It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GE Defends Design of Stricken Japanese Reactor

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   

GE Defends Design of Stricken Japanese Reactor


Wall St Journal

General Electric Co. defended the design of the now-stricken reactor it supplied to Japan 40 years ago, saying its containment system is safe and reliable.

Fukushima-Daiichi's unit 1, the scene of a dramatic explosion Saturday, is equipped with a GE boiling water reactor with a so-called Mark 1 containment system. There have been ...

(visit the link for the full news article)


edit on 15-3-2011 by Leo Strauss because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Yes..., who built this thing that is about to unleash hell on earth? That's right General Electric.

Who recommended the reactor be placed on one of the largest subduction zones in the world? What group of men felt it was "safe" and sure to survive an earthquake and tsunami?

Is GE responsible for this act of god? Did God advise GE that the reactor was safe? This machine may kill millions. Who made this machine and said it was safe? General Electric that's who.

online.wsj.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
And let's not be too quick to take pity on old GE.


GE also produces bombs for our military through subsidiaries.

GE also owns massive chunks of MSM stock.


They have their hands in so much, before anyone has pity on this company just do a minute's worth of research into what all they own.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   


"The BWR Mark 1 reactor is the industry's workhorse with a proven track record of safety and reliability for more than 40 years," said Michael Tetuan, spokesman for GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy. "There has never been a breach of a Mark 1 containment system."


Well Michael there has been one now and by the way it was a doozy. Wonder if Michael is thinking about all the children "sheltering in place" right this very minute. Maybe he should let them know there has never been a breach on the "Mark 1 containment system".
edit on 15-3-2011 by Leo Strauss because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


Is it Colts fault if someone buys one of their weapons and kills someone with it?
Is it Fords fault if someone kills someone driving one of their vehicles?
Is it Jim Beams fault if someone drinks too much and kills someone?

While I do not like the idea of nuclear power, I do see that it is a calculated risk. Right or wrong. What people fail to realize here, despite everything else is that the earthquake set off a series of events that no one could have done anything about. This is a case of crap happening. Pointing fingers at someone solves nothing other than feeding animosity during a time when that is the last thing anyone needs. It could happen in the US, Japan or anywhere when things go wrong, at times the only way around the predicament is to go through it. I do not see this necessarily being a situation of the reactors having a problem, Japan seems to have had a successful nuclear program without any major problems over the years. I feel that Japan was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. While the US may not have to neccessarily worry about a tsunami taking out one of our reactors, we could just as easily have a tornado take one out. So, as long as we continue to use nuclear power, we will always have this risk. Blaming the manufacturer in this case is moot, up until the other day these things were properly functioning, if you feel that you must blame someone, blame the Japanese government for implementing them, but then you also have to blame the US government as well.



edit on 15-3-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skewed
Is it Fords fault if someone kills someone driving one of their vehicles?


What if there's a flood, and the vehicle gets wet and explodes, killing everyone inside?

Yeah, I think Ford would share some responsibility for that. It would be a pretty bad design flaw. Kind of like when your back-up generators fail and all the rest at the GE plant in Japan.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Skewed
Is it Fords fault if someone kills someone driving one of their vehicles?


What if there's a flood, and the vehicle gets wet and explodes, killing everyone inside?

Yeah, I think Ford would share some responsibility for that. It would be a pretty bad design flaw. Kind of like when your back-up generators fail and all the rest at the GE plant in Japan.


Are we aware of any design flaws?

I have not heard anything that there were design flaws that prevented them from getting the reactors back under control. IF that is the case then sure, tar and feather GE, but until then......



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 


Well I know the back-up generators failed when the power went out due to the earthquake/tsunami. That's pretty bad. A generator failing, is screwing up on basic, basic stuff.


These nuclear plants were very controversial in the first place, and part of the reason we allowed them to be built is because we were promised they would be handled very safely. If this is the kind of neglect being experienced by these plants, then we might be better off just to shut them all down as soon as possible. There are over a score of them just like the ones in Japan, in the US alone.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Yes I am angry. Angry at the stupendous arrogance of these people. I have never supported nuke plants I don't know many people who do. Yet they keep on building them and telling me they are safe.

I just want them to take responsibility for something they created. Nuke plants do not appear in nature. People make them and they should be responsible when things go wrong.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


LOL i dare you to make something that can survive an earthquake mag 8.9, then hit it with a 30 foot wall of water pushing cars and houses and have it still work at all. Yes nuclear power is dangerous but unless you personally have created a better source of fuel i suggest you stop whining. You act like GE thought it would be a smart idea to sell a bad nuclear power plant lol. GE isn't BP.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


Actually they do.

You may want to look into natural nuclear reactors, as there have been a few discovered from before humans ever existed



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Skewed
 


Well I know the back-up generators failed when the power went out due to the earthquake/tsunami. That's pretty bad. A generator failing, is screwing up on basic, basic stuff.



Will your cars gasoline engine run while submerged under water or being flooded with water? What makes you think gasoline generators would be any different? Last I checked, engines and water do not mix very well. Otherwise I would would be putting my water hose in my gas tank every time I needed a fill up.



edit on 15-3-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
GE was instructed to build to handle a 8.0 earthquake safely. This earthquake was a 8.9, mnay times more powerful. The problem was in the planning. I am sure future nuke plants will have to be built to sustain a 10.0.

So basically it is not GE's fault. If you build an 80 foot wall and a 100 ft wave crashes over it, did you build a bad wall?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Yes I am angry. Angry at the stupendous arrogance of these people. . Yet they keep on building them and telling me they are safe.

I just want them to take responsibility for something they created. Nuke plants do not appear in nature. People make them and they should be responsible when things go wrong.
Really is your computer made in nature how about your car? And yes everything is natural even radiation it comes from the sun. Plastic is made from plants. Do you own a microwave? I bet you do. Get real please.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by pcrobotwolf
LOL i dare you to make something that can survive an earthquake mag 8.9, then hit it with a 30 foot wall of water pushing cars and houses and have it still work at all. Yes nuclear power is dangerous but unless you personally have created a better source of fuel i suggest you stop whining.


Wow. Remind me to never elect you to any position with any responsibility over any number of people at all.

If an earthquake and tsunami are going to make your nuclear plant meltdown and contaminate the entire planet, then why would you built it so close to a fault line or sea level in the first place?


See, I don't get to make decisions like this, but when others do, and they make very stupid decisions that are at least partly responsible for disasters like this, you bet your ass those people need to be held responsible. Not only that, we need to look at what other plants are in danger from disasters or have faulty generators or other components and do something about them beforehand. If you're not going to hold anybody responsible for what happens then we really don't need to be building nuclear plants in the first place. They require a lot of work, just not to explode.

But we don't get that option. Like Leo said, they're shoved down our throats, but it doesn't mean they're any safer.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skewed
Will your cars gasoline engine run while submerged under water or being flooded with water? What makes you think gasoline generators would be any different?


There is such a concept as water-proofing you know. Something an engineer might want to consider if the plant is really in danger of being flooded, if that's even why the generator failed. As far as I know it didn't flood at all and was at too high of an altitude to be hit by the tsunami, but maybe I'm wrong.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Ok, then tell us what your plan would have been from blueprint to reality. Be sure to be very detailed on how to handle every type of emergency possible and various severity levels within each emergency type, and all the variables that could come into play. Do not forget to include the things that you did not think of either.
edit on 15-3-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
On the other hand the plant was +40 years old and still it survived the worst case scenario without completely blowing up or something catastrophic. On the other hand experts around here say that in the 70's we would've never allowed such to be build. We demanded at least quadruble safties back then. Of course this plant was supposed to have been scrapped before this happened.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skewed
Ok, then tell us what your plan would have been from blueprint to reality.


Sure. Send me to school for nuclear engineering first. It's only fair. And I'm confident my education isn't going to lower my standards and make me suddenly consider this nuclear disaster safe or appropriate in any way, or that no one should be held accountable.

In fact I've already majored in engineering and there is such a thing as an engineering code of ethics, and it's often legally mandatory for an engineer to take legal responsibility for his projects, whether civil or etc.
edit on 15-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


we all remember this skit.



The media is owned by these defense contractors which in turn regulate/limit what the media reports almost always in the defense contractors favor.



new topics




 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join