ok, cnn's tsunami expert, chad the douche clown, is back. imagine glenn beck explaining...a nuclear reactor.
chad: moronic babbling
suzanne: meltdown! meltdown! quickly!
chad: well, imagine popcorn popping all at once, and an BOOM. will the vessel hold it? well we've never got to that point.
are they having a laugh?
I get the idea that I'm better-informed on this subject because I
haven't been watching MSNBC/CNN/FOX"News".
The target IQ and attention span for those channels (and a lot of others) has gotten horrendous. Remember when Discovery and The Learning Channel had real documentaries, and educational shows? Or when they didn't pander to an audience which thought a proton is something that goes on salad?
Next thing you know, people will be complaining why Japan's nuclear reactors weren't built to withstand a meteor hit if one hits it.
The way things have been going, that might be next.
What are they at now? - Many strong earthquakes/aftershocks, tsunami, nuclear emergency, volcano eruption...
Why was a plant designed for 8.2 when 9+ as possible in the area.
- Why aren't all satellites built with radiation-hardened electronics? Solar flares are quite possible, and powerful ones have hit our planet in only the last few hundred years. A few years ago, one even managed to damage a probe orbiting Mars; a good hit here from a powerful flare could easily roast electronic systems on satellites, not to mention what it would do to any terrestrial power grid.
- Why aren't we prepared for an asteroid impact? Asteroids have hit this planet in the past, and there are many thousands of others out there that could easily pose a threat. Just in 1908 we had the comet which caused the Tunguska Event, and the
only reason that isn't something that everyone knows about is because by pure luck, it didn't explode over a populated area.
- Why do we have powerlines running above-ground beneath trees? Large branches fall off on a whim.
The only answer is really: Cost.
I'm sure we could build a nuclear reactor a mile underground with motion isolation all around, that'd withstand just about anything. And it would only cost $2.8 trillion.
And, please explain, what you really think happened?
Facts:
-Plant was designed for 8.2, was functionally fine after 8.9/9.0
-Plant shut down the chain reaction as it should have.
-Plant was cooling the reactors fine.
-Then the tsunami hit, which didn't destroy the plant either
-The tsunami destroyed the primary power source (the national grid), AND took out multiple sets of backup diesel generators
-The plants own battery backup worked for 8 hours as designed (even after 8.9 earthquake AND a 30 ft tsunami)
-The mobile generators brought in didn't have the required connectors which is about the only "fault" I see so far
-In order to prevent a total meltdown they have allowed some low level radioactive byproducts have been allowed out of the core. These radioactive elements will either decay or be diluted to the point where you might get exposed to slightly more radiation then you would in a normal day.
I look forward to your expert analysis of what happened.
Good summary. From a blog posting, someone noted that out of 53 power plants in Japan, only 1 has had serious issues -
after most of its redundant backup systems were taken out by the tsunami, or in the case of the battery backup, worked perfectly.
And yeah, you may well have the reactor melting itself to hell in there, but that's why it's got a containment vessel, doing exactly what it was meant to do: CONTAIN the reactor.