Shouldn't we disable Nuclear Reactors in California?

[nikkkom]

Again with the nonsense. Blayais mitigated their event and issued lessons learned. You assume nobody else did anything in response with no evidence to support your claim.

I have reasons to assume that some operators indeed did not do enough, because I see that 12 years after Blayais NPPs are still not adequately protected. It's an empirical fact. I'm not dreaming it up, there REALLY are three melted nuclear cores on the coast of Japan, right?

Some NPP operators showed Blayais "lessons learned" where sun doesn't shine.

 

[clancy688]

Actually the 2011 tsunami of 14+ m was an 800 to 1100 year event per the following:

http://coastalcare.org/2011/03/nuclear-plant-and-tsunami-risk-3000-years-of-geological-history-disregarded/

The seawall design basis event of 5.7 m turns out to be about a 100 year event.

It may be a thousand year event for the Fukushima Daiichi location, but it certainly is not one if we take whole japan into consideration.

While certain spots along the coast seem to attract giant tsunamis (let's take the village of Taro for example), it's not the case for the coast as a whole.
To summarize: Yes, it's true that a tsunami as high as in Fukushima may have been a thousand year event for THAT specific location. But giant tsunamis hit the japanese coast not every thousand years, but every few decades, as history proves.

Let's make a little made up math example:

Nuclear power plants run for, let's say, 50 years. The Fuku I Unit 1 reactor was 40 years old and should've been in service for another 10 years.
So the possibility that a thousand year event (tsunami) hits a plant during its lifetime is 1/20. But we don't have only one plant. Let's say we have ten along the coast. For every plant, the possibility to be hit by a thousand year tsunami during its lifetime is 1/20.
So overall, the possibility that ONE of these ten plants is hit by a thousand year event during its lifetime is 50%.

Conclusion: We absolutely HAVE TO secure plants against thousand year and even ten thousand year events. The more plants there are, the higher the possibility for one is to get "lucky". The german Biblis plant for example is secured against a flood two meters higher than a once in ten thousand years event.

A big german (conservative btw) newspaper made a little comparison between NPPs and the lottery:

Operating NPPs is like playing the lottery: The overall chances for "success" (a disaster) are very, very low. But the more players there are, the higher the possibility is for at least one to get "lucky".

 

[NUCENG]

I have reasons to assume that some operators indeed did not do enough, because I see that 12 years after Blayais NPPs are still not adequately protected. It's an empirical fact. I'm not dreaming it up, there REALLY are three melted nuclear cores on the coast of Japan, right?

Some NPP operators showed Blayais "lessons learned" where sun doesn't shine.

What do you base that on? You keep making that claim and I agree it does apply to Japan. But you state again, "NPPs are still not adequately protected. It's an empirical fact. I'm not dreaming it up, there REALLY are three melted nuclear cores on the coast of Japan, right?
Some NPP operators showed Blayais "lessons learned" where sun doesn't shine."

So what other NPPs are not protected. What operators did not pay heed to Blayais and other past flooding events. Tell us about those empirical facts. Tell us about your background or experience that would make your opinion worth listening to.

There are plenty of blogs and forums where you can rant and rave and everyone will agree with you. Yhere "LOL" or "IMO" constitutes a valuable contribution. Here the standard is higher. Here you are expected to contribute or at least be committed to learn. Repetition is not proof, opinion is not fact, unfounded claims are not arguments, and stubbornness is not logic. Apparently you have nothing more to offer. People here reached the conclusion that TEPCO was negligent several months ago. You aren't adding anything to that discussion and by trying to generalize the problem to the rest of the world with no arguments or foundation, you only look silly.

 

[nikkkom]

What do you base that on? You keep making that claim and I agree it does apply to Japan. But you state again, "NPPs are still not adequately protected. It's an empirical fact. I'm not dreaming it up, there REALLY are three melted nuclear cores on the coast of Japan, right?
Some NPP operators showed Blayais "lessons learned" where sun doesn't shine."

So what other NPPs are not protected. What operators did not pay heed to Blayais and other past flooding events.

We will know when the next flood / tsunami / earthquake hits. Or when press will uncover more cases of fudged inspections and the like.

 

[clancy688]

What do you base that on?

We will know when the next flood / tsunami / earthquake hits. Or when press will uncover more cases of fudged inspections and the like.

A simple "Nothing but my instinct" would've been enough, you know?

 

[Borek]

Locked pending moderation.

Edit: most of the posts in the last two weeks were off topic (including those deleted). That means the thread has ran its course. Locked for ever.