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

Russell Johnson russ at dimstar.net
Sat Mar 19 15:32:47 PDT 2011


On Mar 19, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Denis Heidtmann wrote:

> 
> 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?

According to the reports, the warning comes less than 30 seconds before the earthquake hits. Hardly time to evacuate unless you are already near an exit.  I do not believe the benefits justify the costs.

The tsunami is an entirely different thing. The areas in Japan didn't have much time to prepare for the tsunami. The folks down in southern Oregon and California should have moved their craft out to sea where they could have ridden out the waves. It would not have saved the docks, but the loss of watercraft would have been greatly reduced. The strain on insurance companies and pocketbooks would have been greatly reduced. 

> 
> 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.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. I've never worked for a company that spent money without justifying the expense before hand. 

Russell Johnson
russ at dimstar.net



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-talk/attachments/20110319/4a4ecb96/attachment.html>


More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list