2006-10-21 10:03:43 · 10 answers · asked by zinga579 2 in Environment
I know that the North Pole is floating and therefore when that melts there will be no rise in sea level. But the South Pole is on land so this melting will add to sea levels. Unfortunately, glaciers everywhere on the planet are decreasing at a horrendous rate.
This summer a friend took a trip through the Norewegian Fjiords, Greenland, Iceland Shetlands and everywhere people were saying they have never been so warm.
I have asked this question to Briish Energy and others on line and not even had a reply.
Even when all equipment and nuclear waste has been removed the buldings will have to be looked after as they will remain a danger for hundreds of years and water will surely spread the pollution let alone the waste materials which have to be buried somewhere. Up a mountain?
Then where do future life forms live when sea levels rise?
2006-10-24 00:23:12 · update #1
hey,
i work in a nuclear power station and i dont think rising sea levels will affect it. we take water in from the sea to use as cooling water throughout the station. but i honestly cant see any affects.
2006-10-21 10:10:18 · answer #1 · answered by strawberry delight 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The theory that the melting ice will not affect sea level is not founded. the removal of ice packs forces change in the pliable layers below the crust, reforming to its original position. This is known as isostatic rebound. (its alot more complicated than that but this is not answering the original question)
A rise in sea level would not have major implications for nuclear power plants apart from they may get wet.
The biggest problem is waste storage. If not properly sealed (only if close to the coast) the rising water table could cause contamination.
But the sea level is not rising fast enough for the change to be a surprise so planning and development can take sea level concerns into consideration
2006-10-22 18:10:27 · answer #2 · answered by CW 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Rising sea levels would be a problem for a lot more than power plants. But, the danger of rising sealevels, is only a problem if sea levels actually rise.
If you fill up a glass of water with ice and water and the ice melts does the water run out of the glass? The density of ice is less than the density of water, that's why it floats. So if floating ice melts it doesn't change the sea level.
The ice melting that has been observed lately is on floating ice packs. The ice covering land masses has actually been getting tihicker.
The danger of an astroid striking an atomic power plant is probably more of a real threat than rising sea levels.
2006-10-21 17:13:02 · answer #3 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You have been most thoroughly propagandized. I have been around for 71 years and mean sea level has not changed noticeably. The social and political scientists that want you to believe in the global warming theology do not want you to pay any attention to the earth's thermometer, MSL.
By the way, I was a Harbor Rat for part of my life.
In all of this storm of words consider that the Little Ice Age ended about 1850 after causing the 'Age of Discovery' and some other events by reducing the arable land area on the European continent. This 'end' is an arbitrary call.
The little ice age was likely caused by a reduction in the sun's output. Ask if any of these 'scientists' have checked the solar output.
2006-10-29 01:11:54 · answer #4 · answered by Bob, BSME'64' 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hi. A rapid sea level rise caused by, say, an ice sheet slipping from land into the sea, could flood low lying structures. Included could be reactor control rooms. Electronics and seawater. Not as happy combination.
2006-10-21 17:13:42 · answer #5 · answered by Cirric 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At the incredibly slow levels the sea is actually rising, any low-lying nuclear power stations will have come to the end of their useful life long before they could be put at risk of going underwater.
2006-10-22 14:13:37 · answer #6 · answered by wimbledon andy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The same danger as to everything else. Levels will rise slowly enough, over a period of years, that power plants can be deactivated and all radioactive material removed before they are under water.
2006-10-21 22:13:10 · answer #7 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
strawberry delight is right about power stations, but look at the history of this plant global warming is natural cycle which we may have contributed to and will happen anyway. Who is the worst contributor? China & USA what are they doing? Nothing!
2006-10-28 07:16:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The real danger is to the sea life.And godzilla,dont want to wake him up again with more atomic waste
2006-10-28 20:27:26 · answer #9 · answered by joeeighteenpack 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no immediate risk
2006-10-27 15:25:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋