It certainly should have been for Japan.
But the point is that if a single system fails (for whatever cause)
it shouldn't lead to buildings blowing up. The hydrogen venting for GE
Mark 1's is dependent on other systems (such as it is). There are too
many co-dependent safety systems. Those should have been addressed. They
have been addressed in other designs and in some Mark 1 mods.
No place is perfectly safe:
New Madrid quakes of 1811, 12:
Reactors should be designed to withstand the unexpected without
cascading out of control. Less co-dependent safety systems, large enough
battery backups and on all critical systems. Note that there appears to
have been no battery backup power for reactor monitors at Fukushima. As
of a few days ago these were still down.
(scroll down to the control room pics at bottom)
At present I don't see where the NRC has failed to address this in
this country. But it needs a thorough review (which it appears to be
getting), the stakes are too high. It may be that some Mark 1's will
need to have their licenses lapse. It may be that other changes be
mandated for other designs.
Make no mistake, what is happening in Fukushima is nothing less than
a cluster fuck. It will set that countries recovery time back. It has
taken a substantial amount of agriculture off the market and is blocking
main coastal roads to the main tsunami/earthquake zone which lies much
further north. This will be vastly time consuming and expensive to clean
Here we go again. The information coming out of Japan has been
at best and frequently wrong. Yet our resident armchair nulcear
exactly what happened. Obviously totally ignorant and biased. Any
reasonable person knows that only after a full investigation by
will we know what happened, what the sequence of events were, and
what went wrong.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with what happens after a commercial
crashes that we've all seen repeated dozens of times. Usually there
all kinds of information flowing around in the days after the crash.
on the ground that say they saw smoke coming from the plane before
it went down. Witnesses saying they heard the sound of engines.
saying they didn't. People who say they saw plane parts falling off
it crashed. Yet, it's funny how so much of that turns out to be just
WRONG and only after the official NTSB investigation do we learn the
real story of what happened, which many times turns out to be
different than what could be inferred from reports and guesses in the
But your way would be simpler. For example, instead of still spending
millions looking for the black boxes from the Air France Airbus that
down in the ocean off Brazil two years ago, we could just use what we
already have and tell everyone what happened. Thankfully, there are
people that don't want to do that and make total asses out of
in the process.
PS: Don't bother with some more links to crap about the reactor
Per the above scenario, that makes about as much sense as starting
to bitch about how some part of the Airbus was or wasn't designed and
laying blame on it, BEFORE knowing the real facts.
On 4/3/2011 9:14 AM, email@example.com wrote:
And you aren't?
I never said there wouldn't be, or shouldn't be.
And you have yet to disprove anything I've said. Or even attempt to do
anything but shoot the messenger.
Why is your reasoning limited to that?
I've found a few tidbits here and there I haven't posted because of a
lack of interest. Did you know that the spent fuel pools have a side
door(s) sealed with an inflatable seal? Or that the control rods which
come from under the reactor are sealed with graphite plugs?
There, more information than you are comfortable dealing with.
I have a great deal of respect for Thomas Edison's company, always
have. They completely changed the design in the Mark 2.
Now, pop away with your insults. It does make you feel better.
I don't think it even matters what went wrong.
Things will always go wrong.
What matters is the result of things going wrong.
That's why the nuke industry has big problems.
I've already said this, but my idea for nuke salvation is not
trying to make it impossibly perfect so that nothing goes wrong, but
to design the systems so it's not a huge disaster when things do go
The policy should be to add a "contain and abandon" strategy to the
current safety regimen.
A rough analogy is car airbags.
Car is totaled and abandoned, but nobody got killed.
Airbags add expense, and don't always work.
Doesn't keep many parents from making sure their kids' cars are airbag
Similarly, the NIMBY sector has to be sold on safety.
The nuclear power industry has to be able to say with conviction that
when things go wrong "We can lock it up if it melts down, and leave
it. Some "minor" venting, but no lasting harm done."
There's 2 reactors on Hutchinson Island in Florida.
Waiting for the right hurricane and surge.
Or maybe a tidal wave when that Canary island breaks in half.
I have a strong feeling that if the Japan disaster had happened before
they built those reactors, their construction wouldn't have been
I still support nuke power, but unless they make radiation containment
changes, I'm now a NIMBY.
The Japan disaster is pretty much a "worst case" scenario.
Maybe 6 reactors melting, all in one place.
Maybe multiple spent rod pools also melting their rods.
What transpires there in the coming months/years will hugely
affect the future of nuke energy.
If there's permanent contamination of hundreds of square miles, nobody
will listen to nuke advocate claims of safety and "can't happen here."
They'll need a different safety strategy. Containment.
That can sell.
It's hard to argue with this. Spraying sticky "glue" and pumping in
pampers mixed with sawdust and newsprint shouldn't be the containment
strategy. And yet it is. The tsunami will get cleaned up, although a lot
slower because of this, but this will linger for decades.
To think about having a 20 mile exclusion zone around almost any of
the reactors in the US, and some in particular, is almost unthinkable.
Someone here in another thread was talking about the biannual hundred
year floods. The right storm combination seems more and more likely.
but unless they make radiation containment
It's turning into a large back yard. 45 miles out from Fukushima Daiichi
radiation exceeds the Chernoble exclusion standard.
Tepco is now worth less than what the likely cost of cleanup will be.
This likely will be huge setback, with entire countries backing off.
We'll see. The enormous costs of cleaning up something like Fukushima,
and knowing that the utility won't bear anything like the full cost
argues strongly against nukes. Already to build new nukes here requires
Chernobyl wasn't located near the ocean. If it had been, things there would
have been far, far worse.
Nuclear power certainly took a big hit in Japan and that will make siting
any new reactors very, very hard because of the number of people who will
come out to hearing to fight it. Is it a lethal blow? Probably not but it
may be a wake-up call that we need to set pretty seriously high standards
for reactors whose location could poison large amount of land or water or
that are built in known disaster-prone areas.
A lot of this discussion about siting, etc., is related to what I
call the fallacy of the 100 year flood. You set out a line based on the
last 100 years, then a couple of years later there is a higher flood and
you have to reset the line. I think a lot of the siting and other
issues (outside of the technical concerns discussed by others) were
based on what they thought were good decisions at the times. This was
the fourth largest recorded earthquake. From now on out, this will be
the new baseline.
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
That's right, I'm not the one jumping to conclusions, conjuring up
of crap off the internet as if it had direct bearing on the nuclear
telling people the specifics of how the reactors didn't shudown
Every nuclear "expert" I've seen in the mainstream media freely admits
that we really don't know much about the exact sequence of events.
on the other are a real sexual intellectual, if a f**g know it all.
I can take you back to a post where you implied that.
My reasoning was laid out for you in my post above, which you edited
because you prefer it disapper.
It goes like this. Reasonable, intelligent people know that just
like with an aircraft accident investigation, it takes a long process
year or more before experts can figure out what happened. But, the
sentence exclude people like you, ie armchair experts that know what
happened right here and now. You focus on some eyewitness reports
that claim the engines were on fire. Then you go find some crap on
the internet from some hippy disgruntled employee that quit 30 yea
ago and try desperately; to tie that back in to the accident.
Why the hell would I or anyone else here care? Until we have expert
analysis of what went wrong, the exact sequence of events, it matters
not a wit.
Who the hell cares. Intel has completely changed the design of the
generation of processors from the 8088. Does that make them bad or
On 4/3/2011 8:03 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I posted bits from the NRC among others. I let you draw your own
I said no such things.
But, clearly they have not shut down properly.
Then you need to stop getting all your news from television.
You read a lot in that only exists in your mind.
It was completely irrelevant. Nukes != Airlines.
A million widely scattered bits of airplane parts blown to hell is not
easy to put together. Reactors != Airplanes.
In fact there is a lot that can be told just by what nucleids are being
formed, it's an ongoing story. It's rather well documented. It's all
rather well documented. A little hard to find, but it's there.
Everything from the Tepco bulletins on out. Not by some talking head on
TV, but online. It's the new age of information.
I mentioned no such thing.
Then you go find some crap on
Complete nonsense on your part.
You only seem to care about killing the spread of information. Why is that?
Until we have expert
The sequence of events is a cluster fuck. The fallback safety system is
spraying sea water in the fire extinguisher lines. That is absurd. Tepco
is trying to hire "runners" for $5k/day to run into a highly radioactive
environment and do a small job. 4 weeks out they haven't been able to
restart either cooling system. The number 4 spent fuel pool is obviously
Anyone with a Mark 1 reactor that hasn't been updated should. Germany
has or is taking theirs offline.
Intel has completely changed the design of the
It's not that the technology is so much better it's that lessons have
been learned. From your own stupid example, would you want to fly on a
An analogy is exactly that, an analogy. Of course they aren't exactly
the same, but speculating on the sequence of events, what went
wrong, etc is equally foolish until there is an actual investigation.
And so far, from everything I've seen, the investigation hasn't even
started. With an airline crash, NTSB is typically
on site within hours and has access to much of the wreckage
within a day or two. Can you do that with the Japanese nukes?
Yeah, they may not be airplane parts, blown to hell, but they
are highly readioactive reactors and at least one building blown
to hell that apparenlty only your fertile imagination has good
Yeah, Tepco has been a real wealth of accurate information.
You've done that right from the start. Take fragments of information
try to draw conclusions. Exactly like making an ass of yourself by
speculating on what brought an airliner down before there is an
investigation. It could very well turn out that the key intiating
was that the diesel generators were not protected from the sunami.
And that reactors built 20 years ago, or even last week, have
the exact same easily corrected faults that have nothing to do
with the reactor core and/or GE.
That of course doesn't answer the question. It's like posting "Did
that the fuel line in the Airbus 340 crash was made from nylon?" Then
turns out when the investigation is done it turns out the real failure
was a structural failure. But by then the armchair experts like you
long gone, on to their next "fact" finding mission.
So is your mind.
What would you suggest to cool down the reactors and fuel pools?
Piss on them?
Sounds like a practical solution given the problem. Radiation is at
a certain level allowing a reasonable exposure safety level giving
say an hour of work in the area. So, they hire guys willing to do
$5K a day. They pay them to do it for X days, whatever is within
some safety margin and the workers are willing to do it.
Would you like it better if they paid them $20K a day or $8 a day?
Or should they just let the whole thing degenerate and spew
more radiation so you can bitch and moan more?
You, being the armchair expert, of course, would have the whole
thing fixed by now. Why, it would be back online and generating
power by now.
I live 30 miles from one. Do you? I'm not bitching. No one who
here that I know of is bitching. So, why are you?
Let's compare apples to oranges, OK? The Fukushima plants are 40
years old. Would I fly on a plane from the 70s that was well
and within it's service limits? Yes. Hell, I'd happily take a ride
that Wright Flyer, if offered.
On 4/4/2011 9:35 AM, email@example.com wrote:
They aren't even remotely the same. The analogy was yours to make your
You keep saying me, like I'm making this stuff up. I'm not making
anything up. It's all documented and has multiple sources. Nothing
fertile or imaginative about it. You use those words only to denigrate
One source out of many. But they tell you day by day what they are
doing, I doubt they are lying.
But you keep going back to the same arguments which is shoot the
messenger. Everything you don't like is because you don't like the
messenger. Do you screen everything in your life that way?
I mentioned no airliner.
And the #1 reactor did not need a diesel generator for backup cooling.
It had a passive condensor loop. It was a BWR3 design unlike the rest,
and yet it was the first to fail. In fact they brought in backup
batteries and generators for the others and they failed.
Different designs. The Mark 1 is too clever by half. It can be improved
and there are doubts in my mind whether all the NRC mods were done at
Fukushima, after all, that is not in the US. But it is still too clever
by half. Too clever is not an uncommon American fault.
What is with you and airlines? I've never speculated on any airline
crash and they are so completely different as to defy analogy.
I made no suggestions. It should be apparent that they are in completely
ad hoc mode. They are clearly behind the curve and grasping.
The price is an indication of desperation and the extent to which they
have to go through.
I never suggested anything like that. You are in full Straw man mode,
where you are taking all these ridiculous assumptions and assigning them
to me. It's bullshit, and it is your made up bullshit.
Another bit of strawman nonsense. I have not once posted anything to
suggest that I have answers to fixing it.
But you suggest that so you can say how ridiculous that is. Sell your
load of horse manure to someone else.
You are more offended by perceived arm chair experts. Why is that?
No one who
And that is relevant to exactly what?
B52's still fly, but they are completely rebuilt.
Yes. Hell, I'd happily take a ride
A very dangerous proposition, in it's day all the early flyers were
hazardous and had more that their share of deaths. Orville escaped when
his passenger was killed and that was the improved model.
A nuclear reactor is not a plane.
Another strawman. Nothing could be further from the truth. You are the
one with a fertile visceral imagination.
A nuclear reactor should not have to rely on a single backup diesel
generator to keep from being turned into a smoking pile of rubble. That
is a design flaw. A nuclear reactor should not have it's spent fuel pool
in such a location as to be easily damaged and exposed, covered by
little more than a sheet metal roof. Too clever by half.
Not only that, but the materials are a century old. Bad things happen to
stress-bearing materials if they aren't stored just right. The Flyer was
made of "big spruce" and over time, original parts were loaned and never
returned. It was restored in 1985, which is expected to last 75 years, but
that's restoration to museum quality and not necessarily flight readiness.
No, but they have a remarkable similarity. They are man-made objects that
have caused some of the most spectacular disasters in human history. Both
are the object of intense scrutiny by the public when there is a disaster.
You can no more stop that process than you can stop Charlie Sheen's Ego,
interest in Michael Jackson's death or Lindsay Lohan's probation. (-:
The question seems to be "is it legitimate to "armchair analyze" either type
The answer is of course "yes." It's never a bad thing to analyze what it
known AND unknown about a disaster serious enough to kill hundreds or
thousands of people in a single incident. People learn by discussing things
and trying to determine what needs to change to insure a better, safer
world. Even if it's to make sure that if there's an Airbus crash that you
select other types of plane when traveling. The French have filed
preliminary manslaughter charges agains Airbus and Air France:
"Searchers are carrying out a fourth effort to find wreckage of the plane -
and especially its flight recorders - in hopes of determining the cause of
the crash, which has taken on a new urgency after a French judge filed
preliminary manslaughter charges last month against Air France and the plane
's maker, Airbus. Experts say that without the flight data and voice
recorders the authorities would be unlikely to determine the cause."
So, what are we to do if the black box is never found? Stop asking
questions why the Airbus crashed the strange way that it did? The question
will center on how long Airbus took to decide that it's pitot tube air speed
sensor design was prone to icing up. I saw a mockup by air accident experts
on Nova that showed all the confusing error messages that are delivered when
a basic sensor like the pitot tube fails. Anyone who's seen a Windows
machine freeze knows that error messages can be quite obtuse and even
misleading. "Your most recent data will be lost" OK? NO, NOT OKAY!
There is one segment of society that generally does *not* benefit from
monday morning quarterbacking, and that's people who own stock in a company
like GE, whose liability may or may not affect its bottom line. Whenever
there's a general "talking smack" about a company on the net or in the
papers, that company's stock drops. For the faithful, it's just an
opportunity to buy more shares, cheap. For the worried, it could be a
significant loss of wealth as they fear a much further drop if they don't
sell. When they sell, the price drops even more and a run can start.
There were apparently quite serious problems at multiple levels in Japan.
Watching them trying to fix a high pressure radioactive leak from the
outside makes me want to scream "haven't you guys ever fixed a leaky tank,
tire or basement?" Gotta do it from the *inside* if you want it to hold.
Someone should have thought about what happens when a containment vessel
cracks and what sort of boat and paddle would get you out of Shitz Creek.
What happens if a jetliner full of fuel hits one of these things? Will it
burn like the WTC, heating the vessel until it fails?
The accident in Japan certainly soured me on nuke power. It's clear that
they don't have the waste issue under control - open pools, tin roofs? WTF?
It's clear they are not equal to the greatest blow the Earth can hand out.
The containment vessel crack was in all probability a result of the quake.
So even without the tsunami, there has been serious trouble. That means
redesign. Prolonged discussion needs to precede redesign so that all the
potential problems are addressed. It's becoming clear that *lack* of
thorough discussion contributed to designers overlooking the potential
All I can say is "sorry for your loss" to the people who own GE stock or who
work(ed) for them. The bottom line is "everybody gets their turn in the
barrel." Today, it's GE.
I, of course, agree. I'm rather appalled that anyone would try to
As it turns out the "diaper" mix never got in the water flow.
I don't know what simulations have been done, but this is a concrete
structure with a "tin" roof. Anything that would cause the fuel rods to
be uncovered would result in a fire in the zirconium coating, followed
by massive spewing of radioactive smoke. That is why they were so
desperate to pump water in. Since reactor 4 was in cold shut down, it
would appear that the damage to it's spent fuel pool was caused by the
*adjacent* building blowing it's top off. A dedicated terrorist could do
a lot worse.
They were obviously designed in a different world. The Mark 1 was
designed more for convenience (and lower expense) than anything else.
Too clever by half.
Possibly, the early containments aren't rated for the g forces that
transpired. It would seem more likely any problems would be at one of
the many holes in the structure that plumbing runs through. There is a
lot of plumbing damage from the quake. Another issue is that these were
designed to come apart. This probably is not a crack per say in the
pressure vessel. Doubtless there are cracks galore elsewhere.
It's fairly clear that the Mark 1 does not recover gracefully. The
nearby Fukushima II also suffered from a tsunami wave more than twice
the height of it's sea wall which knocked out it's pump rooms. That
These reactors have to be able to absorb worst case scenarios because
the worst case is vast areas of earth scorched for a very long time.
There is much in the news of the lingering fallout from Chernoble. Not
only is a large around Chernoble uninhabitable, but wild boar in Germany
are often too radioactive to eat. Even as far as Scotland the sheep
"farmers" are just now all getting the clearance to sell.
l I can say is "sorry for your loss" to the people who own GE stock or who
GE is pretty much off the hook for damages. This will likely kill
reactor sales, but gas turbine sales will increase. And you know who
makes those! If I still held GE I wouldn't sell, but I've thought that
before and been wrong!
Otherwise, like the losses in our own financial sector, it is the
public that bears the much of the costs, not the corporate holders.
There is something fundamentally wrong where large profits are made and
when the risk catches up, their losses are absorbed by the public.
One more bit. Neither were the diesel generators at the nearby Fukushima
Daiini adequately protected from a tsunami. Tepco estimates the wave was
more than twice the height of the wall. That took out the cooling pump
rooms for all but the #3 reactor.
Very similar circumstances as at Daiichi. No smoking ruins. Daiini
(number 2) was built later and uses the Mark 2 containment (also
stressed to higher G's).
Something for you *not* to think about. You seem to only like
analogies to airplanes rather than to something relevant.
Even that may not be free much longer when strapped local governments decide
you have to buy a permit to hold a yard sale. I'll bet, somewhere, some
government already does. Or bans them altogether.
There are plenty of places that require some sort of permit for a garage
sale. Chicago, San Antonio, Burbank, to name but a few. I vaguely
remember something about an article a year or two ago that mentioned
some state was sending sales tax enforcement officers around to garage
sales to make sure that is taken care of.
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
Not surprising. We didn't dodge the meltdown. As James Cain so eloquently
put it: "The Postman *Always* Rings Twice." There's been an incredible
shift in the nature of business with the advent of the internet. Brick and
mortar stores that pay enormous amounts of sales tax have been replaced by
Amazon and Ebay that don't pay those taxes. Ebay is home to thousands of
Chinese vendors who pay no taxes and mark their items as "gifts" to avoid
import duties. All these small revenue losses add up, and those who avoid
paying taxes are forcing their share of the burden onto others. The effects
of the internet are just too colossal to capture in a single message.
So as traditional revenue streams dry up, tax collectors are going to just
go after new sources. The garage sale, the cookie sale, the lemonade stand,
etc. You're clearly astute enough to know what a disaster is looming with
unfunded or underfunded state and local pension and health plans. I believe
it's going to make the SSA's problems look simple and manageable by
comparison. A cold rain's a comin' and it's coming fast. States in my area
have been raising every fee they can think of to raise money and they are
looking to raise them higher and create new and different fees. I was
surprised that California didn't legalize pot so it could tax it. It was a
close vote and as the older voters die out, I expect it will pass in the
near future. They need the money too badly.
No business pays a "sales tax" on merchandise they sell. The tax is a tax on
the consumer, not the business.
You're right about the unfunded liabilities. What we need is federal
oversight of these liabilities.
The way it works is thusly: A government body implements an employee benefit
(pension, health care, etc.). Actuaries determine the amount the
governmental entity needs to set aside each year to keep the program solvent
in perpetuity. When it comes time to fork over the money to the retirement
system, the government entity sometimes says "We need that money for parks
and free ice cream for the children this year. We'll catch up next year."
But they don't. Catch up, that is.
As sometimes happens, like in Orange County, the funds in the benefit
account are unwisely invested. And lost.
I don't think even the SSA problem's are simple and manageable.
Pretty much every extra penny that has been collected in SS taxes since
the early 80s has gone into Non-Marketable treasury securities. But
there was never any income stream identified to repay the interest let
alone the principle. (Just for grins I figured it up in 2000 that one
dollar I put into the till will be just under $2.50 by the time I start
taking it out).
So while the Trustees note that (if you include the securities) SS
won't go bankrupt until the mid 2050s or so, they sorta ignore where the
money will come from once the taxes coming in no longer equal those
going out. (WHich the CBO says could start as early as this year).
Moodys has said they expect the government to eventually default on
Actually any of the possibilities (corp. SS, state) alone would be
daunting, all three together are down right scary.
And, like a lot of other things like healthcare, energy policy, etc,
it could have been rationally attacked in the 60s, 70s, and 80s but the
Congress punted. A lot like they are doing now.
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.