Japan's Nuclear Reactor Meltdown

Numerous media are reporting that after the quake the tsunami knocked out the diesel generators which provided backup power to the cooling systems. Now these systems were designed by GE along with others and were inspected by numerous experts along with the IAEA.

It seems that all the so called experts couldn't figure out that the generators and their associated equipment needed to be at least at least 30 feet in the air. Also, they needed to be able to withstand the impact of a wall of water containing thousands of tons of force and/or be hermetically sealed with a snorkel system to ensure they worked under any conditions.

It's quite apparent the problem wasn't nuclear power but a really stupid group of people who called themselves nuclear engineers. They were supposed to design fail safes into the system regardless of what happened and they didn't.

They left a hole wide enough in their designs for a moderate tsunami to destroy required back-up systems and cause the near meltdown of four nuclear piles. It's so stupid it's almost criminal and maybe that's the way it should be treated. My best,

2 words: DUMB HUMANS !!

reply to post by bjsmi2


Isn't that an oxymoron? Kind of like, political integrity... or military intelligence

I'd just like to add, that there were in fact 3 fails safes... however, they all failed... We can't point fingers at humans stupidity for a natural disaster, and a ridiculously strong one at that.

Whats funny is that you would probobly think the Japanese are on top of their tsunami preparedness. I mean "tsunami" is a Japanese phrase.

So they put FOUR reactors on the coast, next to a fault zone, and then pray to their Shinto Shrines that an earthquake will never happen there....

O my god...humans really are retarded

Is it still safe to buy Sony's?

reply to post by SunTzu22


I'm pretty sure all of Japan's reactor's are near the coast. Someone posted a map in one of the countless other threads of the location of all of them
Location of reactors taken from google images

reply to post by SpreadLoveNotHate


Yea, I can understand the water source issue concerning fission cores, but I am agast at the sheer recklessness of how the Japanese are betting against mother nature. They KNOW better.

They could have set up the reactor miles down a gold mine, but nahh, they set it up a few hours away from the largest metropolitian area on planet Earth.

They are certainly reckless, but if anybody can handle a disaster its the Japanese.

May Nippon be blessed in this dire hour, I hope they realize the gravity of situation.

Originally posted by SunTzu22
Whats funny is that you would probobly think the Japanese are on top of their tsunami preparedness. I mean "tsunami" is a Japanese phrase.

So what would you like them to do? Build a wall around Japan? Make sure that the backup generators are protected against both earthquake damage and that the backup generators can not possibly be damaged by either flood or seismic damage? I mean have anyone died yet from this so called 'meltdown'? Will anyone die? Fact is the Tsunami killed thousands and this nuclear accident will probably kill no many if any this year and probably non in the future either.

So they put FOUR reactors on the coast, next to a fault zone, and then pray to their Shinto Shrines that an earthquake will never happen there....

Everything in Japan is near the coast. Not sure if your trying to be funny but well done....

O my god...humans really are retarded

Is it still safe to buy Sony's?

[ (no reason given)[

Humans are no more retarded than the economic system they live by and competitive capitalist practices dictates the type of expediency and efficiency in making a profit that can be shown to be destroying( admittedly much more slowly than some alarmist suggests) the very environment we depend on for survival.

I for one will excuse the Japanese for aiming for efficiency being as a nation stuck on a resource barren rock yet still forced to compete against nations with vast natural and human resources. Maybe you can start a fund so they can start building their nukes up in the mountains?

Thanks,

Stellar

Make sure that the backup generators are protected against both earthquake damage and that the backup generators can not possibly be damaged by either flood or seismic damage?

Actually yes.

Have a modular system of true offsite backups (e.g. kilometers away) which can be helicoptered in, and connected quickly and efficiently: both a generator and an emergency pumping system.

Engineers are the smartest idiots on the planet.
It's like the area of their brain where common sense is, is really small; and as a result, the rest of their brain took up the remaining space; thus, they are partly intelligent. Like Einsteins with ADD.

reply to post by mbkennel


If you have that kind of heavy lift capacity this is certainly a practical solution but what do you think such a backup system would weigh and how long do you think it would take to both collect the airlift capacity ( it's not very efficient to keep a dozen heavy lift helicopters sitting anywere; military must be involved here) and have this all working? I'm not sure the period of time is short enough to make this a plan C and i'm not sure there is any safety requirement for much beyond a plan B.....

Either way i agree that national governments should ensure and make the funds available that would allow for as many backup plans as may be required in extreme situations such as these. What i attempted to suggest is that it's just very unlikely because it's costly and thus cuts into profit which inevitably seems to be one of the critical considerations in international competitiveness.

Thanks,

Stellar

11:41 Update: ABC reports that some scientists all over the building 35 years ago, resigned at the Fukushima nuclear power plant because the design is not good enough.

Originally posted by TribeOfManyColours
11:41 Update: ABC reports that some scientists all over the building 35 years ago, resigned at the Fukushima nuclear power plant because the design is not good enough.

How long before they come up with a name and point a finger at it? All better? Not quite. Bolting horses, stable doors... And lots of collateral damage later... Time spent looking for someone to blame that could be better expended on those poor bastards still, for the moment, alive.

Nuclear and such things not a good combination. Point the finger at those that voted against hydro and geothermal power in the first place.

most recent status of all reactors

Nuclear power is a gigantic scam. There is no way to eliminate the waste. They can only store it, usually on-site, until an "accident" happens. Imagine if you had to store all the poop you make and could never get rid of it.

The entire "industry" is one huge people-killing system. It should not be used for the production of electricity for general use. We have plenty of oil, natural gas, and coal.

Update 13.39 am: The radiation level in Tokyo was higher than normal but still far below the level at which a public health risk. Yet the overall atmosphere in Japan called worrisome. Now the authorities use water cannons to cool reactors at Fukushima Dai'ichi, they always seem to have fewer options at hand, reports BBC correspondent Chris Hogg.

Hi mike,

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
Nuclear power is a gigantic scam. There is no way to eliminate the waste. They can only store it, usually on-site, until an "accident" happens. Imagine if you had to store all the poop you make and could never get rid of it.

But nuclear power plants do not produce a comparative great deal of waste ( depending on many factors obviously but i presume were just talking about the fission products) and the only reason why it's stored on site is because people in most countries are so paranoid and misinformed that it becomes a serious hassle to take these products to central locations for long term safe storage. In fact the transport issue is so significant that a great that many countries do not even have central storage facilities with the products thus accumulating on site; a worse case 'solution' no matter what else happens.

If we would compare your personal energy output capacity per day with the efficiency of a nuclear power plant your 'waste' products would be barely noticeable and certainly easy to get rid of. It's a crap example really and you should try harder next time.

The entire "industry" is one huge people-killing system. It should not be used for the production of electricity for general use. We have plenty of oil, natural gas, and coal.

The nuclear power 'generation' industry is by far safer than it's main rival coal ( coal mining alone kills tens of thousands a year) and i would not surprised if it measures up strangely favorably with gas/hydro either. I do not have figures for those but If we should invest in the safest one that can add large capacities to the system nuclear kills practically no one and releases fewer radioactive material into the atmosphere than coal power does.

Stellar