Posted on 04/29/2013 6:30:03 AM PDT by null and void
Who designed/built that plant? The Japanese themselves? The US...the Brits...the Germans? Certainly not the Soviets or the Chinese.
Sometimes you just don’t know what to believe.
Fukushima I was the first nuclear plant to be designed, constructed and run in conjunction with General Electric, Boise, and Tokyo Electric Power CompanyIOW, It was a bilingual, bicultural committee...
They should have had priority access to helicopters and backup batteries.
They withstood a gigantic earthquake IMMEDIATELY followed by a huge tsunami, and ALMOST survived it, intact.
This would have been huge boost to nuclear power, if only they had more backup batteries.
And maybe not putting it right next to a tsunami flood zone would have been a good idea too
I don’t trust the experts that wrote this report as far as I could throw the plant.
I believe I’m being lied to.
A belief that fits nearly every circumstance of my life. *sigh*
Is nuclear energy dangerous? Sure. What to believe? View the photos of Hiroshima/Nagasaki side by side from immediately post nuke and today.
There was a crap ton more radiation released than Fukushima. So if F was so bad, how do they explain millions living on an actual nuclear explosion?
As with all things, agenda id the biggest danger of all. That’s what to believe.
My guess is the original reports of massive radiation leaks were the inaccurate (lies) ones. Massive amounts of deadly radiation being leaked fits the agenda, finding out the power plants were in fact safe does not.
Interesting story but seems to be a case of no matter how bad things were thank goodness they weren’t worse.
Lessons learned. Newer designs will have emergency generators above ground, easier access for plug’n’play external emergency power, contingency plans for providing extra diesel fuel and battery packs, and likely will have things that need to be kept wet at the lowest points in the facility, instead of in above ground pools.
I'm with you. Sensational media reports before critical details are know are the best source for news. Scientific studies that mirror real-world experience should always be questioned as part of a big conspiracy.
People worked very hard, at every stage from planing through disaster recovery, to make sure they weren't.
Lots of brave and bright souls took extraordinary pains and risks to make that happen, as a simple matter of professional pride, integrity, duty, dignity, decency and face.
Somewhere out there are dark souls doing all they can to make a future disaster as devastating as humanly possible, in the name of their "god". Never forget Osama bin Laden started out as an engineer building stuff. Never forget the pig-god in whose name he lusted to become a mass murderer. We should never allow another to follow in his bloody footprints.
(Got H-1Bs? Student Visas?)
... EXACTLY AS DESIGNED AND INTENDED. The point is that it will REMAIN there, unlike the millions of tons of toxic waste spewed into the environment by coal power plants every single year.
It's like anthropogenic climate change zealots - their models are proven wrong, their predictions are contradicted by observation, and yet they cling desperately to the idea that we're dooooomed, doomed I tell you!
"Look!" they shriek, "two extra people might get cancer someday!!! We must shut down all nuclear power plants now!!"
Those plants are put on the coast for the ready access to water. If anything they backup generators should have been located higher.
Sad that this nuclear power plant had a meltdown because it lacked electricity.
Also, sad that the anti-nuke activists have prevented the industry from building updated modern plants.
As far as I know, it’s not possible to have a meltdown and have only a tiny radiation leak. Of course the corporation is going to say “not to worry,,,we have everything under control.” I don’t trust corporations any more than I trust government. Neither gives a rats about you. The bottom line for both is power and your money,,,not you.
I liked the following quote...study predicted there will still be between 15 and 1,300 cancer fatalities worldwide....
First...."worldwide"? Really? 15 more deaths out of 7 billion? Second, two orders of magnitude is a pretty big range. Truly, this shows how worthless the "science" is on this - or how worthless the reporter is if they managed to get the facts wrong.
“Second, two orders of magnitude is a pretty big range.”
On an exponential scale it is not big. You often find variances of a couple of orders when the entire measurable range might extend 30 or 40 orders
One of the lessons learned (In Japan at least) is that, while we can model sea barriers for waves “X” so high, we should also add very comfortable cushions into those estimates of wave height based on the land sinking.
The elevation of the land itself in the northeast part of Japan fell by about a meter in some places. This allowed the sea to overtop sea walls that were designed to withstand the wave height that they indeed saw.
If you told engineers 30 years ago that the entire chunk of land on which you’re now standing could go *down* by a meter (or more) in five minutes, they’d blink, look at you and say “Uh, really? Are you smoking something?” because we had no direct experience with this. Only since the advent of highly accurate three dimensional positioning systems (eg, GPS) from a reference point off the surface of the earth would we discover that a huge area of land just dropped, relative to the sea surface.
I’m going with body counts.
People killed at the F-D plant: I think three or four now. All of which were deaths due to physical failures at the plant, things like dropping off heights after structural failures, etc.
People killed by the tsunami: Over 20K.
Which is a bigger threat? Atomic power or sea water? I know which side I’m coming down on, and I’ve got numbers to prove it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.