Fukushima could have been easily predicted. That’s what passive safety is about.

> Fukushima could have been easily predicted

After such an accident some armchair experts are quite sure that it "could have been easily predicted". Before the accident (to "easily" prevent it) or during it they are nowhere to be found.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41774144

“What happens if we lose the generators?” is not a hard question to come up with. I have a great imagination and a long career built on, among other things, asking pointed questions. I would have asked that very same question, as well as “how unlikely?” as the next one.

> “What happens if we lose the generators?”

They knew. Especially after Forsmark, 2006 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#J... ), which was a major subject for the industry. The first stages of a similar incident happened in France decades before.

... and it didn't change anything.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41774144

It's very easy to predict something that already happened will happen again.

Maybe, however History shows that is isn't always done.

Everything is easy, nothing is perfect.

I won't try to summarize here, but long story short, the conditions which led to the Fukushima disaster were well known and TEPCO was warned as early as 2000, but they did nothing to prevent it. There a number of good sources on the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident#Pri...).

How do we know the next time a similar situation arises it will be dealt with in time?