6 ms·

I disagree. You seem to suggest that the fact that Fukushima was not adequately prepared for this tsunami was human failure, presumably because they should hav

I disagree. You seem to suggest that the fact that Fukushima was not adequately prepared for this tsunami was human failure, presumably because they should have expected such a tsunami to occur. If this is the case, then you can just as well argue that it was human failure that the towns in the affected areas flooded because of the tsunami. After all, if they expected such a tsunami to occur they could/should have built higher levees. The way I see it, the deaths resulting from the Fukushima accident were just as much (or as little) caused by human failure as most of the other deaths related to the tsunami.

inatreecrown 11y ago
Do you prefer to live by the sea or by the nuclear plant?
- masklinn 11y ago
  ¿por qué no los todos?
- mikekchar 11y ago
  Ha ha! I live by both!
mackwic 11y ago
> You seem to suggest that the fact that Fukushima was not adequately prepared for this tsunami was human failure, presumably because they should have expected such a tsunami to occur. For your information, in France where we use nuclear energy a lot, we look for the most catastrophic events of the last 100 years to see how we protect our infrastructure. The Japanese looked for the last 50, but there were a tsunami of similar height 85 years ago. Also the local authority of nuclear security has made a few reports were they recommended to increase the height of the seawalls. Several times. Never followed. And last but not least, the accident could have been prevented, but has been badly handled. With Japanese hiding information, not cooperating with trained international nuclear-firefighters, and minimizing the scale of the incident until the last minute. This is the biggest mistake of all, compromising lives, resources, ocean and earth... How is it not a human failure ?
- mikekchar 11y ago
  The height of the tsunami depends on the area. In the area in question, for a very long time people thought that it was impossible for the a tsunami to go above 5 meters. That there were tsunami of that size in other areas is irrelevant. The earthquake in question was the most powerful in 1000 years. Looking back 100 years would be insufficient. What is interesting is that there was actually a city that raised the sea walls to 16 meters in the area. The mayor of that city was actually sent to jail because it was a scam to siphon money to his brother in law who was in construction. I don't remember the details because it was on a TV program that I watched about a year ago, but unfortunately the mayor in question died a couple of years before the tsunami and never lived to see that his actions actually saved the city. Speaking of the seawall height, there were, indeed, studies done that showed that under certain circumstances 15-18 meter high tsunamis could be generated in that area. This was disregarded. "Why", you ask. Let me explain. I live by the sea in Japan. I can go to the sea side and climb up on the sea wall. It is 5 meters above sea level. I can walk along it all practically all the way to Tokyo (200 km away). The only places where it doesn't exist is where there are natural cliffs (which are not as prevalent as you might imagine). Every little stream that empties into the ocean has a 5 meter high metal sea gate that can be closed in the event of a tsunami. Where I live there is one at least every km or so. The sea walls in Japan are already a miracle of engineering. You want to make them 20m high? Around the entire country? This is an insane notion. To be honest, I will take the risk. I don't want to live in a jail where the only place I can see the ocean is from on top of a mountain. I live in Sagara, Shizuoka (now merged with Makinohara). It is the most dangerous place in Japan to live for earthquakes because of the imminent Tokai earthquake (50 years overdue, unless it actually happened in WWII when the place was already destroyed and nobody had the ability to measure the big earthquake that happened then). 5% of the population is likely to die by all predictions. Which means 95% will live. Terrible tragedy, but not worse than surrounding yourself in a 20m high jail IMHO. Now, there were many human failures regarding the Fukushima disaster (like not having the correct connectors to power the pumps externally). Sea walls is not one of them.
  - Kankuro 11y ago
    I guess he was talking about higher walls around the (few) nuclear plants, not the whole country. That would not make the country "a jail where the only place I can see the ocean is from on top of a mountain".
7952 11y ago
It doesn't actually make much difference if you consider it to be human or not. All future nuclear stations will add it to their massively long list of safety considerations. I think that is something that people miss in an argument like this. Due to the complexity of the operations it is very expensive and difficult to guarantee safety. Moreover, it is very hard for anyone outisde the industry to reason effectively about those safety issue. Ironcially this is exactly the problem we have with coal. It looks safe, but has unexepected consequences that are frightfully difficult and expensive to address. Simplicity is very much a feature and nuclear power in its current form lacks it.
- afterburner 11y ago
  > All future nuclear stations will add it to their massively long list of safety considerations And then start ignoring them when it proves to expensive to consider them all. Or extend the lifetime of the plant beyond what is advisable, because shutting down a nuclear plant takes a long time and is as expensive as running one, but you don't get power out of it, so those in charge are very tempted to extend, extend, extend... like Fukushima.
dfox 11y ago
The extent of damage and contamination certainly is human failure, mainly in accident response. My understanding is that the correct response to such a major loss of cooling on BWR is just to evacuate premises and do nothing (with the idea that the resulting excursion will obliterate the reactor but the dangerous fallout will remain inside the containment), the Fukushima operators tried to save the situation and thus made the impact worse.
- pdonis 11y ago
  > the correct response to such a major loss of cooling on BWR is just to evacuate premises and do nothing The problem at Fukushima wasn't a short-term loss of coolant; it was the long-term lack of backup cooling after the tsunami hit (by which point the reactor had already been shut down for about 45 minutes), because of poor siting of the backup generators and switchgear. The operators couldn't do anything about that, no matter what they did.
  - dfox 11y ago
    And that is exactly my point. In such situation just leaving the reactor be would cause destruction of the reactor and no major environmental impact, yet they misguidedly tried to save the situation and thus exacerbated the environmental impact. Poor placement of backup systems is critical to process continuity, but in case of BWR mostly irrelevant to actual nuclear safety as long as you are willing to just write off the reactor (as you should) in case of major accident.
    - pdonis 11y ago
      > In such situation just leaving the reactor be would cause destruction of the reactor and no major environmental impact I'm not sure the last part is true; as I understand it, there was a significant risk of a containment breach if decay heat removal was insufficient--not from the reactor cores themselves, but from the spent fuel pools. I agree with you, though, that any attempt to save the reactor itself was doomed to failure once the tsunami hit and the backup cooling was taken out, so any actions taken toward that end were misguided.
Abraln 11y ago
As someone who grew up in Florida, I would never want to live live anywhere near the beach, and frankly, I never had much sympathy for those who lost their beachfront houses to hurricanes, especially when they rebuilt them in the same spot just afterwards.

inatreecrown 11y ago

Do you prefer to live by the sea or by the nuclear plant?

masklinn 11y ago
¿por qué no los todos?
mikekchar 11y ago
Ha ha! I live by both!

mackwic 11y ago

> You seem to suggest that the fact that Fukushima was not adequately prepared for this tsunami was human failure, presumably because they should have expected such a tsunami to occur. For your information, in France where we use nuclear energy a lot, we look for the most catastrophic events of the last 100 years to see how we protect our infrastructure. The Japanese looked for the last 50, but there were a tsunami of similar height 85 years ago. Also the local authority of nuclear security has made a few reports were they recommended to increase the height of the seawalls. Several times. Never followed. And last but not least, the accident could have been prevented, but has been badly handled. With Japanese hiding information, not cooperating with trained international nuclear-firefighters, and minimizing the scale of the incident until the last minute. This is the biggest mistake of all, compromising lives, resources, ocean and earth... How is it not a human failure ?

mikekchar 11y ago
The height of the tsunami depends on the area. In the area in question, for a very long time people thought that it was impossible for the a tsunami to go above 5 meters. That there were tsunami of that size in other areas is irrelevant. The earthquake in question was the most powerful in 1000 years. Looking back 100 years would be insufficient. What is interesting is that there was actually a city that raised the sea walls to 16 meters in the area. The mayor of that city was actually sent to jail because it was a scam to siphon money to his brother in law who was in construction. I don't remember the details because it was on a TV program that I watched about a year ago, but unfortunately the mayor in question died a couple of years before the tsunami and never lived to see that his actions actually saved the city. Speaking of the seawall height, there were, indeed, studies done that showed that under certain circumstances 15-18 meter high tsunamis could be generated in that area. This was disregarded. "Why", you ask. Let me explain. I live by the sea in Japan. I can go to the sea side and climb up on the sea wall. It is 5 meters above sea level. I can walk along it all practically all the way to Tokyo (200 km away). The only places where it doesn't exist is where there are natural cliffs (which are not as prevalent as you might imagine). Every little stream that empties into the ocean has a 5 meter high metal sea gate that can be closed in the event of a tsunami. Where I live there is one at least every km or so. The sea walls in Japan are already a miracle of engineering. You want to make them 20m high? Around the entire country? This is an insane notion. To be honest, I will take the risk. I don't want to live in a jail where the only place I can see the ocean is from on top of a mountain. I live in Sagara, Shizuoka (now merged with Makinohara). It is the most dangerous place in Japan to live for earthquakes because of the imminent Tokai earthquake (50 years overdue, unless it actually happened in WWII when the place was already destroyed and nobody had the ability to measure the big earthquake that happened then). 5% of the population is likely to die by all predictions. Which means 95% will live. Terrible tragedy, but not worse than surrounding yourself in a 20m high jail IMHO. Now, there were many human failures regarding the Fukushima disaster (like not having the correct connectors to power the pumps externally). Sea walls is not one of them.
- Kankuro 11y ago
  I guess he was talking about higher walls around the (few) nuclear plants, not the whole country. That would not make the country "a jail where the only place I can see the ocean is from on top of a mountain".

7952 11y ago

It doesn't actually make much difference if you consider it to be human or not. All future nuclear stations will add it to their massively long list of safety considerations. I think that is something that people miss in an argument like this. Due to the complexity of the operations it is very expensive and difficult to guarantee safety. Moreover, it is very hard for anyone outisde the industry to reason effectively about those safety issue. Ironcially this is exactly the problem we have with coal. It looks safe, but has unexepected consequences that are frightfully difficult and expensive to address. Simplicity is very much a feature and nuclear power in its current form lacks it.

afterburner 11y ago
> All future nuclear stations will add it to their massively long list of safety considerations And then start ignoring them when it proves to expensive to consider them all. Or extend the lifetime of the plant beyond what is advisable, because shutting down a nuclear plant takes a long time and is as expensive as running one, but you don't get power out of it, so those in charge are very tempted to extend, extend, extend... like Fukushima.

dfox 11y ago

The extent of damage and contamination certainly is human failure, mainly in accident response. My understanding is that the correct response to such a major loss of cooling on BWR is just to evacuate premises and do nothing (with the idea that the resulting excursion will obliterate the reactor but the dangerous fallout will remain inside the containment), the Fukushima operators tried to save the situation and thus made the impact worse.

pdonis 11y ago
> the correct response to such a major loss of cooling on BWR is just to evacuate premises and do nothing The problem at Fukushima wasn't a short-term loss of coolant; it was the long-term lack of backup cooling after the tsunami hit (by which point the reactor had already been shut down for about 45 minutes), because of poor siting of the backup generators and switchgear. The operators couldn't do anything about that, no matter what they did.
- dfox 11y ago
  And that is exactly my point. In such situation just leaving the reactor be would cause destruction of the reactor and no major environmental impact, yet they misguidedly tried to save the situation and thus exacerbated the environmental impact. Poor placement of backup systems is critical to process continuity, but in case of BWR mostly irrelevant to actual nuclear safety as long as you are willing to just write off the reactor (as you should) in case of major accident.
  - pdonis 11y ago
    > In such situation just leaving the reactor be would cause destruction of the reactor and no major environmental impact I'm not sure the last part is true; as I understand it, there was a significant risk of a containment breach if decay heat removal was insufficient--not from the reactor cores themselves, but from the spent fuel pools. I agree with you, though, that any attempt to save the reactor itself was doomed to failure once the tsunami hit and the backup cooling was taken out, so any actions taken toward that end were misguided.

Abraln 11y ago

As someone who grew up in Florida, I would never want to live live anywhere near the beach, and frankly, I never had much sympathy for those who lost their beachfront houses to hurricanes, especially when they rebuilt them in the same spot just afterwards.