5 ms·

I thought we had learned better. Apparently not.

sp332 16y ago
Hm, what are we supposed to learn? That everything might go badly? How can we apply that lesson to nuke reactors? By my count, 8 levels of failsafes have failed. How many more do you want? Reminds me of a Futurama episode where an oil tanker with 1,000 hulls crashes and spills. Fry exclaims, "Oh, if only we'd had the foresight to use 1,001 hulls, this would never have happened!"
- nl 16y ago
  I think the lesson the poster was implying is that nuclear power is not safe, and cannot be made safe. Also, I'm not sure what you define as "failsafes", but the conventional measurement is number of containment levels. This reactor had 3, while I believe more modern reactors have 4.
  - sp332 16y ago
    I was including the power generators. After the reactor went into automatic cooling (which actually worked), the backup diesel generators were destroyed in the tsunami, and although the battery backup-backup power worked, it ran out before power could be restored. Also, venting the coolant helped a bit but not enough, and flooding the reactor with seawater helped a lot, I think that's the point when everyone got optimistic.
- forensic 16y ago
  Does nature just keep jacking up the pressure to beat every security measure? Of course not. Nature doesn't do arms races. Nature's effect is finite and measurable... earthquakes are easily predictable in the long term... the terrible cost of radiation leak is easily predictable. Like most other human efforts, the goal posts are pretty clear. Make nuke plants stronger than the strongest that nature is capable of producing. A tsunami + earthquake in japan is not a surprise to anyone. What is a surprise is that the people running the reactor consider it a surprise.
  - sp332 16y ago
    The reactor was designed to withstand an 8.2 quake - very, very strong. It withstood an 8.9 quake with no damage! That's the 7th strongest quake ever recorded, and 700% of the rated strength! The tsunami physically washed away the generators, but the battery backup was sufficient for new generators to be trucked in. (The new generators could not connect to the old water pumps, but that's not the fault of the plant's designers.)
    - SupremumLimit 16y ago
      Actually it's been upgraded to 9.0 and 4th strongest now, which reinforces your point.
    - OpieCunningham 16y ago
      That's the 7th strongest quake ever recorded I wonder where "8.2" came from in the engineering spec. and whether shooting for the ability to withstand a quake somewhere in the neighborhood of, say, the 10th largest is the right target. Maybe "the largest + 200%" is a better place to start? Of course, it costs more money. but that's not the fault of the plant's designers But it is a totally avoidable error. Not the plant's designers error, but a human error nonetheless. Why are we limiting our concerns over human error to just the people responsible for the original design? Surely there were organizations/contractors involved in developing replacement generators. Surely there are current plant safety and maintenance directors. Surely there is a complete nuclear regulatory agency.
      - tomjen3 16y ago
        I don't think we have anything that can stand a 9.7 quake (the biggest was 9.5 in Chile) and frankly it would properly cost so much money that it would be cheaper to produce the power by having humans run on threadmils. It is also likely that the money could be better spend elsewhere (that is, it could same more lives) such as in improving road safety or to hire more police officers.
      - eru 16y ago
        Perhaps when they built it (before the 1971, when the first criticality was reached) 8.2 was the `largest + 200%'? Does anybody have more data?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
juiceandjuice 16y ago
When was the most recent titanic?

sp332 16y ago

Hm, what are we supposed to learn? That everything might go badly? How can we apply that lesson to nuke reactors? By my count, 8 levels of failsafes have failed. How many more do you want? Reminds me of a Futurama episode where an oil tanker with 1,000 hulls crashes and spills. Fry exclaims, "Oh, if only we'd had the foresight to use 1,001 hulls, this would never have happened!"

nl 16y ago
I think the lesson the poster was implying is that nuclear power is not safe, and cannot be made safe. Also, I'm not sure what you define as "failsafes", but the conventional measurement is number of containment levels. This reactor had 3, while I believe more modern reactors have 4.
- sp332 16y ago
  I was including the power generators. After the reactor went into automatic cooling (which actually worked), the backup diesel generators were destroyed in the tsunami, and although the battery backup-backup power worked, it ran out before power could be restored. Also, venting the coolant helped a bit but not enough, and flooding the reactor with seawater helped a lot, I think that's the point when everyone got optimistic.
forensic 16y ago
Does nature just keep jacking up the pressure to beat every security measure? Of course not. Nature doesn't do arms races. Nature's effect is finite and measurable... earthquakes are easily predictable in the long term... the terrible cost of radiation leak is easily predictable. Like most other human efforts, the goal posts are pretty clear. Make nuke plants stronger than the strongest that nature is capable of producing. A tsunami + earthquake in japan is not a surprise to anyone. What is a surprise is that the people running the reactor consider it a surprise.
- sp332 16y ago
  The reactor was designed to withstand an 8.2 quake - very, very strong. It withstood an 8.9 quake with no damage! That's the 7th strongest quake ever recorded, and 700% of the rated strength! The tsunami physically washed away the generators, but the battery backup was sufficient for new generators to be trucked in. (The new generators could not connect to the old water pumps, but that's not the fault of the plant's designers.)
  - SupremumLimit 16y ago
    Actually it's been upgraded to 9.0 and 4th strongest now, which reinforces your point.
  - OpieCunningham 16y ago
    That's the 7th strongest quake ever recorded I wonder where "8.2" came from in the engineering spec. and whether shooting for the ability to withstand a quake somewhere in the neighborhood of, say, the 10th largest is the right target. Maybe "the largest + 200%" is a better place to start? Of course, it costs more money. but that's not the fault of the plant's designers But it is a totally avoidable error. Not the plant's designers error, but a human error nonetheless. Why are we limiting our concerns over human error to just the people responsible for the original design? Surely there were organizations/contractors involved in developing replacement generators. Surely there are current plant safety and maintenance directors. Surely there is a complete nuclear regulatory agency.
    - tomjen3 16y ago
      I don't think we have anything that can stand a 9.7 quake (the biggest was 9.5 in Chile) and frankly it would properly cost so much money that it would be cheaper to produce the power by having humans run on threadmils. It is also likely that the money could be better spend elsewhere (that is, it could same more lives) such as in improving road safety or to hire more police officers.
    - eru 16y ago
      Perhaps when they built it (before the 1971, when the first criticality was reached) 8.2 was the `largest + 200%'? Does anybody have more data?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

juiceandjuice 16y ago

When was the most recent titanic?