Forum home Road cycling forum The bottom bracket

Lucky you haven't got potholes though. They're difficult!!!!

AggieboyAggieboy Posts: 3,996
edited March 2011 in The bottom bracket
Japan, six days on...............


article-1369307-0B4B564300000578-813_634x950.jpg
"There's a shortage of perfect breasts in this world, t'would be a pity to damage yours."

Posts

  • DIESELDOGDIESELDOG Posts: 2,087
    You could lose something rather large in that crack...

    Love n hugs

    DD
    Eagles may soar but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    www.onemanandhisbike.co.uk
  • cornerblockcornerblock Posts: 3,228
    Hold on, are you saying the picture below is after they have repaired the road? Or before the earthquake?
  • Hold on, are you saying the picture below is after they have repaired the road? Or before the earthquake?

    Pic 1: Day after earthquake
    Pic 2: 7 days after earthquake :shock:
  • AggieboyAggieboy Posts: 3,996
    Hold on, are you saying the picture below is after they have repaired the road? Or before the earthquake?


    After.
    "There's a shortage of perfect breasts in this world, t'would be a pity to damage yours."
  • freehubfreehub Posts: 4,257
    What? Damn is quick.
  • cornerblockcornerblock Posts: 3,228
    Hold on, are you saying the picture below is after they have repaired the road? Or before the earthquake?

    Pic 1: Day after earthquake
    Pic 2: 7 days after earthquake :shock:

    That is incredible. I reckon they will have the whole place finished before my council come and empty my bins. Respect to them.
  • davieseedaviesee Posts: 6,386
    I reckon the whole of Japan will be back to normal within 6 months.

    There is some areas of Britain flooded years ago where the houses are still not fixed.

    Respect to them. Shame on us.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • stardudestardude Posts: 255
    thats amazing!

    am i the only one who fancies messing around with my bike in the first pic? :roll:
  • rolf_frolf_f Posts: 16,015
    daviesee wrote:
    I reckon the whole of Japan will be back to normal within 6 months.

    There is some areas of Britain flooded years ago where the houses are still not fixed.

    Respect to them. Shame on us.

    On the other hand, we haven't built a load of nuclear power stations that are certain to suffer major tsunami damage at some point. They could have land raised and built them such that they weren't at risk but..... they didn't......

    More shame on the Japanese than us then maybe.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • bompingtonbompington Posts: 7,674
    Rolf F wrote:
    daviesee wrote:
    I reckon the whole of Japan will be back to normal within 6 months.

    There is some areas of Britain flooded years ago where the houses are still not fixed.

    Respect to them. Shame on us.

    On the other hand, we haven't built a load of nuclear power stations that are certain to suffer major tsunami damage at some point. They could have land raised and built them such that they weren't at risk but..... they didn't......

    More shame on the Japanese than us then maybe.
    I think that if anyone is qualified to judge the risk from nuclear power it is the japanese, given that they can base their decisions on bitter experience rather than hysteria and superstition like some countries do.
  • rolf_frolf_f Posts: 16,015
    bompington wrote:
    More shame on the Japanese than us then maybe.
    I think that if anyone is qualified to judge the risk from nuclear power it is the japanese, given that they can base their decisions on bitter experience rather than hysteria and superstition like some countries do.[/quote]

    My comment has nothing to do with the risks of nuclear power itself - just building anything in a location where you know with almost absolute certainty that a damaging event will occur and not actually doing anything to mitigate the 'risk'. Look at the tsunami damage - it is where the land was flat and barely above sea level. You don't need to be very high above sea level at all for it to be zero risk. They chose not to mitigate against that risk and I haven't seen a good reason why that was a good decision. I suppose they saved a fair bit of money initially though.

    Besides - what is this 'bitter experience'? I can only think of the Russians who can really claim that one. Unless you are referring to the likes of Hiroshima which is pretty irrelevant to this I'd have thought.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • cornerblockcornerblock Posts: 3,228
    Rolf F wrote:
    daviesee wrote:
    I reckon the whole of Japan will be back to normal within 6 months.

    There is some areas of Britain flooded years ago where the houses are still not fixed.

    Respect to them. Shame on us.

    On the other hand, we haven't built a load of nuclear power stations that are certain to suffer major tsunami damage at some point. They could have land raised and built them such that they weren't at risk but..... they didn't......

    More shame on the Japanese than us then maybe.

    Oh come on, who cares about nuclear power stations when you have roads as smooth as that. :wink:
  • ClankClank Posts: 2,323
    Rolf F wrote:
    My comment has nothing to do with the risks of nuclear power itself - just building anything in a location where you know with almost absolute certainty that a damaging event will occur and not actually doing anything to mitigate the 'risk'. .

    Around the plants were sea walls designed to mitigate the risk of a tsunami. The one that hit was three metres higher than the wall. The plant itself survived a mag 9.0 earthquake without damage. A quake like that would level most cities on the planet.

    The Japanese did plenty to mitigate any risk (more so than any other nation has) except maybe abandoning the Island for somewhere more seismicly stable - like the moon, perhaps.

    Don't buy into the hype. There's no mushroom cloud over Fukushima. There's no smouldering crater the size of Idaho. Relax!
    How would I write my own epitaph? With a crayon - I'm not allowed anything I can sharpen to a sustainable point.

    Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein are worth exactly what you paid for them.
  • bearfraserbearfraser Posts: 435
    looks like it would make(first picture) a good 2012 mtb course. :lol:
  • rakerake Posts: 3,204
    edited March 2011
    Clank wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    My comment has nothing to do with the risks of nuclear power itself - just building anything in a location where you know with almost absolute certainty that a damaging event will occur and not actually doing anything to mitigate the 'risk'. .

    Around the plants were sea walls designed to mitigate the risk of a tsunami. The one that hit was three metres higher than the wall. The plant itself survived a mag 9.0 earthquake without damage. A quake like that would level most cities on the planet.

    The Japanese did plenty to mitigate any risk (more so than any other nation has) except maybe abandoning the Island for somewhere more seismicly stable - like the moon, perhaps.

    Don't buy into the hype. There's no mushroom cloud over Fukushima. There's no smouldering crater the size of Idaho. Relax!

    id read about windscale uk before pointing the finger at japanese risk mitigation.
    they had a big air cooling fan blowing over the core and up a chimney. when it caught fire they resorted to trying to poke the melted and on fire uranium through the core with a scaffolding bar, which melted the end off the bar :shock: :lol:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire
  • EKIMIKEEKIMIKE Posts: 2,232
    Rolf F wrote:
    On the other hand, we haven't built a load of nuclear power stations that are certain to suffer major tsunami damage at some point. They could have land raised and built them such that they weren't at risk but..... they didn't......

    More shame on the Japanese than us then maybe.

    10 points for observation and hindsight, ballbag.

    This is a sort of 100 year/250 year event in terms of natural hazards. Building defences for such huge events is often pretty ineffective. I guess they could have built a wall... at best. That's more of a flood defence however. Building on artificially raised ground is just a ridiculous suggestion.

    If you understand the nature of tsunami's like this you'd see pretty soon that the only thing between 'x (eg nuclear powerplant)' and disaster is pure luck or lack thereof. Who wants to be the idiot who built a 20 metre concrete wall in front of a nuclear power plant only for it to be washed into the reactor buildings causing huge damage?

    This is not your conventional wave, it's a miles deep, 10 metre tall wall/body of water travelling at high velocity. Good luck with your 10 metre high mound of dirt or big wall (especially after a 9.0 magnitude EQ).

    Even so, all this assumes that the Fukushima incident is of far greater significance than the earthquake and tsunami themselves. Fukushima is hardly going to be another Chernobyl, even if it was it isn't going to kill 25,000 people.

    Stop reading the Daily Mail.
  • White LineWhite Line Posts: 887
    Japan are amazing with repairing their roods. Legally, they have to have roadworks resurfaced the same day that they dig it up. Wish this country adopted this law.
  • rakerake Posts: 3,204
    White Line wrote:
    Japan are amazing with repairing their roods. Legally, they have to have roadworks resurfaced the same day that they dig it up. Wish this country adopted this law.

    im sure they could find you a spare shovel.
  • ClankClank Posts: 2,323
    rake wrote:
    id read about windscale uk before pointing the finger at japanese risk mitigation.
    they had a big air cooling fan blowing over the core and up a chimney. when it caught fire they resorted to trying to poke the melted and on fire uranium through the core with a scaffolding bar, which melted the end off the bar :shock: :lol:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

    Hoooly cow thats scarey reading!

    I understand that BNFL and the Nuclear agencies are investigating and developing autonmous machines to go in and do that kind of work in the event of an atomic 'oopsie'. Gonna have to have to be one tough little S.O.B to survive that kind of enviroment.
    How would I write my own epitaph? With a crayon - I'm not allowed anything I can sharpen to a sustainable point.

    Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein are worth exactly what you paid for them.
  • EKIMIKEEKIMIKE Posts: 2,232
    The thing is that in Windscale and Chernobyl there was alot of graphite involved. Graphite caused the huge fires > the huge fires are what spreads the radio-active particles.

    Fukushima = no graphite. This is going to be a far more isolated event.
  • rakerake Posts: 3,204
    EKIMIKE wrote:
    The thing is that in Windscale and Chernobyl there was alot of graphite involved. Graphite caused the huge fires > the huge fires are what spreads the radio-active particles.

    Fukushima = no graphite. This is going to be a far more isolated event.


    the spent fuel stored above the reactor was probably the greatest concern.
  • rolf_frolf_f Posts: 16,015
    EKIMIKE wrote:
    10 points for observation and hindsight, ballbag.

    This is a sort of 100 year/250 year event in terms of natural hazards. Building defences for such huge events is often pretty ineffective. I guess they could have built a wall... at best. That's more of a flood defence however. Building on artificially raised ground is just a ridiculous suggestion.

    Stop reading the Daily Mail.

    Don't be offensive - anyone can be insulting. It isn't clever. I'd normally expect better from you.....

    Tell me why land raising is ridiculous. I'd agree though that the wall is a no goer.

    And what is your solution? Or is it ok for this sort of thing to happen given that it is pretty inevitable.

    Stop being a prat.

    (oooh, see how easy it is - I can be insulting too :wink: )
    Faster than a tent.......
  • AggieboyAggieboy Posts: 3,996
    Nicely repaired road though.
    "There's a shortage of perfect breasts in this world, t'would be a pity to damage yours."
  • DIESELDOGDIESELDOG Posts: 2,087
    Aggieboy wrote:
    Nicely repaired road though.

    Smooth as...

    Love n hugs

    DD

    Edit to add, there is a slight adverse camber and the edges have yet to be sealed...
    Eagles may soar but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    www.onemanandhisbike.co.uk
  • rolf_frolf_f Posts: 16,015
    DIESELDOG wrote:
    Aggieboy wrote:
    Nicely repaired road though.

    Smooth as...

    Love n hugs

    DD

    Edit to add, there is a slight adverse camber and the edges have yet to be sealed...

    Bet they've done it like here and just skimmed over. There'll be four foot drops again come summer :lol:
    Faster than a tent.......
  • Jay dubbleUJay dubbleU Posts: 3,159
    Rolf F wrote:
    daviesee wrote:
    I reckon the whole of Japan will be back to normal within 6 months.

    There is some areas of Britain flooded years ago where the houses are still not fixed.

    Respect to them. Shame on us.

    On the other hand, we haven't built a load of nuclear power stations that are certain to suffer major tsunami damage at some point. They could have land raised and built them such that they weren't at risk but..... they didn't......

    More shame on the Japanese than us then maybe.

    The Japanese nuclear power stations were protected by 10m high sea walls which were tsunami proof - the problem lies in the fact that the quake dropped the ground in the area by 1m and the tsunami was 16m high when it hit the coastine - some things you can't plan for
    Building on artificially raised ground causes more problems in earthquakes - destruction of Kobe was made worse by the fact that most of the city was built on made up ground
  • DIESELDOGDIESELDOG Posts: 2,087
    Rolf F wrote:
    DIESELDOG wrote:
    Aggieboy wrote:
    Nicely repaired road though.

    Smooth as...

    Love n hugs

    DD

    Edit to add, there is a slight adverse camber and the edges have yet to be sealed...

    Bet they've done it like here and just skimmed over. There'll be four foot drops again come summer :lol:

    Nah, round here they use a tub of ready made, empty said bucket, stomp on it then use the lorry tyres to flatten it a bit more for "cosmetic" reasons. Job done.

    Reckon they must have met my surgeon...

    love n hugs

    DD
    Eagles may soar but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    www.onemanandhisbike.co.uk
  • cougiecougie Posts: 22,512
    That is impressively quick - but is that a major road to the area - they probably HAD to fix it to get people out and supplies in ? Potholes arent really the same as this.
Sign In or Register to comment.