[PLUG-TALK] Risk of earthquake based nuclear problems in USA
denis.heidtmann at gmail.com
Sat Mar 19 13:34:23 PDT 2011
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Russell Johnson <russ at dimstar.net> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Michael Rasmussen wrote:
> > 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
> The 'Earthquake warning system' will cost hundreds of millions of dollars
> to possibly save a few hundred, possibly a few thousand people.
> Would the warning system only save people? If a business lost all its top
people, could you consider the resultant loss of the business a cost? The
freighter which leaves port to avoid a tsunami could be a $ saving. Will
the cleanup be cheaper if the streets are not littered with corpses?
Just as every business in the world does, our governments should be doing
> cost benefit analysis on every dollar it spends.
> You must be talking about theoretical businesses. Or maybe just the ones
you think are worth their salt.
> Russell Johnson
> russ at dimstar.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the PLUG-talk