Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt
That was my thought as well. What exactly do you do if you don't have water for 3 months?
|
You move to water. Chicago welcomes you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt
True, but isn't nuclear waste still there until they can figure out how to remove it and store it elsewhere?
|
Waste isn't the biggest issue. Sure, it's far from ideal, but the problem at Fukushima, like Chernobyl and Three Mile and others was primarily a meltdown, not stored waste. So if it's not operational, it's not going to melt down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMBY
...
It appears that most of the mega-quakes occur closer to the North or South Poles. Recall the mega quakes they've had in Chile, or the 9.2 that hit Alaska in 1964, the biggest quake to ever hit North America.
|
The epicenter of the 1960 Chile quake was near the 39th South parallel. For reference, San Francisco is near the 37th North parallel, so a comparable distance from the Poles, respectively.
I'm not aware of tectonic theory that would make the Poles influential for earthquakes or for earthquake strength. The overriding influence is simply plate boundaries, wherever they lay. For longitude-based influences, I'd think the equator would be of greater sensitivity simply because of the influence of the centrifugal force and gravity's centripetal force dueling it out. But even that would be much less than the localized tectonic plates' forces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc
^ interesting, but is that really true about earthquakes clustering toward the poles? or just coincidence? hmm, there must be studies about that kind of thing.
|
It's not true. It's not even a coincidence, because I don't think there's any correlation, pole-wise.