Replies

When you build a coastal nuclear power plant, facing the most violent earthquake fault in the world, it seems reasonable that a tsunami over 7 meters is likely within the life expectancy of the power plant.

Here's the bottom line, this is not Armageddon. We, collectively, need to accept the safety hazard of nuclear power. Far more have been killed by being hit by spinning wind power turbines.

This is news, and people might die, but compared to the thousands of bodies washing up on the shore, it's nothing.

We need nuke power, ASAP.

I don’t understand why they don’t have plumbing to vent the reactors outside the outer building walls...

With a simple pipe the hydrogen gas/steam could harmlessly be vented to outside the structure and remove the risk of explosion...

Seems very odd...

Here's the bottom line, this is not Armageddon. We, collectively, need to accept the safety hazard of nuclear power. Far more have been killed by being hit by spinning wind power turbines.
This is news, and people might die, but compared to the thousands of bodies washing up on the shore, it's nothing.

We need nuke power, ASAP.

I couldn't agree more.

I slightly disagree about the 7 meter wave assumption. It is obvious now, but obviously is wasn't obvious at the time of construction. They typically look at the records for these type of projects and attempt to build it better than what has been experienced before. In this way, they get a low probability of a greater occurrence in the lifetime of the plant. Think 100 year and 1000 year flood plains (which seem to flood that high almost every year now!)

These days, they take it a step further and use risk analysis to randomly run hundreds of scenarios and predict probabilities of worse events than what is likely. But even then, there is still a chance because it can never reach zero. Because it is never zero, there is still a chance. If that chance happens, then everyone says it is obvious it would have happened which isn't the case at all.