Register to reply

Fukushima Management and Government Performance

Share this thread:
NUCENG
#19
Apr25-11, 08:34 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 916
Quote Quote by Danuta View Post
What height should the walls be at Fuku and Onagawa. That is the engineering question.

Thank goodness this is a forum and I don't have to write up a few hundred pages of this and that, as would be mandatory in any industry. My answer is hence brief. I would not build a nuclear power station the likes of Fuku or Onagawa on the eastern shore of Japan where they stand now. You couldn't make me. (although I've always wanted an Italian villa of my own, but we won't go there). All other calculations are useless then.

Dmytry is right about historical maximum for Japanese coastal tsunami being 50 meters, even more, but every nuclear industry person I spoke to kept telling me that was looooong ago in the 1700's and the probability of it happening again could not realistically be taken into account. So I mentioned something more recent. No one from the industry likes to bring up the Chilean quake.
Also non-responsive. See my response to Dmytry. I am not trying to tell you there is nothing to improve in managing and operating nuclear power plants. I am trying to help you understand how complicated decisions can become. Hindsight is 20/20 and the people in the cheap seats always know better than the coach on the field.
Danuta
#20
Apr25-11, 09:00 PM
P: 100
Quote Quote by NUCENG View Post
Also non-responsive. See my response to Dmytry. I am not trying to tell you there is nothing to improve in managing and operating nuclear power plants. I am trying to help you understand how complicated decisions can become. Hindsight is 20/20 and the people in the cheap seats always know better than the coach on the field.
Nuceng, I would never have agreed to build those reactors where they stand. Neva'. Nor would a lot of people. One reason why I run my own business is so nobody can tell me to do what I don't want to do and threaten me with loss of my job if I don't do it. Been there. I think I know how complicated decisions can become without your helping me understand. I have never been in the cheap seats, by the way, so I hope you are not referring to me.

Edit: Seriously, who would put six reactors in close proximity of each other smack dab in the middle of the world's earthquake and tsunami central? On earthquake and tsunami central's eastern shore no less!! NOT ME.
Astronuc
#21
Apr25-11, 09:04 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,827
Quote Quote by Dmytry View Post
Go read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_tsunamis
tsunamis as tall as 50 meters happened in Japan during recorded history. I don't know where you got historical maximum runup of 5.5 meters? Are you confusing open-sea height with run-up?
edit: best yet. Some place was hit by 30 meters tsunami as recently as in 1993.
I have been wondering about the consideration of historic earthquakes and tsunamis in the region. I must wonder what they were thinking 40+ years ago when the site was designed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1896_Me...iku_earthquake

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_Sa...thquake#Damage

Looking historically, it would seem that the region can expect a large earthquake and tsunami on a frequency of 1 to 2 per 100 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Alaska_earthquake
Nearby, a 27-foot (8.2 m) tsunami destroyed the village of Chenega, killing 23 of the 68 people who lived there; survivors out-ran the wave, climbing to high ground.

Based on the Alaska quake and tsunami, it would have been prudent to perhaps design for 10 m tsunamis. But then also, the placement and design of the emergency diesel generators and fuel supply should have been hardened.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Ho...hquake#Tsunami (maximum 32 m run-up, but a run-up of 3.5 m at Akita in northern Honshu, up to 4.0 m in southeastern Russia and up to 2.6 m on the coast of South Korea. (ref wikipedia)
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts...,93&nd=display

The more recent event came well after the site had been up and running. On the other hand, I would have expected the government to re-assess the implications of the results on nuclear power plants located in coastal areas. Hopefully, this will now happen.
Drakkith
#22
Apr25-11, 09:14 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,619
All I can say Dmytry is that you REALLY don't know what you are talking about when you talk about how people behave. You flat out don't. Your statements are based on biased opinion and NOT fact. Sure you can find examples of where people have done the wrong things. But the fact that industry and technology exists and works is direct evidence that people ARE doing the right things. The fact that some countries have laws which protect people and have organizations dedicated solely to safety simply proves you completely wrong.

Listen to yourself for a moment. You don't trust ANYONE with any kind of authority. Thats what you've been saying here. Business owners, managers, CEO's, ETC. You simply don't trust them and you make up absurd accusations and say that ALL or MOST of them are like this. Sorry, you are 100% incorrect. The majority of people in those positions DO care about the people under them and about safety. Do you think that just because someone is successful or in charge of something means that they simply lack all compassion and such?

It takes a lot of willpower, a lot of guts to stand out and blow the whistle. Those qualities can be screened against when hiring if they interfere with profitability, and its very easy to say that it is about team work, or about background, or what ever. Military types - I really can't trust military types. Who would willingly join organization where you're being bossed around all the time, with very strict hierarchy?
I'm covering all angles, not being contradictory. Military types can have courage and 'discipline' but there required is a different kind of courage, a courage to disobey, a courage to trust that what you think is right is right. Self selected against when joining the obedience camp.
And us "Military Types"? You do realize that real life is set up almost exactly like this right? Hierarchys exist EVERYWHERE. From families to businesses to societies. I'm sorry you don't trust me. I can gurantee you that I am just as trustworthy, if not moreso, than most people outside of the military. Hell, they even try to instill it into you when you join to be trustworthy. Not to mention the fact that you simply assume that EVERYONE who joins a military WANTS to be bossed around. There are plenty of things I definitely do NOT like. But I realize that obeying lawful orders and doing my job is for the benefit of everyone, myself included. I'm not a robot that obeys anything and everything. That's why we have things called Unlawful orders that I am required NOT to obey if I deem it to be unlawful, provided I have good reason. Do you have any idea what it's like to stand up to a superior and say "No", when the risks aren't you getting fired, it's you going to prison. Takes a pretty good amount of courage I'd say. Also, you have NO idea what it is like to work in a military. I can gurantee you that it is NOT what you think.

So, just like you were wrong about the CEO's and such, you are again wrong.


Also, consider Chernobyl. Nobody was being evil there. The experiment was important to safety. To surviving 2 minutes right after blackout, when decay heat is very bad, while backup generators start. To the best knowledge of people responsible, at the time, it was safe to perform outside the specified parameters.
Graphite tipped control rods were graphite tipped to increase control range and to increase fuel burn-up in the bottom part of core. Not because someone wanted to blow up a reactor.
End result: worst accident in the history. Maybe to be de-rated to second worst in a year time when Fukushima is properly investigated.
This is simply wrong. The experiment was performed outside the specific safety parameters of the plant. Multiple alarms and signals were ignored. The fact that the rods had graphite tips is simply an unfortunate choice, as at the time there was no reason to think them unsafe. A combination of bad training, bad choices, and ignoring safety resulted in the accident.

Consider the Fukushima. Nobody wanted to build unsafe reactors. Yet it so happened - and they never funded their own equivalent of KHG or INTRA because they grossly over-estimated safety of their plants, they have grossly underestimated the tsunami, they had electrical stuff in the floodable basement. To prevent this takes something more than simple naive notion of honesty and good will.
To prevent this, takes being honest with oneself - and a lot of people are very dishonest with themselves. People routinely deceive themselves. Especially when it comes to safety. It is so easy not to think uncomfortable things. There's nobody in this whole world whom I really trust not to self deceive at all. Not even myself. Everyone is prone to self deception. And there's very, very few people who i trust to think - seriously think - to see if their action is moral or immoral. I don't trust people to recognize immorality of actions their consider, when it is in the slightest mentally demanding. When the immorality is in the slightest non straightforward. When one can make oneself believe that its ok.
No one ever built UNSAFE reactors. I completely disagree with that statement. The fact that they operated for 40+ years tells me that they were very safe. You are correct about people overestimating or underestimating things, I have to agree. That happens all the time. One of the key ways of getting around this is to observe the mistakes of the past and learn from them. Unfortunently the fact that we ARE human, and that there ARE things like budgets and people that disagree on the amount of safety needed, whether wrong or right, WILL lead to bad things happening. It's simply a fact of life.

Your entire argument that people are untrustworthy is ridiculous though. YOU need to look at yourself and face reality
Danuta
#23
Apr25-11, 09:23 PM
P: 100
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post

....
No one ever built UNSAFE reactors. I completely disagree with that statement. The fact that they operated for 40+ years tells me that they were very safe. .....
Sorry, Drakkith, don't want to get in between your discussion with Dmytry. But would you comment on this?

Fukushima Engineer Says He Helped Cover Up Flaw at Dai-Ichi Reactor No. 4

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...t-reactor.html
Drakkith
#24
Apr25-11, 09:27 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,619
Quote Quote by Danuta View Post
Sorry, Drakkith, don't want to get in between your discussion with Dmytry. But would you comment on this?

Fukushima Engineer Says He Helped Cover Up Flaw at Dai-Ichi Reactor No. 4

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...t-reactor.html
Read about it before. This does not influence my opinion on the whole. Should it? ON THE WHOLE I think they were very safe.
NUCENG
#25
Apr25-11, 10:08 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 916
Quote Quote by Danuta View Post
Nuceng, I would never have agreed to build those reactors where they stand. Neva'. Nor would a lot of people. One reason why I run my own business is so nobody can tell me to do what I don't want to do and threaten me with loss of my job. Been there. I think I know how complicated decisions can become without your helping me understand. I have never been in the cheap seats, by the way, so I hope you are not referring to me.
Sorry, you have every right to disagree with me. I have also run my own business as an engineering contractor. You obviously understand risk and complication. I gave you a hypothetical case and you declined to answer. I unfairly lumped you in with Dmytry who judges the performance of an entire industry by the mistakes at TEPCO. I believe that is inaccurate and unfair.

We can't go back in time and not build plants that exist today. We could shut them down, but that would create a whole new set of risks and problems. Or we can learn from this event and make things safer. That is safer not risk free.
NUCENG
#26
Apr25-11, 10:15 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 916
Quote Quote by Danuta View Post
Sorry, Drakkith, don't want to get in between your discussion with Dmytry. But would you comment on this?

Fukushima Engineer Says He Helped Cover Up Flaw at Dai-Ichi Reactor No. 4

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...t-reactor.html
He should be held accountable and never allowed to work in a position of trust again. He put himself and others at unnecessary risk.
Drakkith
#27
Apr25-11, 10:19 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,619
Quote Quote by NUCENG View Post
He should be held accountable and never allowed to work in a position of trust again. He put himself and others at unnecessary risk.
Agreed. He should be held accountable for his actions.
Danuta
#28
Apr25-11, 10:21 PM
P: 100
Quote Quote by NUCENG View Post
... I unfairly lumped you in with Dmytry who judges the performance of an entire industry by the mistakes at TEPCO. I believe that is inaccurate and unfair.
No, you are correct in lumping me with Dmytry. Just not correct in me ever being in the cheap seats.
Danuta
#29
Apr25-11, 10:29 PM
P: 100
Quote Quote by NUCENG View Post
He should be held accountable and never allowed to work in a position of trust again. He put himself and others at unnecessary risk.
Only he should be held accountable? He did try to spill the beans at the end. Did it work? Why not? Wasn't anyone listening? Who else should he have gone to, to get something done about it?

Hmm...
Drakkith
#30
Apr25-11, 10:32 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,619
Quote Quote by Danuta View Post
Only he should be held accountable? He did try to spill the beans at the end. Did it work?
Why not? Wasn't anyone listening?

Hmm...
You say Hmm... like this was something big we were all missing or something. We heard about this already. What is your point? That people cover up things? Sure, it happens.
Maybe if we said Him and the people that didn't listen to him should be held accountable. Is that better?
NUCENG
#31
Apr25-11, 10:35 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 916
Quote Quote by Danuta View Post
No, you are correct in lumping me with Dmytry. Just not correct in me ever being in the cheap seats.
I stand corrected. You are non-responsive and have nothing to add but criticism from the sky box. Thank you for clarifying.
Danuta
#32
Apr25-11, 10:42 PM
P: 100
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
You say Hmm... like this was something big we were all missing or something. We heard about this already. What is your point? That people cover up things? Sure, it happens.
Maybe if we said Him and the people that didn't listen to him should be held accountable. Is that better?
It would be more honest.
Drakkith
#33
Apr25-11, 10:44 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,619
Quote Quote by Danuta View Post
It would be more honest.
It's splitting freakin hairs. You linked an article on that one guy and we responded about him. Was there something somewhere that said we needed to talk about him AND everyone else involved? Could it not have been implied?
NUCENG
#34
Apr25-11, 10:47 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 916
Quote Quote by Danuta View Post
Only he should be held accountable? He did try to spill the beans at the end. Did it work? Why not? Wasn't anyone listening? Who else should he have gone to, to get something done about it?

Hmm...
Justice delayed is justice denied. His duty was to do the right thing when he concealed the flaw. In payment for his integrity, reputation, and honor, he was a "hero" to the company. He sold out for cheap. Everyone who had a part in covering up the flaw should be held accountable, but he should not get off and be treated as a hero again by his late penitence.
NUCENG
#35
Apr25-11, 10:57 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 916
Quote Quote by Danuta View Post
It would be more honest.
That technique is called deflection. You have been listening to Dmytry too much. If you can't address the argument call the adversary dishonest. In all this discussion we have been telling you that integrity and focus on safety is important. What did you think we would say about someone who violated that trust?
Danuta
#36
Apr25-11, 11:11 PM
P: 100
Quote Quote by NUCENG View Post
That technique is called deflection. You have been listening to Dmytry too much. If you can't address the argument call the adversary dishonest. In all this discussion we have been telling you that integrity and focus on safety is important. What did you think we would say about someone who violated that trust?
Look, do you have to mention Dmytry to me in every post because it is getting annoying. What the hell? You two get a room or something.

What did I think you were going to say about the link I posted? I just asked for some comments, is all.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Fukushima. Decision. Nuclear Engineering 1
How to plot actual compressor performance on manufacturer performance chart? Mechanical Engineering 7
Government Private Contractors Now Outnumber Government Employees Current Events 8