|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
124.171.147.25
In Reply to: RE: Passive cooling posted by Inmate51 on January 13, 2017 at 08:22:12
A tsunami was a highly likely event well over 50%, the adjacent sea floor is well up the Japan graph for the likelihood of earthquakes and Tsunamis.But this quake was a rare double release of fault lines, and close together. The Fukushima plant was the most vulnerable in the area, given its not wonderful control and protection systems.
LBNL the consequence was going to be horrendous, given the risky build, even for that reactor design.
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
Edits: 01/13/17 01/13/17 01/13/17Follow Ups:
I was speaking generally. Clearly, that area has a higher risk, as do some others. But with 450 reactors around the world, operating non-stop except for maintenance, that's 30 years x 365 days x 450 reactors since Chernobyl, that's 5 million operating days since Chernobyl, and there's been ONE major accident due to nature.
So, "one in a billion" is a stretch. Sue me.
:)
It happened because Japan's governance allowed a not very safe reactor to be built, in a not at all safe place for that kind of reactor to be.Consequence is why we risk manage.
For me, concern about consequence in relation to nuclear power, is sensible, reasonable and pertinent.
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
Edits: 01/14/17
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: