Replies

The situation in Japan was based on worst case scenario being trumped by an even worse case that nobody could have for-seen scenario. All of their emergency systems worked as expected, until they were submerged under seawater. The plants were designed for a 50 year event, and were damaged by a 100 year event. It sucks that it happened, but it has been learning experience for the NRC, and the power companies. Fermi II south of Detroit is of the same GE design and manufacture as the reactors at Fukashima. Should we shut that plant down because of this? No, you wouldn't because the geography and risks involved are very different.

The situation in Japan was based on worst case scenario being trumped by an even worse case that nobody could have foreseen scenario. All of their emergency systems worked as expected, until they were submerged under seawater. The plants were designed for a 50 year event, and were damaged by a 100 year event.

I stand by my statement of "piss poor design," for that particular location. There are historical records of Tsunamis of this magnitude hitting that area of Japan.

The life span of a reactor is normally 30 to 40 years until decommissioning. That makes it about 60 to 80 percent probability of experiencing a 50 year event. It makes it a 30 to 40 percent probability of of experiencing a 100 year event for which it IS NOT DESIGNED TO SAFELY ENDURE That was piss poor engineering. I sure as hell would not get on an airplane if it had a 30 or 40 percent chance of crashing.

The design of that plant would be perfectly acceptable in other areas that are not subject to massive earthquakes and or Tsunamis.

The part that really makes me angry is this has probably killed off New Nuclear Power plants in the United States. I am a very active proponent of Nuclear Power. The disaster in Japan did not need to happen.