5 ms·
I should probably also mention there's 6 reactors on site, 4, 5 and 6 were relatively unharmed by the tsunami and 5 and 6 could actually be turned back on. Howe
by TotesAThrowAway 11y ago
I should probably also mention there's 6 reactors on site, 4, 5 and 6 were relatively unharmed by the tsunami and 5 and 6 could actually be turned back on. However for obvious reasons they have been decommissioned and wont be turned on ever again.
- josinalvo 11y agoAre there real reasons not to turn them back on once the cleanup is complete? Or is it just the matter of politics/popular perception? AFAIK, fukushima was actually a very small "disaster", with negligigle human life loss (if I recall correctly, no life loss, except due to the evacuation panic)
- barkingcat 11y agoThere were some design flaws that were exposed with this incident. Would you, in conscience, turn back on a series of nuclear reactors that had their emergency backup generators located in an area that can easily be flooded? There are a lot of other human/social aspects involved as well. It's better to apply the lessons learned from Fukushima to a safer type of reactor, built better, designed safer, and operated with a different set of procedures and by a different company (not TEPCO, for example).
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- TotesAThrowAway 11y ago^that.