4 ms·

Chernobyl was bad technology, but the crash happened more due to bad decision-making and irresponsible acting. The same is true for Fukushima, which is my whole

Chernobyl was bad technology, but the crash happened more due to bad decision-making and irresponsible acting. The same is true for Fukushima, which is my whole point.

DanBC 13y ago
Yes, Chernobyl had terrible decisions. But having Soviet workers and Soviet technology is an awful combination, and so it weakens your point to mention Chernobyl, because people will say "We don't use stupid old power plants; we have better workers". Fukushima had an earthquake, and went into shutdown mode. They then had a tsunami, which broke cooling systems. I'm not sure what bad decisions and irresponsible acting caused that accident? What could they have done differently? I guess building a power plant in an earthquake zone in a place where a 13 m tsunami can get it is sub-optimal.
- hengheng 13y ago
  Every now and then I look at the caliber of issues that my local nuclear power plants have (German here, you'd expect we know what we're doing). Missing screws in critical places, wrong kind of concrete used, diesel generator not plugged in ... nothing but stupid little mistakes, but precisely the ones that should not happen in a place like this. Safety procedures in automotive and aviation seem better than this. NASA has learnt how to avoid stupid mistakes 30-40 years ago, yet we haven't. So no, I have not found anybody, Soviet or not, who drives a nuclear plant responsibly. Those who could apparently are too expensive, and those who do are not apt. If somebody finds a way to cut costs at the expense of security, it will be done more often than not. Fukushima wsa build into a known earthquake and tsunami region. From what I remember it was more like a 4 sigma vs 5 sigma issue; if they had built a dike 1-2 meters higher they would have been fine. So essentially it was a cost issue, and I fail to see how a 20 meter dike can be deemed too expensive around a cash cow like this.

Chernobyl was bad technology, but the crash happened more due to bad decision-making and irresponsible acting. The same is true for Fukushima, which is my whole point.

DanBC 13y ago

Yes, Chernobyl had terrible decisions. But having Soviet workers and Soviet technology is an awful combination, and so it weakens your point to mention Chernobyl, because people will say "We don't use stupid old power plants; we have better workers". Fukushima had an earthquake, and went into shutdown mode. They then had a tsunami, which broke cooling systems. I'm not sure what bad decisions and irresponsible acting caused that accident? What could they have done differently? I guess building a power plant in an earthquake zone in a place where a 13 m tsunami can get it is sub-optimal.

hengheng 13y ago
Every now and then I look at the caliber of issues that my local nuclear power plants have (German here, you'd expect we know what we're doing). Missing screws in critical places, wrong kind of concrete used, diesel generator not plugged in ... nothing but stupid little mistakes, but precisely the ones that should not happen in a place like this. Safety procedures in automotive and aviation seem better than this. NASA has learnt how to avoid stupid mistakes 30-40 years ago, yet we haven't. So no, I have not found anybody, Soviet or not, who drives a nuclear plant responsibly. Those who could apparently are too expensive, and those who do are not apt. If somebody finds a way to cut costs at the expense of security, it will be done more often than not. Fukushima wsa build into a known earthquake and tsunami region. From what I remember it was more like a 4 sigma vs 5 sigma issue; if they had built a dike 1-2 meters higher they would have been fine. So essentially it was a cost issue, and I fail to see how a 20 meter dike can be deemed too expensive around a cash cow like this.