9 ms·
Seems sort of revisionist to say "of course Mark I BWR's aren't safe". You know what nuclear experts were saying 3 weeks ago? They were talking about all the sa
by btmorex 16y ago
Seems sort of revisionist to say "of course Mark I BWR's aren't safe". You know what nuclear experts were saying 3 weeks ago? They were talking about all the safety features, and the multiple levels of basically impervious containment, and how radioactive material would never get out into the environment. And here we are with a pretty serious radioactive mess to clean up (and from the looks of it it's probably going to get worse before it gets better)
- michaelchisari 16y agoIf you're making the argument that we more closely scrutinize 40 year old designs, you'll find no resistance here. But the problem is that using Fukushima as an argument against nuclear, is like using a car crash as an argument against transportation.
- btmorex 16y agoMy point is they were either wrong or lying. Both possibilities are pretty worrying.
- pdonis 16y agoThey were wrong because they didn't take into account the possibility that backup power would be unavailable for so long. The backup generators and their switchgear were sited very poorly--behind a seawall that was overcome by the tsunami. Please note that I'm not saying the reactor designs themselves weren't old and out of date. They were. But that wasn't the root cause of the problems. The stresses that these reactors have withstood due to the lack of backup power are far beyond any safety specification they were built to.