Overtopping a sea wall that was never intended to be overtopped at ALL, can have disastrous consequences. Upthread you seemed pretty sure it couldn't happen at all anywhere on the west coast, but the west coast HAS (ignoring a VERY tall localized bathtub-like region tsunami, that wouldn't apply to the coast) experienced tsunami higher than the top of that sea wall under some conditions. So your statement was technically wrong, even if the exception is statistically remote.
"Not really... but what does that have to do with whether the reactor is poorly located?"
It's just one of three main reasons this particular reactor going away isn't a bad thing.
"No it isn't. Those words actually mean something... and "seafront" is NOT the same thing as "tsunami risk are". There is no spot in the lower 48 states that is a tsunami risk are."
Wrong again.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5457448
There are tsunami risk areas all up and down the west coast. I live in one. I can see an evacuation route sign from my office window, and on a clear day, three evac sirens.
I'm going to go with the University of Southern California on this one, over you. Apologies for the appeal to authority, but I feel it refutes your assertion (without evidence) that the SONGS site isn't a tsunami risk.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read