Fukushima - Hackdot

Re:Fukushima by speleding on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @09:43AM (#10258455)

Are you really not sensing an anti-nuclear sentiment? For example, take this paragraph where he talks about Chernobyl?

"Silence, lack of cries, laughter, tears and only the wind answers... Have we learnt anything since then?"

I would say the framing of that question makes his stance pretty clear.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fukushima by jscheel on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @10:32AM (#10258793)

I felt a bit of that sentiment, but it didn't seem ham-handed. If you are interested in reading about nuclear accidents and the things we can learn from them, I highly suggest Atomic Accidents by James Mahaffey (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20820098-atomic-accident...). He's pro-nuclear, but acknowledges that there are still things to learn about safe containment. His focus is mainly, and rightly, on the unrelenting power of steam, and how a reactor going prompt critical can tear down even the strongest safety mechanisms when it causes a huge spike in pressure.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fukushima by jahewson on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @12:31PM (#10259682)

Is "ham-handed" a cross between being "heavy-handed" and "ham-fisted"? :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fukushima by lotharbot on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @04:01PM (#10261265)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ham-handed

it means the same thing as ham-fisted, more or less.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fukushima by josh2600 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @10:19AM (#10258707)

I don't know if I agree with you.

For example, it's entirely possible he's talking about not building active reactors in lieu of passive ones...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fukushima by elektromekatron on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @12:10PM (#10259518)

He also says - "The disaster could have been forseen and prevented. As in the Chernobyl case, it was a human, not technology, that was mainly responsible for the disaster."

I'd say his stance is pretty nuanced and more to do with the care taken by people when designing and operating nuclear technology than being anti nuclear technology.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fukushima by pdeuchler on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @02:26PM (#10260565)

Except that excerpt is ridiculous, looking for an emotional hook where one doesn't exist. Humans were not responsible, a major earthquake and tsunami were responsible. Few structures of any kind would stand up to that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fukushima by sosborn on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @03:16PM (#10260925)

> Humans were not responsible

Well, yes and no:

"TEPCO, that operated the station, had been warned their seawall was insufficient to withstand a powerful tsunami, but the seawall height was not raised in response." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Powe...

I agree with your general sentiment, but I would say that humans are the biggest threat in nuclear power.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fukushima by elektromekatron on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @02:33PM (#10260615)

The structure stood up fine, we know how to build for that, it was the placement of the air fed diesel generators in a floodable basement that screwed Fukashima.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fukushima by pdeuchler on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @02:43PM (#10260692)

Structure was probably the wrong word, I meant more the plant as a whole. I think my point still remains... it would be a very rare structure that wouldn't have a design flaw exposed by such a large earthquake/tsunami one-two punch.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fukushima by elektromekatron on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @04:02PM (#10261278)

How about Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant, the closest nuclear plant to the epicenter, which remained almost undamaged after the 14 meter seawall kept out the tsunami.

edit - also, if you design for tsunami, the two-punch scenario is your design brief.

[ Parent | on HN ]