Environment & Energy

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)

65. so you're saying the coast of California is not at a tsunami risk?

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:01 PM

Jun 2013

wow, well you have NO credibility on this topic now.

NONE.

on the California coast, with hundreds of miles of active faults, on a coast with thousands of miles of faults that can create catastrophic earthquakes in far and near regions, you are making it sound like the risk is as small and unusual as New York or the east coast.

which means that you know so little about the region that you shouldn't be taken seriously while talking about it.

or that you do know and are trying to mislead people, which means you shouldn't be taken seriously.

it's one thing to argue in favor of nuclear power, reasonable people can take such a position.

but it takes a lie to downplay the risk of tsunamis to the coast of California.

it takes a lie to downplay that.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

118 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

San Onofre shutdown will mean tight electricity supplies [View all] wtmusic Jun 2013 OP

Natural gas would be a good solution. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #1

Yeah. Because we have barely scratched the surface of conservation efforts, which kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #12

Really? hunter Jun 2013 #43

Your ignorance is showing. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #44

Yeah, and my feet are too big. hunter Jun 2013 #49

I don't know if I would associate 'reliable base load' and San Onofre... AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #2

It was built too close to ignorant antinukes wtmusic Jun 2013 #3

And how much of a hole in the grid when a few wind turbines overspeed and break? AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #4

Not much of a hole. FBaggins Jun 2013 #6

I don't think I've ever heard of doldrums affecting an entire state grid. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #7

Hell, I don't think the wind EVER dies down in the Tehachapi Pass or out in the desert........ kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #10

Heh. wtmusic Jun 2013 #17

Bet it didn't stop blowing for an entire year and a half........ kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #19

So this is a freak occurence, is it? wtmusic Jun 2013 #20

All it takes is a little intense heat in California and the winds begin to blow CreekDog Jun 2013 #62

Ah, the electrical load in Southern California is unbearably high in February CreekDog Jun 2013 #63

Of course you don't hear about it - natural gas kicks in to take its place. wtmusic Jun 2013 #11

The more distributed turbines you have AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #13

That's the myth the wind industry is trying to sell, anyway. wtmusic Jun 2013 #18

the irony is that you want us to think of wind and solar as some scheming "industry" CreekDog Jun 2013 #89

Then you haven't been paying attention FBaggins Jun 2013 #14

Oh, really. Just what were those "enormous consequences"? wtmusic Jun 2013 #25

In this case AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #28

2x in 30 years? Not bad. wtmusic Jun 2013 #32

Nuclear reactors are not carbon free. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #34

They use much less carbon than wind wtmusic Jun 2013 #35

'Less' but not 'free'. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #37

"wind turbines are far less carbon intensive than the nuclear fuel cycle" WRONG wtmusic Jun 2013 #39

Whatever. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #41

By the way AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #42

And yet wind is 9.7% of the state's total capacity NickB79 Jun 2013 #57

And that wind capacity is growing fast. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #60

How many lines are coming in from Wyoming? XemaSab Jun 2013 #58

None to my knowledge. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #59

8.2% in 2011 kristopher Jun 2013 #64

8.2% + 13.8% = hella XemaSab Jun 2013 #66

No, it's 8.2%. Your assumption about the 13.8% is unwarranted. kristopher Jun 2013 #67

California has the highest geothermal production capacity in the nation. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #75

Not 100% carbon free.. PamW Jun 2013 #101

Disagree. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #109

You have a reading comprehension problem? PamW Jun 2013 #113

Post removed Post removed Jun 2013 #114

It was out for a year in 1980 AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #21

you said "ignorant antinukes" CreekDog Jun 2013 #88

What was bad about where it was built? FBaggins Jun 2013 #5

Really? AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #8

Nonsense wtmusic Jun 2013 #16

The 1995 Hanshin quake in Kobe was a strike-slip and even though only a 7.2, produced AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #24

I noticed you didn't read the link I provided. wtmusic Jun 2013 #27

30 feet is a joke. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #29

Are you a seismologist? wtmusic Jun 2013 #33

Appeal to authority! AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #36

No, appeal to someone who knows what the fuck he's talking about. wtmusic Jun 2013 #38

It's called english. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #40

Engineers can engineer for the forces. PamW Jun 2013 #103

Is the door designed not to slam shut on you? AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #108

Where are they? FBaggins Jun 2013 #104

Arnie is an IDIOT!!! PamW Jun 2013 #105

I tend to agree WRT Gunderson. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #107

Yes, really. FBaggins Jun 2013 #23

Tsunami don't just come from your front yard. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #26

It could get hit by an asteroid too. wtmusic Jun 2013 #30

The Fukushima Dai-ichi sea wall was considered adequate by some, until it wasn't. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #31

The damage done by the tsunami itself was far worse than the nuclear accident. hunter Jun 2013 #46

How many of the tsunami/quake dead are dead because AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #48

I've worked in labs with radioactive stuff. hunter Jun 2013 #52

Well, they didn't, apparently. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #56

Hardly any (if any at all) FBaggins Jun 2013 #54

I'm not sure that I see your point. FBaggins Jun 2013 #45

The sea wall isn't 30 feet. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #47

I didn't say that it was. FBaggins Jun 2013 #50

But you did say AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #51

I did say that... and I was right. FBaggins Jun 2013 #53

You can't say "and I was right" if what you said is technically wrong. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #55

Except that it wasn't "technically wrong" FBaggins Jun 2013 #69

There have been, and there is risk of tsunami much taller than 14' hitting the west coast. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #71

And that was in the analysis FBaggins Jun 2013 #73

I looked it up for you FBaggins Jun 2013 #70

so you're saying the coast of California is not at a tsunami risk? CreekDog Jun 2013 #65

Yes... that's what I'm saying. FBaggins Jun 2013 #68

turns out you're wrong, Tsunamis are a risk CreekDog Sep 2013 #117

Did you even read what you posted? FBaggins Sep 2013 #118

Interject some science.. PamW Jun 2013 #72

incorrect, there are subduction zones off California CreekDog Jun 2013 #74

Not really. FBaggins Jun 2013 #76

PamW said there weren't subduction zones off the coast of California FALSE CreekDog Jun 2013 #77

No she didn't FBaggins Jun 2013 #78

She did say it. Or are you telling me what "she meant to say" CreekDog Jun 2013 #79

You're playing childish games. FBaggins Jun 2013 #80

Actually, you and PamW are all arguing peculiarly similar things, which are misleading CreekDog Jun 2013 #81

They're similar points (since they both correct the same error)... but they aren't 1 or 2 FBaggins Jun 2013 #82

The simple fact is PamW said specifically that there aren't subduction zones off California --false CreekDog Jun 2013 #83

Actually, I pointed out far upthread that the Cocos/Pacific plate fault can produce these tsunami. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #84

And that's why Mexico is at a higher risk of tsunami FBaggins Jun 2013 #85

CreekDog can NOT READ!!! PamW Jun 2013 #98

So the biggest and closest faults being strike-slip AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #110

Simplistic Analysis PamW Jun 2013 #99

WTF? AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #111

The engine has INERTIA!!! PamW Jun 2013 #115

I don't think Yosemite has any volcanic risk indie9197 Jun 2013 #86

Yeah... it's Yellowstone. FBaggins Jun 2013 #87

Our understanding of how faults and quakes work in the Pacific is evolving to this day. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #91

Certainly... but that returns us to the Yellowstone example and the first point FBaggins Jun 2013 #92

There is a range of devastating tsunami below the threshold of AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #93

Again... sure FBaggins Jun 2013 #94

On the 31st of last month there was a 5.3 at 6.474�S 122.120�W AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #95

You understand logarithms, right? FBaggins Jun 2013 #96

A 5.3 at 10km under your ass would get your attention. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #97

Not necessarily PamW Jun 2013 #100

That you missed it doesn't mean it's imperceptible to humans. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #106

Oh, my - somebody just outed himself: kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #9

What are you saying about wtmusic and NNadir? CreekDog Jun 2013 #116

No great loss. We made it through last summer just fine without it. kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #15

You think buying out-of-state coal fired power is "just fine", do you? wtmusic Jun 2013 #22

you're blaming Greenpeace supporters for the shutdown of San Onofre? did they f--- up the plant? CreekDog Jun 2013 #61

Correct!! PamW Jun 2013 #102

Hey wtmusic, San Onofre is not "reliable baseload" when it's been off for 1.5 years CreekDog Jun 2013 #90

If nuclear is reliable why are we having this conversation? kristopher Jun 2013 #112