4 ms·

The government was no more or less inept than any other organisation - government or private - anywhere in the world. When faced with pressure to save money bu

The government was no more or less inept than any other organisation - government or private - anywhere in the world. When faced with pressure to save money but still deliver, weighed up against a very low risk of catastrophe in their time, they did the mental math and cut corners, found ways around the safeguarding policies previously put in place and kicked infrastructure spending down the line. The big problem with nuclear is not technological, it’s guaranteeing that whoever is responsible for it will be competent, capable and solvent for hundreds of years.

Dalewyn 2y ago
You literally do not know what transpired. When the tsunami hit and Fukushima #1 lost power and was at risk of meltdown, TEPCO was ready to scuttle the reactors by dumping seawater in them. It would have rendered the reactors unusable, but meltdown would be prevented. The Japanese government at the time, coming from the Prime Minister (Naoto Kan) himself, denied TEPCO from scuttling them because the government wanted the reactors usable. TEPCO was begging for authorization but it was not meant to be. So what happened was the meltdown happened and the reactors became unusable anyway. The blame was then scapegoated on TEPCO, because elite politicians surely can't and shouldn't be prosecuted for their ineptitude. What happened at Fukushima #1 was a human failure that did not have to happen. Bittersweet revenge was that the incumbent party at that time, the Democrat Party of Japan, lost the subsequent general election and the party subsequently fell apart.
- jborean93 2y ago
  How does that refute what the parent comment was saying? Sounds like you are agreeing that the problem is not the technology but the people and processes in place.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    The problem is (or at least was) with the people in political chairs playing power games. No amount of better regulations or technology can prevent fucking morons going on power trips screwing everything up and then get away with it. The nuclear (TEPCO) people in the field were and are amazing, and it is a cardinal sin they got scapegoated for political purposes.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      But that's kinda the point: name one government in the world where politicians don't play political games, sometimes in ways that put their citizens in danger. I'm sure you can't, because no such government exists. "Everything would have been fine if it weren't for the politicians" is not a path forward. These sorts of disasters will continue to happen.
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        I agree, but then that should not be falsely characterized as a failure of the nuclear industry and technology. The failure was humans, and a very specific subset at that.
        natmaka 2y ago
        > The failure was humans Isn't it always true, for such matters? As we cannot avoid committing errors it seems better to prefer a way without any risk of major accident (very dangerous radioactive things, difficult to cleanup, travelling long-distance thanks to wind, rain...). No wonder renewable sources quickly gain traction.
        Dalewyn 2y ago
        Characterizing the failure of politicians as a failure of nuclear power is the error in logic I am talking about.
        natmaka 2y ago
        Refusing to understand that everyone (politician or not) can fail and that if we now can replace something dangerous in case of failure (nuclear) by something new which isn't (renewables), we should do so... is the error in logic I am talking about.
        Dalewyn 2y ago
- natmaka 2y ago
  Naoto Kan was an advocate of nuclear energy, changed his mind after Fukushima, and the industry now tries hard to use him as a scapegoat. Don't worry, experts are perfectly able to maintain a high level of safety (nope), then to assess correctly during an accident (nope: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-odyssey-of-naoto-kan-former-japan-prime-minister-during-fukushima/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-ody... ), and also to manage the aftermath (nope... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/special-report-help-wanted-in-fukushima-crime/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/special-report-he... ).
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    Congratulations, you're armpits-deep in the Japanese political propaganda machine. PM Naoto Kan infamously declared "I know nuclear!" in unilaterally ordering TEPCO around during the crisis and ultimately denying their request to scuttle the reactors. Nevermind that TEPCO had the finest nuclear engineers Japan could muster at that moment. For his valiant achievement of causing a nuclear meltdown and turning back the clock on nuclear power for the better part of a century, PM Naoto Kan was rewarded with merely the loss of his premiership, loss of his parliament seat in the subsequent general election (regained in the same election by proportional vote), and the victim card (sympathy from guys like you). TEPCO's engineers meanwhile got dragged through the judicial mud before they were finally cleared a few years ago, the train to repair their reputation having left the station long ago.
    - natmaka 2y ago
      > ultimately denying their request to scuttle the reactors A solid source detailing the story would be useful. TEPCO ignored his order to stop pumping in order to avoid re-criticality, and Kan soon accepted TEPCO views on the matter: This seems sourced to me (no mention of scuttling anything): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naoto_Kan#Fukushima_nuclear_accident_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naoto_Kan#Fukushima_nuclear_ac... > was rewarded with merely the loss of I don't think so. Japan was, then, in a political turmoil with 4 prime ministers from September 2006 to June 2010 (when his mandate began): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_Japan#Prime_ministers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_Jap... He passed a bill to promote the use renewable energy. This is sufficient, even for this ex nuclear enthusiast, to be blacklisted and villified.
- ifdefdebug 2y ago
  This story has a very bad smell of urban legend/history rewriting on it. I don't say it is, but without good sources (for instance good investigative journalism by renowned journalists and backed by leaked documents) the stink doesn't go away. Just to say it "transpired" doesn't suffice. Where are the sources and references for the story you tell?
WalterBright 2y ago
It wouldn't have cost hardly anything to have a pipe so the hydrogen could vent outside rather than inside, which resulted in a detonation.
- teamonkey 2y ago
  And yet it was not. Can you guarantee that the operating board resposible for a future reactor would not make a similar mistake?

Dalewyn 2y ago

You literally do not know what transpired. When the tsunami hit and Fukushima #1 lost power and was at risk of meltdown, TEPCO was ready to scuttle the reactors by dumping seawater in them. It would have rendered the reactors unusable, but meltdown would be prevented. The Japanese government at the time, coming from the Prime Minister (Naoto Kan) himself, denied TEPCO from scuttling them because the government wanted the reactors usable. TEPCO was begging for authorization but it was not meant to be. So what happened was the meltdown happened and the reactors became unusable anyway. The blame was then scapegoated on TEPCO, because elite politicians surely can't and shouldn't be prosecuted for their ineptitude. What happened at Fukushima #1 was a human failure that did not have to happen. Bittersweet revenge was that the incumbent party at that time, the Democrat Party of Japan, lost the subsequent general election and the party subsequently fell apart.

jborean93 2y ago
How does that refute what the parent comment was saying? Sounds like you are agreeing that the problem is not the technology but the people and processes in place.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  The problem is (or at least was) with the people in political chairs playing power games. No amount of better regulations or technology can prevent fucking morons going on power trips screwing everything up and then get away with it. The nuclear (TEPCO) people in the field were and are amazing, and it is a cardinal sin they got scapegoated for political purposes.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    But that's kinda the point: name one government in the world where politicians don't play political games, sometimes in ways that put their citizens in danger. I'm sure you can't, because no such government exists. "Everything would have been fine if it weren't for the politicians" is not a path forward. These sorts of disasters will continue to happen.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      I agree, but then that should not be falsely characterized as a failure of the nuclear industry and technology. The failure was humans, and a very specific subset at that.
      - natmaka 2y ago
        > The failure was humans Isn't it always true, for such matters? As we cannot avoid committing errors it seems better to prefer a way without any risk of major accident (very dangerous radioactive things, difficult to cleanup, travelling long-distance thanks to wind, rain...). No wonder renewable sources quickly gain traction.
        Dalewyn 2y ago
        Characterizing the failure of politicians as a failure of nuclear power is the error in logic I am talking about.
        natmaka 2y ago
        Refusing to understand that everyone (politician or not) can fail and that if we now can replace something dangerous in case of failure (nuclear) by something new which isn't (renewables), we should do so... is the error in logic I am talking about.
        Dalewyn 2y ago
natmaka 2y ago
Naoto Kan was an advocate of nuclear energy, changed his mind after Fukushima, and the industry now tries hard to use him as a scapegoat. Don't worry, experts are perfectly able to maintain a high level of safety (nope), then to assess correctly during an accident (nope: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-odyssey-of-naoto-kan-former-japan-prime-minister-during-fukushima/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-ody... ), and also to manage the aftermath (nope... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/special-report-help-wanted-in-fukushima-crime/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/special-report-he... ).
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  Congratulations, you're armpits-deep in the Japanese political propaganda machine. PM Naoto Kan infamously declared "I know nuclear!" in unilaterally ordering TEPCO around during the crisis and ultimately denying their request to scuttle the reactors. Nevermind that TEPCO had the finest nuclear engineers Japan could muster at that moment. For his valiant achievement of causing a nuclear meltdown and turning back the clock on nuclear power for the better part of a century, PM Naoto Kan was rewarded with merely the loss of his premiership, loss of his parliament seat in the subsequent general election (regained in the same election by proportional vote), and the victim card (sympathy from guys like you). TEPCO's engineers meanwhile got dragged through the judicial mud before they were finally cleared a few years ago, the train to repair their reputation having left the station long ago.
  - natmaka 2y ago
    > ultimately denying their request to scuttle the reactors A solid source detailing the story would be useful. TEPCO ignored his order to stop pumping in order to avoid re-criticality, and Kan soon accepted TEPCO views on the matter: This seems sourced to me (no mention of scuttling anything): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naoto_Kan#Fukushima_nuclear_accident_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naoto_Kan#Fukushima_nuclear_ac... > was rewarded with merely the loss of I don't think so. Japan was, then, in a political turmoil with 4 prime ministers from September 2006 to June 2010 (when his mandate began): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_Japan#Prime_ministers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_Jap... He passed a bill to promote the use renewable energy. This is sufficient, even for this ex nuclear enthusiast, to be blacklisted and villified.
ifdefdebug 2y ago
This story has a very bad smell of urban legend/history rewriting on it. I don't say it is, but without good sources (for instance good investigative journalism by renowned journalists and backed by leaked documents) the stink doesn't go away. Just to say it "transpired" doesn't suffice. Where are the sources and references for the story you tell?

WalterBright 2y ago

It wouldn't have cost hardly anything to have a pipe so the hydrogen could vent outside rather than inside, which resulted in a detonation.

teamonkey 2y ago
And yet it was not. Can you guarantee that the operating board resposible for a future reactor would not make a similar mistake?