[dayglored]

> The problem was the tsunami swamping the diesel generators and batteries and shorting everything out. No one thought of that.......

I'll bet they thought of it. But the cost of making power plants on a coast "tsunami-proof" is astronomical. It would have prevented their construction in the first place, on economic grounds.

My guess is they just said, ignore the threat. And for 40 years they were right....

[jda]

When it comes to designing critical systems, ignoring the threat is not an option. These plants were designed for an 8.2 earthquake based on historical records plus a factor of safety - they experienced an 8.9 (5 times greater). These plants were designed for a given wave height based on historical data plus a factor of safety - they experienced greater than expected wave height.

All of the safety systems and redundancies did what they were supposed to do. From what I read, the failure was in the fact that backup generators, which were brought in to replace those destroyed by the tsunami, did not have the right connections - a human failure, not a descision to ignore the threat.

[tcrlaf]

No, they DID plan for tsunami’s, but not the 500-year ones. and you can clearly see the tsunami wall in the pictures of the plant.

It’s like living in a 500 year flood plain. Yeah, you COULD get flooded, but do you spend the money to insure against an event quite unlikely to happen in your, or anyone you know that is cuurently alive’s lifetime?