5 ms·

I think it's too easy, with all this talk about nuclear meltdown and the world's worst industrial disaster (really?), to loose the following nugget of context:

by srl 15y ago

I think it's too easy, with all this talk about nuclear meltdown and the world's worst industrial disaster (really?), to loose the following nugget of context: Japan just got hit by the fifth largest earthquake since 1900. They have bigger problems - at least in the short term - than radiation. One of the most frequent complaints that comes up is the lack of safety mechanisms built into the reactor. Sure, they could have done a better job (the fact that electricity is needed for a cool-down is particularly disturbing) - but really, /all/ industrial mechanisms are going to start to experience a significant problems when hit by a historically significant earthquake. Sure, the engineers should have expected earthquakes (and they did - this is Japan, after all), but it's unreasonable to expect them to be prepared for a 9.0, just as it's unreasonable to expect them to be prepared for a direct meteor strike.

danielharan 15y ago
By what definition of unreasonable? Would you build a plant that could only handle a 100 year earthquake, but not a 1000 year one? You'd give your children and grandchildren a 1/10 chance of catastrophe... in exchange for what, supposedly cheaper power?
- srl 15y ago
  They have a 1/10 chance of catastrophe whether or not I build the plant. A 1000 year earthquake is going to cause much bigger problems then a nuclear meltdown. Would you construct a house that could withstand the sun going nova? Again, not that the engineers didn't screw up. But the fact that a nuclear power plant got destroyed by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake should come as a surprise to nobody, and should not reflect poorly on nuclear technology in general, any more than the fact that cars crash when driven by drunks should reflect poorly on motors.
  - dugorama 15y ago
    sure it does (reflect poorly on nukes in general). It means we now understand there is no possibility that they can be safely built. Unless you're okay with gradually radiating the entire planet or at least rendering little pieces of it permanently uninhabitable with each natural disaster. Chernobyl = 5% of Europe's farmland lost forever. Fukushima = 50% of the world's tuna spawning grounds permanently irradiated. I like to eat, how about you? How many more of these will you tolerate so your HD TV can have "instant on" capabiilty?
nandemo 15y ago
I agree with most of that, I'm just not sure why you wrote it in reply to my comment. I'm not criticizing Japan at all, my issue was with the "35% spike caused by Fukushima" hypothesis. If it were true, then I take it there wouldn't have been many surviving babies in Japan. That would have been a huge problem indeed.
thisrod 15y ago
The reactor did surivive the earthquake. It failed because of an Engineering 101 level mistake: "But sir - the question only said to shut down the power plant. It didn't mention doing without electricity!" I'm surprised by both those things.

by srl 15y ago

danielharan 15y ago

By what definition of unreasonable? Would you build a plant that could only handle a 100 year earthquake, but not a 1000 year one? You'd give your children and grandchildren a 1/10 chance of catastrophe... in exchange for what, supposedly cheaper power?

srl 15y ago
They have a 1/10 chance of catastrophe whether or not I build the plant. A 1000 year earthquake is going to cause much bigger problems then a nuclear meltdown. Would you construct a house that could withstand the sun going nova? Again, not that the engineers didn't screw up. But the fact that a nuclear power plant got destroyed by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake should come as a surprise to nobody, and should not reflect poorly on nuclear technology in general, any more than the fact that cars crash when driven by drunks should reflect poorly on motors.
- dugorama 15y ago
  sure it does (reflect poorly on nukes in general). It means we now understand there is no possibility that they can be safely built. Unless you're okay with gradually radiating the entire planet or at least rendering little pieces of it permanently uninhabitable with each natural disaster. Chernobyl = 5% of Europe's farmland lost forever. Fukushima = 50% of the world's tuna spawning grounds permanently irradiated. I like to eat, how about you? How many more of these will you tolerate so your HD TV can have "instant on" capabiilty?

nandemo 15y ago

I agree with most of that, I'm just not sure why you wrote it in reply to my comment. I'm not criticizing Japan at all, my issue was with the "35% spike caused by Fukushima" hypothesis. If it were true, then I take it there wouldn't have been many surviving babies in Japan. That would have been a huge problem indeed.

thisrod 15y ago

The reactor did surivive the earthquake. It failed because of an Engineering 101 level mistake: "But sir - the question only said to shut down the power plant. It didn't mention doing without electricity!" I'm surprised by both those things.