3 ms·
Nuclear power was plenty dangerous in its first iterations and there was in fact too little precaution. Chernobyl and three mile Island really shouldn't have ha
by GekkePrutser 4y ago
Nuclear power was plenty dangerous in its first iterations and there was in fact too little precaution. Chernobyl and three mile Island really shouldn't have happened. Fukushima was much later in the game but was also bad design.
I think the tech is safer now but the nuclear industry really has itself to blame. It's no wonder anti-nuclear sentiments increased after each disaster.
With the other ones I agree more.
- adhesive_wombat 4y ago> Chernobyl and three mile Island really shouldn't have happened. Fukushima was much later in the game but was also bad design. Fukushima was an older reactor then Chernobyl, by 6 years (commissioned 1971 vs 1977). Very old nuclear reactors are common partly because it's been politically untenable to build new ones, even if the new ones are safer.
- GekkePrutser 4y agoOk I did not know that, but I thought Chernobyl was already an old design when it was commissioned?
- adhesive_wombat 4y agoLeningrad 1, in 1974, was the first RBMK reactor ever (though, like most reactors, the general principles date back further). Chernobyl 1 was 1977, so the design was only 3 years from first online. Chernobyl 4, the one that exploded, was actually built in 1983, 12 years after Fukushima 1 (one of the 3 that melted down). Fukushima 1 was a GE BWR-3, 2 and 3 were BWR-4. These were introduced in 1965 and 1966 respectively. Both RBMK and BWR have they origins in the 50s. So, in terms of newness of the specific model, the RBMK was a little under 10 years newer than the BWR-3/4. That said, the RBMK failed due to an internal reactor design issue, the Fukushima BWRs due to reactor support system failure.