If you really want me to comment on multiple articles, you will have to understand that I can’t possibly be certain that I have actually read every posted or linked article you have put in one of your posts or comments. If you gave some sort of reference to the details of these articles, I might remember whether I read them. If you actually provided a link, I could simply refer to them and provide a response.
But I am at a loss as to how to respond to a comment such as “there is an article about the debacle over opening the vents”. Am I expected to type “debacle vents” in Google, and read every article, hoping to find out what you are refering to?
Or am I supposed to do a word search on freerepublic for “RummyChick physics forum protocol” and hope that I stumble across the post you made from the physics forum about protocol?
And when you say “do you just think he doesn’t know what he is talking about and is lying about his experience”, am I supposed to search on “he” and hope that I can figure out who this “he” is, since my post didn’t mention a person, and I traced back this particular thread of comments and can’t find any reference to a name of a person.
I don’t mind looking at more information, and having my horizons broadened, but please at least give me a little clue as to what I’m looking for.
I also can’t find a schematic of the facility (I understand that there are some security issues for nuclear power plants so they don’t like detailed location information posted on the net), so I don’t know how I could possibly give you the exact location of “the diesel generator”.
Maybe it’s a trick question? I’ve read a couple of articles that say each reactor had multiple diesel generators for various tasks; there was an initial report that the diesel generators were all near the water, but later that was amended to say that the fuel tanks were near the water.
In another thread there was discussion that the generators were in basements that got flooded, but I don’t know if there was any confirmation.
Still, like all your other comments, without context I have no real clue why you are asking the question, or how I am supposed to go find what it is you must be alluding to.
I have posted this before. I am not going to go track down this information again.
Here is the info on the vent debacle.
Now you know it.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110411004567.htm
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110412006319.htm
Here is the bottom line.
The Chairman and CEO of TEPCO knew there was a devasting earthquake and warning of a tsunami..OR THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN.
It was all over the news with helicopter shots.
They knew or should have known there would be issues getting generators to that site.
All they had to do was what the engineer of the power part of this design at GE suggested.
AIRLIFT the generators.
That was a call to be made by the Japanese Government and TEPCO. A plant supervisor would not be authorized to make that call.
IIRC, there is a system put in place by their laws where Kan was suppose to take control
Not sure exactly when it was suppose to go into effect.
So why didn’t they airlift those generators???
COST???????????????
There have been stories that TEPCO didn’t start with the sea water right away because they were worried about damaging the plant. It didn’t start until the Chairman got back to Japan.
Then why not airlift the generators???
This has been one big disaster of bad move after bad move after bad move...that is in line with the history of TEPCO.