They are because the vast majority of "but"s related to this event are about how this reactor is 50 year old technology and how it's been running for 40 years s

They are because the vast majority of "but"s related to this event are about how this reactor is 50 year old technology and how it's been running for 40 years so it's somewhat excusable that it melts. Since 40 years is a standard reactor life[1] and many countries pursue life extensions on their reactors it is _not_ exceptional that of the roughly 450 active reactors in the world the majority of them is not up to the latest greatest tech standard or safety measure because it's expensive to keep up with all the upgrades and it's even more expensive when you just spent 10 years and $7B building a modern nuclear reactor[2]. So if it's ok to extend the life of a plant to 50 or 60 years as some would want then they need to upgrade them to latest standards. [1]:http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2007/npp_extension.html http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2007/npp_extension.html [2]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor