease.

That last one is my personal highest risk.

-- 
      Michael Rasmussen, Portland Oregon  
  Trading kilograms for kilometers since 2003
    Be appropriate && Follow your curiosity
          http://www.jamhome.us/
The Fortune Cookie Fortune today is:
Chickens are pets with benefits.
    ~ Michael Rasmussen



More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list