Fukushima Management and Government Performance

[Danuta]

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.

 

[NUCENG]

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.

Let's see, non-responsive, "cheap seats", "Hmmm", "It would be more honest," "Annoying."

Try adding something to the discussion other than rhetoric so I can tell you and Dmytry apart. Ooops, which one are you again?

 

[Danuta]

Let's see, non-responsive, "cheap seats", "Hmmm", "It would be more honest," "Annoying."

Try adding something to the discussion other than rhetoric so I can tell you and Dmytry apart. Ooops, which one are you again?

Oh for God's sake. I can't continue with this foolishness. Now you've got a problem with how I write? You're bloody obsessed by Dmytry and see him everywhere now. Get some rest.

 

[Dmytry]

Non-responsive. If I can summarize your answer You will impose absolute protection standards for the nuclear plant, but the general population will simply be told they are at risk. Really? And you call ME immoral? Your answer is that they can all die as long as they don't die from radiation.

General population are the ones who would pay for the seawall for the city. When informed, they can opt to build a seawall, or not to build a seawall, opt to have protection up to specific height, it is their choice how much they want to spend on their own safety. You don't have to impose seawall on the city because the city does not release so much radioactivity (that would affect other cities) when it is flooded.
It is democracy we are speaking about, or what?

I asked you how YOU would address the tradeoffs. I said nothing about justifying anything preexisting. Don't try to put this back on me. You were faced with an initial event that I thought was the new record for a tsunami. If the record was 50 m instead of 14 m the same issue can exist. You say that it would make building a nuclear pant impossible to build in that location. The question was what you would do at an existing plant and you go off about justifying a new construction plant in the same location. In my hypothetical problem, you address the first issue of an earthquake generated tsunami and then are faced with a 1 in 5000 chance that your first solution wasn't enough based on new information. You have claimed you are knowledgeable about adressing risk. What do you do? Show me that you understand that as we learn more about risks to safety that we have to take further action. Show me that you really understand that a specific risk can not be viewed in a vacuum. Show me that you understand that protecting people from one source of risk while you ignore an even bigger risk is not the morality you speak about so much.

Instead of answering that question and showing that you understand that there are limits to how much risk we can eliminate, you choose the Kobeyashi Maru way out by changing the question and calling me names.

You sit there telling us how simple the answers are and that the reason the problems exist is that we can't be trusted. Everybody is wrong except Dmytry. That is the definition of intellectual dishonesty.

You are switching the topic onto protection of already existing plant, which makes no sense. You are posting grossly incorrect or misunderstood numbers (ten frigging times incorrect). Forgive me if it makes me think that you're wrong and I am right.

The seawall is built when the plant is being constructed. The best time for geological etc considerations is before the plant is constructed. Or should be - you tell me how it is done, you know so much better about the nuclear industry, perhaps there's something I don't know, perhaps it is standard practice to build the plant first, and think about possible natural disasters later.

Then you also switch the topic from capitalist economy - where one entity is responsible for the plant, and another entity is responsible for the protection of the city - to the communism, where single entity would be responsible for both.

Yes, in communism, if you build the city and the plant with no consideration for tsunami - that would be a big mistake, afterwards, the cost-benefit on the countermeasures - on the mitigation of the mistake - may be better for the city seawall, or for the plant. That is really a complicated question however, and depends greatly to many factors that are simply not known, and most importantly it has nothing whatsoever to do with Fukushima. You're not asking me to be an engineer. You are asking me to be a communist central planning authority, which decides both on reactor and city seawalls.

In the democratic capitalism, there are the people in the city, whom ultimately pay for seawall or other counter measures for the city, and there is the power company, which can choose the location of the plant and has to build the plant to meet the standards in first place. The plant builders have no right whatsoever to refer to the risky decisions made by third parties as justification for the added risk for everyone that they are responsible for.
Furthermore, in the society with laws, plant builder can be harshly prosecuted for making a mistake of constructing the plant first and thinking of the natural disasters later.

Ahh, and for judging the entire industry... well I judge industry not only by TEPCO, but also by you, and others from nuclear industry, and the way you guys seem think about safety. Clearly, your mind flips to the third parties and their risky behaviours, and to lumping all parties into a whole as if it was communism and central planning authority was responsible for reactors, cities, etc. That's a slippery slope. Just because the city residents did not opt to construct a seawall around their city (perhaps due to not being informed), does not in the slightest excuse the nuclear power plant builder for not considering the tsunamis before they construct the plant, and adding some extra risk for everyone around.

 

[clancy688]

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.

I think that already happened. Otherwise we wouldn't have one smoldering NPP, but four. Tokai survived the wave, but there's a possibility that the waves weren't as high down there.
Daini survived as well, with waves nearly as high as in Daiichi - thanks to its elevated and hardened reactor buildings.
And Onagawa probably got hit by an even higher wave and there still were no technical problems. So I'd think that they indeed did learn. Daiichi was the oldest of those four NPPs. They build the new ones higher, probably in case of Tsunamis. To be sure. But they didn't upgrade Daiichi - I don't know why. The only explanation for the elevated buildings at Daini and Onagawa is an understanding of a tsunami's danger. So they knew what could happen. And yet they didn't do anything. That's criminal.

 

[Dmytry]

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_Meiji-Sanriku_earthquake

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_Sanriku_earthquake#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_Hokkaido_earthquake#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/results?eq_0=5357&t=101650&s=18&d=99,91,95,93&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.

yep, at least hardened backups and electrical equipment.

Quoting from the 1933 quake:
"Although the earthquake did little damage, the associated tsunami, which was recorded to reach the height of 28.7 metres (94 ft) at Ōfunato, Iwate, "
It seems prudent to me to build it at least for 50m tall unless there is some very serious and very well reviewed fluid dynamics study showing that the site would have much smaller run-up for any possible quake location. This stuff is complicated... the waves reflect and refract and focus, and it is easy to miss something that would make height very big.

The 50m tall runup protecting seawall (the seawall would be far into the sea and wouldn't need to be 50 meters tall though) may be entirely impossible, but it is possible to protect from 50m tall tsunami by building the plant at higher elevation. Perhaps at the river or a lake. Instead, the plant has hills behind it, which have increased the run-up.

Really, one didn't need recent quakes to know of the danger. I don't know where the 'highest in the recorded history' came from. The recent tsunami had only 24 meters maximum height AFAIK, the 1933 was 28, you don't even need to look back very far.

edit: ahh, there
For the 2011 tsunami:
The highest tsunami which was recorded at Ryōri Bay, Ōfunato, reached a total height of 97 feet (30 m).[34]
Same location as for 1933's 28.7 meters
I wonder how high the 1933 tsunami was at Daiichi site. The quake location is fairly close (edit: hmm but not very close. could've been a lot less due to angle at which wave strikes the coast line).
Where the hell 5.5m historical maximum came from and what the hell does it mean? Perhaps it was open-sea tsunami height? That was mis-interpreted as runup height?

 

[Astronuc]

edit: ahh, there
For the 2011 tsunami:
The highest tsunami which was recorded at Ryōri Bay, Ōfunato, reached a total height of 97 feet (30 m).[34]
Same location as for 1933's 28.7 meters
I wonder how high the 1933 tsunami was at Daiichi site. The quake location is fairly close (edit: hmm but not very close. could've been a lot less due to angle at which wave strikes the coast line).
Where the hell 5.5m historical maximum came from and what the hell does it mean? Perhaps it was open-sea tsunami height? That was mis-interpreted as runup height?

That wiki article needs correcting. The highest recorded tsunami run-up was 37.9 m (124 ft) north of the Onagawa plant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/82888.html

The Daini units have Mk II containment like FK-I Unit 6. I believe Units 5 and 6 are several meters higher than Units 1-4.

I am puzzled by the differences between the plants, and why TEPCO didn't review or re-assess the risk for FK-I.

Onagawa was somewhat protected from the tsunami wave because the bay on which it is located is facing south from the location of the large earthquake.

I believe we know much more about seismic activity now than 40 years ago, and in the Information Age, databases are more readily available. I do have to wonder what they were thinking 40+ years ago, and wonder why periodic re-assessments of risk were apparently not performed.

 

[Dmytry]

That wiki article needs correcting. The highest recorded tsunami run-up was 37.9 m (124 ft) north of the Onagawa plant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/82888.html

Well, indeed. Nonetheless, just in the last few hundred years, there been multiple tsunamis so far stronger than 5.5m, that it makes me wonder where exactly did the 5.5m figure come from.

The Daini units have Mk II containment like FK-I Unit 6. I believe Units 5 and 6 are several meters higher than Units 1-4.

I am puzzled by the differences between the plants, and why TEPCO didn't review or re-assess the risk for FK-I.

Onagawa was somewhat protected from the tsunami wave because the bay on which it is located is facing south from the location of the large earthquake.

Indeed... but looking at other tsunamis, the bay could of amplified a tsunami that came from other direction. It was a close call at Onagawa as it is.

I believe we know much more about seismic activity now than 40 years ago, and in the Information Age, databases are more readily available. I do have to wonder what they were thinking 40+ years ago, and wonder why periodic re-assessments of risk were apparently not performed.

Yep. The risk was so high that I'm surprised they did not add protection simply to protect their own property, even if they'd neglect potential damage to other people. But the economics of safety is complicated. The existing insurance (and whatever deals they may have had with government) might be covering it to some extent.
Also, yes they knew less about seismic activity 40 years ago - but the uncertainties should have resulted in more protection. It's not like they didn't know tsunami existed, or could not know tsunamis can have very tall run-up, back then. And the 1933 tsunami was only what, 34 years ago when the first plant was completed? (1967)

edit: ahh and for the 37.9 meters...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1896_Meiji-Sanriku_earthquake
38.2 meters.
However you turn it... there will always be inaccuracy, and the way to deal with inaccuracy is to assume the worst. This kind of failure results from thinking that you know it better than you actually know it, rather than from not knowing per se. You don't need accurate prediction, you merely need to know how inaccurate your prediction is, and choose the top of range. Yes, that inaccuracy would cost a lot of extra money. It's like bridges before advanced numerical simulation. You'd just build the bridge to hold 3x the load back then.

edit: hmm, VERY interesting. I see that in Chernobyl, a lot of figures were given with ±something or as ranges, whereas in Fukushima, that is extremely uncommon and instead you see more digits of precision in the numbers than possible. That also goes for a lot of US figures. Some cultural issue? Was it so back when they built the plants?

 

[AntonL]

Regarding the design ground level or elevation of the plant, I still maintain that no consideration for a Tsumami was ever included in the design. The 5.7 metres that Tepco no proudly quote as design basis was an afterthought and result of a 2007 study

The 5.7 metre is necessary to weather waves driven by winds on top of a hurrican storm surge on top of high tide. The level is given as OP+5.7 (OP being uncovered lowest low tide), From http://www.myforecast.com/bin/tide_extended.m?city=67710&metric=true&tideLocationID=T5701" we can see already a high tide of 1.48 metres on May 19, so we have 4.2 metres safety left for waves and a hurricane surge.

The foundations of the reactor building are about 5 metres below seal level and have an intricate drainage system to pump the sub soil dry under normal operation, now this sub-soil is contaminated.

From an operational point of view, the NPP should be as low as possible to minimise the energy lost in lifting cooling water, with hindsight, yes the NPP should have been build 50 metres high and a small hydro-electric power station could have been included to recover the potential energy of the cooling waster.

Who designed Fukushima NPP, Ebasco a subsidary of GE so let's not blame the Japanese too much on this issue

The same tsunami dangers also apply to the USA NPP at San Onofre. Historical accounts of The Santa Barbara, California, Earthquakes and Tsunami(s) of December 1812 report of 30 to 35 ft tsunami.

 

[Astronuc]

Regarding culture - or rather attitude of industry and toward industry - I can't help but think of Minimata.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease#Democratizing_effects

Now that's one persons opinion, which may be valid and maybe shared. But in the 1940's - 1960's, I don't believe the questioning of industry was as strong as it was after the 1960's and the evolution of the environmental and civil rights movements.

 

[rowmag]

edit: ahh and for the 37.9 meters...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1896_Meiji-Sanriku_earthquake
38.2 meters.

I seem to recall reading in the news a couple of weeks ago that the maximum run-up height of the 2011.3.11 tsunami exceeded even that of the Jogan tsunami of the year 869 (which was the previous historical record-holder), just barely. Will have to try to find a reference.

 

[Danuta]

Regarding the design ground level or elevation of the plant, I still maintain that no consideration for a Tsumami was ever included in the design. The 5.7 metres that Tepco no proudly quote as design basis was an afterthought and result of a 2007 study

The 5.7 metre is necessary to weather waves driven by winds on top of a hurrican storm surge on top of high tide. The level is given as OP+5.7 (OP being uncovered lowest low tide), From http://www.myforecast.com/bin/tide_extended.m?city=67710&metric=true&tideLocationID=T5701" we can see already a high tide of 1.48 metres on May 19, so we have 4.2 metres safety left for waves and a hurricane surge.

The foundations of the reactor building are about 5 metres below seal level and have an intricate drainage system to pump the sub soil dry under normal operation, now this sub-soil is contaminated.

Yes exactly, quite obvious the reinforcements done around and on grounds of the plant are against taifun waves and not earthquake generated tsunami. 5.5--9.0 metre(Tokage) wave typical of worse taifun generated waves.

 

[NUCENG]

...

D: General population are the ones who would pay for the seawall for the city. When informed, they can opt to build a seawall, or not to build a seawall, opt to have protection up to specific height, it is their choice how much they want to spend on their own safety. You don't have to impose seawall on the city because the city does not release so much radioactivity (that would affect other cities) when it is flooded.
It is democracy we are speaking about, or what?

N: The Japanese government is talking about raising taxes to pay for reconstruction and efforts to mitigate future tsunamis. That may be central planning but it happens in representative democracies, without resorting to communism. It is way beyond the point where Ichiro and Seiji can grab their shovels and head down to the beach to prevent the next tsunami.

D: You are switching the topic onto protection of already existing plant, which makes no sense. You are me think that you're wrong and I am right.

N: First, you are right that I didn’t have the right number for a maximum historical tsunami. And you jumped on that as an excuse not to answer my question which was about engineering and management decision-making for an existing plant, and by extension government oversight of nuclear plants and responsibility for public safety. Read the problem again. The scientist threatens to go to regulators and the press. The topic of the thread was TEPCO and Government performance. You have stated your position that you don’t trust anyone, so I asked you to show how you could do it better.

D: The seawall is built when the plant is being constructed. The best time for geological etc considerations is before the plant is constructed. Or should be - you tell me how it is done, you know so much better about the nuclear industry, perhaps there's something I don't know, perhaps it is standard practice to build the plant first, and think about possible natural disasters later.

N: That’s true , and then this tsunami hits Fukushima and I ask you what should be done at Onagawa NPP as corrective action. Onagawa has not been damaged by this tsunami, but should they be learning from this event and taking action. Obviously the wall at Fukushima was inadequate and its too late to fix that. You accused me of trying to justify doing nothing . Now I’m asking you should Onagawa do nothing?

D: Then you also switch the topic from capitalist economy - where one entity is responsible for the plant, and another entity is responsible for the protection of the city - to the communism, where single entity would be responsible for both.

N: More name calling. You won’t answer the question so now I’m a commie. Thank you Senator McCarthy.

D: Yes, in communism, if you build the city and the plant with no consideration for tsunami - that would be a big mistake, afterwards, the cost-benefit on the countermeasures - on the mitigation of the mistake - may be better for the city seawall, or for the plant. That is really a complicated question however, and depends greatly to many factors that are simply not known, and most importantly it has nothing whatsoever to do with Fukushima. You're not asking me to be an engineer. You are asking me to be a communist central planning authority, which decides both on reactor and city seawalls.

N: Wow! “, the cost-benefit on the countermeasures - on the mitigation of the mistake - may be better for the city seawall, or for the plant. That is really a complicated question however, and depends greatly to many factors that are simply not known,” I am impressed that is an example of gobbledegook worthy of the biggest windbag politician that has ever been elected. In short, “It is complicated and I don’t know.” Thank you, that happens to engineers, managers, and regulators, too.

D: In the democratic capitalism, there are the people in the city, whom ultimately pay for seawall or other counter measures for the city, and there is the power company, which can choose the location of the plant and has to build the plant to meet the standards in first place. The plant builders have no right whatsoever to refer to the risky decisions made by third parties as justification for the added risk for everyone that they are responsible for.

N: The question again was what YOU would do as a result. I did not tell you justify anything. How would you proceed as an engineer or manager at Onagawa or as a member of the government if the immoral managers at Onagawa do nothing?

D:Furthermore, in the society with laws, plant builder can be harshly prosecuted for making a mistake of constructing the plant first and thinking of the natural disasters later.

N: And TEPCO will be investigated. If there has been negligence they will be prosecuted. They are already being required to compensate evacuees. I am certain the prosecutors will be coming to you for your evidence that they didn’t think of natural disasters and deliberately put the public at risk. You have proof don’t you? Or is your opinion alone sufficient? Should we bypass the trial and hang them now?

D: Ahh, and for judging the entire industry... well I judge industry not only by TEPCO, but also by you, and others from nuclear industry, and the way you guys seem think about safety. Clearly, your mind flips to the third parties and their risky behaviours, and to lumping all parties into a whole as if it was communism and central planning authority was responsible for reactors, cities, etc. That's a slippery slope. Just because the city residents did not opt to construct a seawall around their city (perhaps due to not being informed), does not in the slightest excuse the nuclear power plant builder for not considering the tsunamis before they construct the plant, and adding some extra risk for everyone around.

N: Yes, yes, we have heard you repeatedly that thousands of people you have never met, working in an industry you don’t understand, are deliberately putting themselves, their families, their friends, and their communities at risk for profits. Why would they do that?

Get help. Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself. Historically, this characterization was used to describe any delusional state.

 

[Dmytry]

"N: First, you are right that I didn’t have the right number for a maximum historical tsunami. "
not only didn't you have right number, you didn't even have right order of magnitude.

"And you jumped on that as an excuse not to answer my question which was about engineering and management decision-making for an existing plant, and by extension government oversight of nuclear plants and responsibility for public safety. Read the problem again. The scientist threatens to go to regulators and the press. The topic of the thread was TEPCO and Government performance. You have stated your position that you don’t trust anyone, so I asked you to show how you could do it better. "

Perhaps the reason I do not trust them is because I can't really know for sure that I would do better in their shoes - haven't been in this situation - not because I am claiming I would do better? Have you ever thought about it this way? What is your point exactly - you are trying to make me self boast how i would do better, so you can then say - hey but you haven't been in their shoes?

I did not criticize their decision to do nothing about existing plant, btw. I criticized how the plant was constructed. Sorry if it is offtopic because the plant was constructed by US company. For the existing plant - well, firstly I would not construct plan like this - secondarily - well, I like to think that I would go to press and tell how regrettably this study affects my plant bla bla bla bla and the plant has to be shut down until the wall is constructed etc. I'd lose a lot of money (maybe, or maybe i can pass the cost onto someone else), but I'd still have more than enough. I like to think I am good enough, but I can't claim it because I did not have to do this.

Rest of the points, I don't think I even have to answer. Various historical cases (such as above-mentioned methylmercury poisoning) provide enough answer for the paranoia accusation.

 

[NUCENG]

The have struck again. Dmytry and the other guy who thinks that I am anoying, but shall remain nameless lest I annoy him further, have disrupted another thread until the mentors locked the thread. Astronuc and Borek and other Mentors are doing their best to maintain order and I won't fault them.

So far discussions on uprating US nuclear plants and health effects of radiation have been locked "pending moderation" Can someone tell me what that means? Does it mean until hell freezes over or is there some process to remind people about respectful disagreements and honest debate?

When one or two posters rant away, calling others names, calling them liars, asserting how much smarter they are than the rest of us, using rhetoric in place of substance, should they be allowed to dictate what can be discussed on this forum. Are we always going to have to stifle our natural disgust for deliberate ignorance and incitement?

 

[Dmytry]

Regarding culture - or rather attitude of industry and toward industry - I can't help but think of Minimata.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease#Democratizing_effects

Now that's one persons opinion, which may be valid and maybe shared. But in the 1940's - 1960's, I don't believe the questioning of industry was as strong as it was after the 1960's and the evolution of the environmental and civil rights movements.

That is just so bad :/ The worst bit is the instantiation of knowingly ineffective "water treatment" with continued emissions from 1959 to 1968 , and ostracising of the victims. How the water treatment fraud did go unrecognised for 9 years, until 4 months after the plant stopped using mercury catalyst and the commercial incentive for downplaying it had disappeared.
The first reactor at Fukushima was constructed around 1967 or so BTW.
There's been so many cases like this through the history.

 

[NUCENG]

"
N: First, you are right that I didn’t have the right number for a maximum historical tsunami. "
not only didn't you have right number, you didn't even have right order of magnitude.
"And you jumped on that as an excuse not to answer my question which was about engineering and management decision-making for an existing plant, and by extension government oversight of nuclear plants and responsibility for public safety. Read the problem again. The scientist threatens to go to regulators and the press. The topic of the thread was TEPCO and Government performance. You have stated your position that you don’t trust anyone, so I asked you to show how you could do it better. "

Perhaps the reason I do not trust them is because I can't really know for sure that I would do better in their shoes - haven't been in this situation - not because I am claiming I would do better? Have you ever thought about it this way? What is your point exactly - you are trying to make me self boast how i would do better, so you can then say - hey but you haven't been in their shoes?

I did not criticize their decision to do nothing about existing plant, btw. I criticized how the plant was constructed. Sorry if it is offtopic because the plant was constructed by US company. For the existing plant - well, I like to think that I would go to press and tell how regrettably this study affects my plant bla bla bla bla. I'd lose a lot of money, but I'd still have more than enough. I like to think I am good enough, but I can't claim it because I did not have to do this.

Good. That is an honest answer and I respect that. At last you are starting to see my point. I am not trying to trick you. I have been trying to get you to at least think of what it is like in their shoes. I know you haven't been there in this kind of situation and for that you should be thankful. Recognize that your distrust and fear is natural, but don't let it become an unconscious or knee jerk prejudice that others aren't trying to do the right thing. Give us the same respect you want for yourself.

Let's get past the deficiencies of TEPCO and design flaws at Fukushima. We have to fix that as best we can.

What do we do now? How should the plants be stabilized? Is the roadmap TEPCO issued workable? What should be done at other existing plants? Should new plants be built? Should Japan continue to depend on nuclear power for a significant portion of its energy production, What should we do about new plant designs and siting? Those specific topics should be carried over to other threads. Those are the kinds of challenges that engineers, managers, executives, regulators and political leaders in Japan and around the world are facing. You can be part of that decision-making process. And in my experience with the US nuclear industry your reasoned and informed input will be welcomed.

 

[Dmytry]

Good. That is an honest answer and I respect that. At last you are starting to see my point. I am not trying to trick you. I have been trying to get you to at least think of what it is like in their shoes. I know you haven't been there in this kind of situation and for that you should be thankful. Recognize that your distrust and fear is natural, but don't let it become an unconscious or knee jerk prejudice that others aren't trying to do the right thing. Give us the same respect you want for yourself.

Wait. Are you saying I should trust nuclear industry more because I can't be sure even about myself? Where's the logic in that?
Suppose I was sure I myself would have shot that scientist, or bribed him, or something. Then I would trust you guys even less.

Give us the same respect you want for yourself.

I don't really need or want other people to trust me to try to do the right thing. I'd rather they use reason instead of trust. Less temptation for me. edit: and less edge for the competitors who do not do the right thing.
I won't trust you guys to do the right thing, and I do not ask you to trust me to do the right thing.

Let's get past the deficiencies of TEPCO and design flaws at Fukushima. We have to fix that as best we can.

What do we do now? How should the plants be stabilized? Is the roadmap TEPCO issued workable? What should be done at other existing plants? Should new plants be built?

Had the similar question answered for me already. My PC used to be powered 100% nuclear. Literally. I am in Lithuania, which used to have 90% nuclear energy mix, but the actual mix here would probably be 100% nuclear most of the time.
Those two RBMKs had to be shut down. I don't think that was a very good decision. For all the RBMK's flaws, nobody bleeps with RBMKs for sure, and it is a very seismically stable region, etc. Also, the reactor was upgraded (with significant power derating) to minimize positive void coefficient and eliminate positive SCRAM.

Should Japan continue to depend on nuclear power for a significant portion of its energy production, What should we do about new plant designs and siting? Those specific topics should be carried over to other threads. Those are the kinds of challenges that engineers, managers, executives, regulators and political leaders in Japan and around the world are facing. You can be part of that decision-making process. And in my experience with the US nuclear industry your reasoned and informed input will be welcomed.

Well in my opinion the cost benefit analysis would be strongly offset in the favour of the plant owner. The entire thing about families and kids who also live there - did not help with prior toxic accidents any. People have amazing capacity for self deception. There's enough pregnant women who don't stop smoking, and there used to be much more when the issue required some thinking to decide. Not impressed by reference to kids.

 

[NUCENG]

Wait. Are you saying I should trust nuclear industry more because I can't be sure even about myself? Where's the logic in that?
Suppose I was sure I myself would have shot that scientist, or bribed him, or something. Then I would trust you guys even less.

I don't really need or want other people to trust me to try to do the right thing. I'd rather they use reason instead of trust. Less temptation for me. edit: and less edge for the competitors who do not do the right thing.

I won't trust you guys to do the right thing, and I do not ask you to trust me to do the right thing.

Had the similar question answered for me already. My PC used to be powered 100% nuclear. Literally. I am in Lithuania, which used to have 90% nuclear energy mix, but the actual mix here would probably be 100% nuclear most of the time.
Those two RBMKs had to be shut down. I don't think that was a very good decision. For all the RBMK's flaws, nobody bleeps with RBMKs for sure, and it is a very seismically stable region, etc. Also, the reactor was upgraded (with significant power derating) to minimize positive void coefficient and eliminate positive SCRAM.

Well in my opinion the cost benefit analysis would be strongly offset in the favour of the plant owner. The entire thing about families and kids who also live there - did not help with prior toxic accidents any. People have amazing capacity for self deception. There's enough pregnant women who don't stop smoking, and there used to be much more when the issue required some thinking to decide. Not impressed by reference to kids.

Wait. Are you saying I should trust nuclear industry more because I can't be sure even about myself? Where's the logic in that?

No I didn’t say trust, I said respect and a little understanding. You were very close there for a minute.

Suppose I was sure I myself would have shot that scientist, or bribed him, or something. Then I would trust you guys even less.

Why? You shot him.

I don't really need or want other people to trust me to try to do the right thing. I'd rather they use reason instead of trust. Less temptation for me.

How many more layers of review, self-checking, independent verifications, regulatory revies approvals and inspections do we need before you realize that we don’t depend only on trust?

Had the similar question answered for me already. My PC used to be powered 100% nuclear. Literally. I am in Lithuania, which used to have 90% nuclear energy mix, but the actual mix here would probably be 100% nuclear.
Those two RBMKs had to be shut down. I don't think that was a very good decision. For all the RBMK's flaws, nobody bleeps with RBMKs for sure, and it is a very seismically stable region, etc. Also, the reactor was upgraded (with significant power derating) to minimize positive void coefficient and eliminate positive SCRAM.

I have colleagues who spent a great deal of time at Ignalina helping your operators and managers to develop emergency operating procedures for RBMKs. They reviewed designs to identify deficiencies that could be corrected. I know that they came back with a lot of respect for your operators and scientists. Others worked with the VVER design to perform similar upgrades. Shutting nuclear plants down removes one type of risk. How you replace that energy creates its own hazards. That is a political and economic decision and could be another thread.

Well in my opinion the cost benefit analysis would be strongly offset in the favour of the plant owner. The entire thing about families and kids who also live there - did not help with prior toxic accidents any. People have amazing capacity for self deception. There's enough pregnant women who don't stop smoking, and there used to be much more when the issue required some thinking to decide. Not impressed by reference to kids.

This is a serious question and not intended to be insulting. I have heard all my life that the Soviet Union degraded the importance of family as a means of achieveming proletarian socialism. (right term?) Supposedly the approach was to start with the children and build the socialist utopia from those seeds.

Is that why you are denying that family, friends, and community has been the motivation and focus of civilization since we came down from the trees? What else makes life precious? I fear that is a chasm I will never be able to cross. That is a way of thinking I just don't understand and would never want to. Is that why you trust noone? Even in nature a bear sow will defend her cubs to the death.

 

[Dmytry]

Wait. Are you saying I should trust nuclear industry more because I can't be sure even about myself? Where's the logic in that?

No I didn’t say trust, I said respect and a little understanding. You were very close there for a minute.

You were speaking of my distrust.

Why? You shot him.

Point is - no reason to trust random people to be better than oneself.

How many more layers of review, self-checking, independent verifications, regulatory revies approvals and inspections do we need before you realize that we don’t depend only on trust?

Well, you are appealing to trust a lot. When i make the point that reviews may not be effective, you appeal to trust.

I have colleagues who spent a great deal of time at Ignalina helping your operators and managers to develop emergency operating procedures for RBMKs. They reviewed designs to identify deficiencies that could be corrected. I know that they came back with a lot of respect for your operators and scientists. Others worked with the VVER design to perform similar upgrades. Shutting nuclear plants down removes one type of risk. How you replace that energy creates its own hazards. That is a political and economic decision and could be another thread.

Indeed. And a very different situation. A design mistake, not lack of any tsunami protection.

This is a serious question and not intended to be insulting. I have heard all my life that the Soviet Union degraded the importance of family as a means of achieveming proletarian socialism. (right term?) Supposedly the approach was to start with the children and build the socialist utopia from those seeds.

Is that why you are denying that family, friends, and community has been the motivation and focus of civilization since we came down from the trees? What else makes life precious? I fear that is a chasm I will never be able to cross. That is a way of thinking I just don't understand and would never want to. Is that why you trust noone? Even in nature a bear sow will defend her cubs to the death.

Actually the example I know to not have quitted smoking when pregnant is American. I was surprised, because in SU there was a strong anti-smoking propaganda back when in US you guys still had it as a 'controversial topic' and a matter of agreeing to disagree. Ohh the irony.
For the Japanese - see the link posted by Astronuc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease
Did the concerns for friends, kids, etc prevent this? No.
I also know that USA did almost 2 times the nuclear tests that SU did, and awful lot of them in Nevada desert. Did the concerns for children, etc prevent it? No.

I know that the bear will protect the clubs. The female bear. The male bear may eat them.

edit: As of why I do not trust you - you tend to get numbers wrong in the favour of whatever argument you're pushing for. I know it is extremely common.

 

[Dmytry]

Also, on topic of good will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...the_United_States#Human_radiation_experiments
Not communist propaganda, all sourced, non-controversial, good fraction of it even admitted (very reluctantly). That's where data on the effects of radiation and 'safe' limits for infants was obtained from. According to you it is delusional to assume that human nature did not radically change in last 50 or 40 years - but for me it is merely a null hypothesis, and generic arguments, well, they would of applied the same 50 years ago. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[NUCENG]

You were speaking of my distrust.

Point is - no reason to trust random people to be better than oneself.

Well, you are appealing to trust a lot. When i make the point that reviews may not be effective, you appeal to trust.

edit: As of why I do not trust you - you tend to get numbers wrong in the favour of whatever argument you're pushing for. I know it is extremely common.

Ok I get it You don't trust people. Nothing I have said has changed that. You are happy with your suspicions, distrust, and fears.

Indeed. And a very different situation. A design mistake, not lack of any tsunami protection.

Chernobyl was a design mistake? but Fukushima wasn't? Then what was it?


Actually the example I know to not have quitted smoking when pregnant is American. I was surprised, because in SU there was a strong anti-smoking propaganda back when in US you guys still had it as a 'controversial topic' and a matter of agreeing to disagree. Ohh the irony.
For the Japanese - see the link posted by Astronuc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease
Did the concerns for friends, kids, etc prevent this? No.
I also know that USA did almost 2 times the nuclear tests that SU did, and awful lot of them in Nevada desert. Did the concerns for children, etc prevent it? No.

I know that the bear will protect the clubs. The female bear. The male bear may eat them.

I get the point you were trying to make. You use these unrelated issues to say that there are examples where other people and animals have done things that hurt their own children. Then you feel this justifies your distrust and fears.

I think I now understand why you are so reluctant to believe that people can be honest and motivated for good. Obviously, I can't fix your problem for you. I really believe you need professional help, not because you disagree with me, but because nobody should have to live with the kind of irrational distrust and fear of others you have admitted.

 

[NUCENG]

Also, on topic of good will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...the_United_States#Human_radiation_experiments
Not communist propaganda, all sourced, non-controversial, good fraction of it even admitted (very reluctantly). That's where data on the effects of radiation and 'safe' limits for infants was obtained from. According to you it is delusional to assume that human nature did not radically change in last 50 or 40 years - but for me it is merely a null hypothesis, and generic arguments, well, they would of applied the same 50 years ago. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

I won't even ask you to try to stay on topic. The title of that article is "Unethical Experimentation..." I will go further. These are crimes.

I am over 60. Has human nature changed over the last 40 or 50 years? Many things have changed. Most things have changed for the better, some not. I know I have changed over that time. I know that we have much more immediate information and less secrecy about events in all corners of the world. It took years to uncover some of the issues in that Wiki article. The mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was out in months. Now we hear complaints on this forum that we don't have instant access to instrument readings at Fukushima.

Bad things happen, and that is a fact. It is just one more excuse to hold tight to your fear. You have a choice when faced with these bad things. You can get back into bed, pull the covers over your head, hate the world, and surrender to fear, or stand up and fight for what you believe. If you need help, get it.

 

[Drakkith]

Wait. Are you saying I should trust nuclear industry more because I can't be sure even about myself? Where's the logic in that?
Suppose I was sure I myself would have shot that scientist, or bribed him, or something. Then I would trust you guys even less.

I don't really need or want other people to trust me to try to do the right thing. I'd rather they use reason instead of trust. Less temptation for me. edit: and less edge for the competitors who do not do the right thing.
I won't trust you guys to do the right thing, and I do not ask you to trust me to do the right thing.

So...you don't trust anyone because YOU wouldn't trust yourself in a similar situation? Understandable I suppose.

I'd rather they use reason instead of trust.

What does this even mean? You MUST trust people at some level. If your argument is that you can't trust anyone, then not even the most stringent safety measures would do any good as you wouldn't trust anyone to actually make those things correctly or follow those regulations.

I won't trust you guys to do the right thing, and I do not ask you to trust me to do the right thing.

Why? Do you not strive to do the right things to the best of your ability?

 

[AntonL]

The Mainichi Daily News asks and analysis http://mdn.mainichi.jp/perspectives/news/20110425p2a00m0na006000c.html"

The excuses made by the organizations involved go to show that so-called nuclear power experts have no intention to self reflect or admit their shortcomings. It was this self-righteousness -- evidenced over the years in the industry's suppression of unfavorable warnings and criticisms, as well as in their imposition of the claim that the safety of nuclear energy was self evident -- that lay down the groundwork for the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant.

 

[Drakkith]

The Mainichi Daily News asks and analysis http://mdn.mainichi.jp/perspectives/news/20110425p2a00m0na006000c.html"

While I don't doubt that there is at least some truth in that article, I have to ask if it is unfarily biased. We have no idea what questions were asked nor what the responses were. (Not from the article at least) I just hate to base anything off a simple web article that takes an "opinion based" stand.

Also, can someone do this for me? Give me the 5 top things that caused the incident OTHER than the quake/tsunami and flooding of the generators. I'm talking about mistakes made, bad decisions made, failed equipment, ETC that helped cause this.

 

[Dmytry]

I think I now understand why you are so reluctant to believe that people can be honest and motivated for good. Obviously, I can't fix your problem for you. I really believe you need professional help, not because you disagree with me, but because nobody should have to live with the kind of irrational distrust and fear of others you have admitted.

You know what, I know that people can be honest and motivated for good. Some people definitely are (you aren't one of them though, I think you've made it clear enough by the way you argue)
The problem is that people can be dishonest and motivated - not for good, and not for bad, but for something unrelated, such as self interest.

I've had enough with you really. Constant attempts to make insults. I ignore some and try not to respond in same style, but that is enough. Trying to portray me as paranoid, delusional, communism-wrecked, paranoid in need of professional help once again... I gave you far more benefit of the doubt than you deserve.
You know what. You can't even get numbers right, and I mean, not even in the ballpark, you're getting things order of magnitude wrong. You can't even think straight. Can I trust you to calculate things correctly because you have kids living near the nuclear power plant? LOL. I can't trust you to calculate anything. You'd just get numbers wrong as for the result to match some pre-conceived idea, and you'll not even know you're doing that. And you're not even the worst, you may be better than typical, you can sometimes give consideration to other people if they are obviously enough correct. Yet, if the plant is ever a threat to your kids - all you're going to do is to convince yourself that it is not.
Am I being paranoid or full of fear there? No not really. I am just aware of how people do this kind of thing.

 

[Dmytry]

So...you don't trust anyone because YOU wouldn't trust yourself in a similar situation? Understandable I suppose.

Well, I would like to think that I would do the right thing in the similar situation. But I know how easily people do the wrong/selfish thing - by convincing themselves that it is the right thing, not because they are inherently 'evil'.

What does this even mean? You MUST trust people at some level. If your argument is that you can't trust anyone, then not even the most stringent safety measures would do any good as you wouldn't trust anyone to actually make those things correctly or follow those regulations.

Well, it's not that I totally don't trust the people, it's that I don't trust people I do not know to act against self interest.
I do not think you trust them so much either.
Consider NUCENG. He had consistently gotten numbers wrong in his favour. Can I trust him to do the math? No I can't. Can i trust 100 or 1000 people like him? No I can't, because the error is systematic rather than random, it won't average out to zero.
Do I think he just sits, and thinks consciously, machiavelli style, "how can i mix up the numbers in my favour" - no, of course not! He may even honestly think he's trying to get numbers right.

Now he had been trying to portray me as paranoid, equating awareness of that sort of bias - and it's consequences - to some deep distrust and fear of everyone. Where did I ever admit fear of everyone? Distrust of everyone? Well i guess so, do you trust random person on the street to return the money they borrow? I don't, and probably you neither, but watch out, I am going to be quoted on this to show how I'm paranoid and delusional and full of distrust and fear.

Why? Do you not strive to do the right things to the best of your ability?

I may not see what is the 'right thing' or my idea of right thing may be incorrect. There is such thing as bias. For example, before this entire fukushima thing, I was rather pro nuclear, considering that most of energy in my house was supplied by nuclear for a while. That was bias and ignorance of the problems. Spent fuel pools on the top floor, etc, etc.
The plant here was better than most, I still think so, spent fuel not on top floor, gradual in-operation refuelling so no rush to refuel as fast as possible, no complete fresh core in spent fuel pool, etc. I was ignorant of situation at foreign plants though.

 

[Drakkith]

Dmytry, I never know what to think with your posts lol. One post seems extremely harsh and close minded, and the next is completely different. Or so that's what I'm getting from it. Perhaps it is just me though.

My only issue with you is that you "seem" to ignore any counter arguments to your own point of view. Perhaps it is simply the way your posts are constructed. For example, when I suggested that there could be other important reasons to build the generator building where it is you flat out denied it I believe. Then I suggested some reasons that you wouldn't build a helipad on top of the buildings at a plant. Again you shot down my reasons.

Now, I can't come up with an infinite amount of examples to throw around, so we'll have to make good with generalizations. Do you agree or disagree that there might be some very good reasons for doing things they way they were done? Perhaps those reasons weren't as good as they initially thought, but reasons nonetheless.

 

[Dmytry]

Chernobyl was a design mistake? but Fukushima wasn't? Then what was it?

I'd guess that it was gross negligence. We'll see after they have investigation and trial.

 

[Dmytry]

Dmytry, I never know what to think with your posts lol. One post seems extremely harsh and close minded, and the next is completely different. Or so that's what I'm getting from it. Perhaps it is just me though.

Maybe you just are reading something into any case whenever I am unclear.

My only issue with you is that you "seem" to ignore any counter arguments to your own point of view. Perhaps it is simply the way your posts are constructed. For example, when I suggested that there could be other important reasons to build the generator building where it is you flat out denied it I believe. Then I suggested some reasons that you wouldn't build a helipad on top of the buildings at a plant. Again you shot down my reasons.

Now, I can't come up with an infinite amount of examples to throw around, so we'll have to make good with generalizations. Do you agree or disagree that there might be some very good reasons for doing things they way they were done? Perhaps those reasons weren't as good as they initially thought, but reasons nonetheless.

I agree that there might be some very good reasons. But do you agree or disagree that there may be other reasons for doing things the way they were done - such as saving the money?
It's not about what it might be, it's about what is more probable. I am not their defence attorney, and this is not trial. If I'd make the guess about trial - I'd guess they'd be found guilty of gross negligence for locating the generators and electrical equipment in the basements that are not hardened.
I've been giving too much benefit of the doubt to nuclear energy. Then I see the typical process - look at boral example more closely - something fails in unexpected way, then there's a long worded study convincing oneself it is OK and not a problem. Read that Feynman's report on space shuttle. There was 1/3 erosion of the O-ring. Unexpected erosion. NASA had a study which concluded this is not a threat, and concluded there was a safety factor of 3.

edit: here, read this:
http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/challenger-appendix.html

In spite of these variations from case to case, officials behaved as if they understood it, giving apparently logical arguments to each other often depending on the "success" of previous flights. For example. in determining if flight 51-L was safe to fly in the face of ring erosion in flight 51-C, it was noted that the erosion depth was only one-third of the radius. It had been noted in an experiment cutting the ring that cutting it as deep as one radius was necessary before the ring failed. Instead of being very concerned that variations of poorly understood conditions might reasonably create a deeper erosion this time, it was asserted, there was "a safety factor of three." This is a strange use of the engineer's term ,"safety factor." If a bridge is built to withstand a certain load without the beams permanently deforming, cracking, or breaking, it may be designed for the materials used to actually stand up under three times the load. This "safety factor" is to allow for uncertain excesses of load, or unknown extra loads, or weaknesses in the material that might have unexpected flaws, etc. If now the expected load comes on to the new bridge and a crack appears in a beam, this is a failure of the design. There was no safety factor at all; even though the bridge did not actually collapse because the crack went only one-third of the way through the beam. The O-rings of the Solid Rocket Boosters were not designed to erode. Erosion was a clue that something was wrong. Erosion was not something from which safety can be inferred.

This very much applies to that NRC boral study as well.
I am sure that NASA officials deeply respect the astronauts and do not want to kill any astronauts. Yet, the self deception happens.

NUCENG for example wants to explain my position with paranoia and phobia and communism and god knows what else, and claims that he honestly believes so. Well he may honestly believe so, but it is kind of obvious that the reason he believes so is because he does not like my argument, and he just wants to read some BS into it to make it go away.
edit: quoting from the first page, my second post in this thread:

Ya that is good. If only it was as simple as matter of not being evil. I can trust people not to do things that are extremely obviously evil - but for everything else there is a problem of self deception. If it takes a chain of logic to know that some selfish action is evil - there's very few people, mostly close friends, whom i can trust to do that logic and not do the evil thing.

Hod did it get from that to accusations of paranoia, distrust, and fear, and suggestions i need mental help?! Frankly I think my position is totally reasonable. I don't think you, for example, trust people much more than I do.

edit: for example, those unethical human irradiation / radioactivity experiments. I think at least some(most probably) of those were done by patriots, out to protect the country, in the event of nuclear war. They had deceived themselves into believing that what they were doing was morally acceptable, and that they weren't killing anyone (perhaps with notion that their actions were risk-neutral or something for the victims). That is my stance, I've been making it abundantly clear in this thread. NUCENG does not like this idea, he wants to equate it with idea that everyone is innately evil, and claim I am paranoid, which I would have been if I had idea that everyone is innately evil. But in doing so he's just making an example of self deception / intentional illogic.

 

[AntonL]

Also, can someone do this for me? Give me the 5 top things that caused the incident OTHER than the quake/tsunami and flooding of the generators. I'm talking about mistakes made, bad decisions made, failed equipment, ETC that helped cause this.

I can only think of two managerial mistakes

Mistake 1: Was the tsunami assessment study's http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/presentationdata/3_sessionB/B-11.pdf"

It is assumed that the design tsunami, which is developed in this paper, should have a sufficient height that exceeds the historical tsunami heights. However, the verification of this requirement is not carried out for all Japanese coasts. In principle, the design tsunami should satisfy the following two points in order to confirm its adequacy.
1) At the target site, the height of the design tsunami should exceed all the calculated historical tsunami heights.
2) In the vicinity of the target site, the envelope of the scenario tsunami heights should exceed all the recorded historical tsunami heights (see Figure3-2). “The vicinity of the target site” should be appropriately set taking into account the following three points: the number of run-up heights by the dominant historical tsunami, the distribution of run-up heights by the dominant historical tsunami, and the similarities between submarine topography and coastal landform. Here, the historical tsunamis that have no recorded tsunami run-up heights in the vicinity of the target site can be excluded from consideration

[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/in4bqs.JPG
Do we know historical heights for the area? The Tepco document does not make any references to these!
yes we do: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/27/fukushima-tsunami-plan-japan_n_841222.html

But the authors went on to write that tsunami records before 1896 could be less reliable because of "misreading, misrecording and the low technology available for the measurement itself." The TEPCO employees and their colleagues concluded, "Records that appear unreliable should be excluded."

Mistake 2: By not admitting that NPP could be in danger of being hit by a tsunami using historical run ups, thus no extra precautions were taken and working out various scenarios and how to deal with them.

 

[Drakkith]

But do you agree or disagree that there may be other reasons for doing things the way they were done - such as saving the money?
It's not about what it might be, it's about what is more probable.

Of course I agree that things are the way they are because of saving money! From the most miniscule decision that has no effect on safety to monumental disregards in safety, these things DO happen. That is the nature of business. The key is to recognize when something is legitimately an accident and when it is negligence. Which things are which in the Fukushima incident? I have no idea. That WILL be looked into.

I've been giving too much benefit of the doubt to nuclear energy. Then I see the typical process - look at boral example more closely - something fails in unexpected way, then there's a long worded study convincing oneself it is OK and not a problem.

I looked at that study you linked and I didn't see anywhere where they said it was OK. They identified the problem, proposed solutions, and in the end it said that the situation was resolved. Since I don't know how, I can't say on that. What exactly did you have a problem with in that article?

Read that Feynman's report on space shuttle. There was 1/3 erosion of the O-ring. Unexpected erosion. NASA had a study which concluded this is not a threat, and concluded there was a safety factor of 3

Yes, that was a tragedy. One that did not have to happen. But in almost all cases, nothing bad HAS to happen. It's a simple fact of life that they do though.

NUCENG for example wants to explain my position with paranoia and phobia and communism and god knows what else, and claims that he honestly believes so. Well he may honestly believe so, but it is kind of obvious that the reason he believes so is because he does not like my argument, and he just wants to read some BS into it to make it go away.

Well, you do come off as quite untrusting of MANY people. If I were to sum up your position, I would say that you do not think the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the costs due to inadequate safety procedures and other related things. Is that about right?

 

[Dmytry]

Of course I agree that things are the way they are because of saving money! From the most miniscule decision that has no effect on safety to monumental disregards in safety, these things DO happen. That is the nature of business. The key is to recognize when something is legitimately an accident and when it is negligence. Which things are which in the Fukushima incident? I have no idea. That WILL be looked into.

Well, you can read about TEPCO's standards in the past. Covering up core shroud cracks lol, literally.

I looked at that study you linked and I didn't see anywhere where they said it was OK. They identified the problem, proposed solutions, and in the end it said that the situation was resolved. Since I don't know how, I can't say on that. What exactly did you have a problem with in that article?

The situation was resolved on paper. Pretty much the same way as o-ring erosion was 'resolved' by NASA before Challenger.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0933/sec3/196.html
Furthermore, the behaviour of boral in the event of loss of coolant was not ever addressed.

Yes, that was a tragedy. One that did not have to happen. But in almost all cases, nothing bad HAS to happen. It's a simple fact of life that they do though.

I am referring to it as example of this sort of fault. Feynman explains why it is wrong much better than I can.

Well, you do come off as quite untrusting of MANY people. If I were to sum up your position, I would say that you do not think the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the costs due to inadequate safety procedures and other related things. Is that about right?

Well, it would be more like - I am not sure benefits outweight the costs. And I strongly disagree with those who are absolutely sure that benefits outweight the costs.
The problem with natural disasters is... that is plant failure when you are least ready to handle it. That's simultaneous plant failure. It is OK (bad but doesn't kill a lot of people) when you make 25..30% of electrical power with nuclear. It is not OK when you are approaching 80%. Simultaneous failures are very bad.

 

[Drakkith]

Well, you can read about TEPCO's standards in the past. Covering up core shroud cracks lol, literally.

Bleh. Thats no good.

The situation was resolved on paper. Pretty much the same way as o-ring erosion was 'resolved' by NASA before Challenger.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0933/sec3/196.html
Furthermore, the behaviour of boral in the event of loss of coolant was not ever addressed.

I am referring to it as example of this sort of fault. Feynman explains why it is wrong much better than I can.

Yes, I've read that already. Again, I don't see anywhere saying HOW it was resolved, so how can we talk about it if we don't know. I'm not getting from the article that they just said it was good and continued on, so if that is what they did then that's not a good thing.

Well, it would be more like - I am not sure benefits outweight the costs. And I strongly disagree with those who are absolutely sure that benefits outweight the costs.
The problem with natural disasters is... that is plant failure when you are least ready to handle it. That's simultaneous plant failure. It is OK when you make 25..30% of electrical power with nuclear. It is not ok when you are approaching 80%. Simultaneous failures are very bad.

But WHY do you disagree? What basis does your position come from? Other than your mistrust of course. Everything I have ever read points to FAR more injuries and deaths from every other form of power production we currently have. Do you disagree with that? Or are you saying that the POTENTIAL dangers outweigh the benefits? For me personally, if the data shows that nuclear power has caused few injuries and deaths, AND harmed the environment less, then why wouldn't I want us to use it?

Of course, all that is with the understanding that it CONTINUES to cause the least amount of harm overall.