Comments on: U.S. Media #fail on Quake, Tsunami, Fukushima Reactor Problems

By: shcb

shcb — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:31:21 +0000

What is the difference between mechanical engineers and civil engineers? Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets.

By: knarlyknight

knarlyknight — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 06:21:55 +0000

I said, “I’m guessing these are the best designed and most failsafe nuclear reactors in the world.”

That was a bad guess.

The reactors were designed by engineers who could optimize process flows but had no imagination for what disasters might inflict upon their processes. In thinking about the effects of an earthquake / tsunami, could anything be more stupid than storing spent fuel in the upper floor near the reactor and siting the deisel generators where the tidal surge would wipe them out?

At least there has been a few days to evacuate. Just think if the unimaginable (according to the Bush administration) happened and someone flew airplanes into the reactors, they might have been completely destroyed in mere hours.

By: NorthernLite

NorthernLite — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:38:37 +0000

“BTW, NL just wondering how many reactors need to meltdown before you flip flop?”

One.

But if it takes one of the most powerful earthquakes in history followed by a tsunami to cause it, I’d be willing to at least flip flop quietly.

By: knarlyknight

knarlyknight — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:00:48 +0000

Looks like about 1 in a hundred buildings survived. I want to know who built them, what with, when and how they were built; and why and at what cost.

By: knarlyknight

knarlyknight — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:58:31 +0000

JBC, awesome slider of doom update.

By: knarlyknight

knarlyknight — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:57:37 +0000

I’m guessing these are the best designed and most failsafe nuclear reactors in the world. I’m impressed, I’d have thought they’d be at meltdown by now with what they’ve endured.

BTW, NL just wondering how many reactors need to meltdown before you flip flop?

The follow-up question is if they all get restored to functioning but in 10 years another plus 9.0 richter quake hits and they all fail (due to undetectable damage from the 2011 quakes) would you flip flop back?

Wonder how the construction of California’s nuclear plants compare to Japan’s…

By: NorthernLite

NorthernLite — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:21:08 +0000

Nuclear power is obviously not my first choice for power generation but I think the fact that these old reactors withstood the 5th largest quake ever as well as a tsunami is actually a pretty good feat.

Of course if they do end up melting down I’ll be flip-flopping from that statement very quickly :-)

By: shcb

shcb — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 20:34:01 +0000

The article about the reactors was really interesting. Nothing is ever completely safe but we have come so far in limiting damage and death when earthquakes happen. We did some seismic testing at the University of New York Buffalo a few months back. The week before they were testing bridges (wish we could have seen that) the equipment we were using could simulate an earthquake on a full size single lane bridge. By using twin machines the simulated length of the bridge could be increased. They are in the process of building an even larger piece of equipment. While we can’t control nature we can limit the damage she is capable of inflicting. My ceiling passed with flying colors by the way, 1.7 Gs was equivalent to an 8.0 quake, we almost made it to 3 G’s, the machine limit was 3.2.