4 ms·

That's true - but it's not like the potential for such a natural disaster wasn't well known. The word we use for such devastating tidal waves kind of gives that

That's true - but it's not like the potential for such a natural disaster wasn't well known. The word we use for such devastating tidal waves kind of gives that game away.

jchw 4y ago
Yes, sure. But let's not understate how unusually bad the disaster really was; a 9.0 earthquake and equally severe tsunami. That's not exactly a common event, and it probably won't be one even in a world with much more volatile weather conditions. And yet, despite that, it is in fact possible to make nuclear fission power plants survive this kind of disaster, and especially possible to prevent the meltdown that eventually occurred; Fukushima Daiichi is not the only fission plant in Japan, and not the closest to the epicenter of the disaster either. I think it's fair to say given the evidence that the problems that need to be solved with regards to Fukushima Daiichi are the systemic issues that led to the inadequate safety measures and the unfortunate decisions made leading up to the meltdown. Whether the issues be operational complacency, corruption, etc. It'd be nice to have a way to simply be robust to those issues, but in the end it's always going to be dangerous to human life if the people in charge of decisions that could endanger human life are not adequately responsible. That would still be the case in absence of nuclear power, natural disasters, evacuations, etc.
- reef84_ 4y ago
  Why would weather have any effect on earthquakes?
  - yunwal 4y ago
    It likely wouldn’t. But natural disasters, like tsunamis, on a similar scale large enough to threaten well-engineered power plants may become more common.
- donny2018 4y ago
  As I see it, this old-school PWR design has successfully passed a real life crash test under the most severe conditions possible… three times in a row.

4 ms·

That's true - but it's not like the potential for such a natural disaster wasn't well known. The word we use for such devastating tidal waves kind of gives that

by taylorius 4y ago

That's true - but it's not like the potential for such a natural disaster wasn't well known. The word we use for such devastating tidal waves kind of gives that game away.

jchw 4y ago
Yes, sure. But let's not understate how unusually bad the disaster really was; a 9.0 earthquake and equally severe tsunami. That's not exactly a common event, and it probably won't be one even in a world with much more volatile weather conditions. And yet, despite that, it is in fact possible to make nuclear fission power plants survive this kind of disaster, and especially possible to prevent the meltdown that eventually occurred; Fukushima Daiichi is not the only fission plant in Japan, and not the closest to the epicenter of the disaster either. I think it's fair to say given the evidence that the problems that need to be solved with regards to Fukushima Daiichi are the systemic issues that led to the inadequate safety measures and the unfortunate decisions made leading up to the meltdown. Whether the issues be operational complacency, corruption, etc. It'd be nice to have a way to simply be robust to those issues, but in the end it's always going to be dangerous to human life if the people in charge of decisions that could endanger human life are not adequately responsible. That would still be the case in absence of nuclear power, natural disasters, evacuations, etc.
- reef84_ 4y ago
  Why would weather have any effect on earthquakes?
  - yunwal 4y ago
    It likely wouldn’t. But natural disasters, like tsunamis, on a similar scale large enough to threaten well-engineered power plants may become more common.
- donny2018 4y ago
  As I see it, this old-school PWR design has successfully passed a real life crash test under the most severe conditions possible… three times in a row.