On 4/6/2011 10:10 AM, Bolted wrote:

How do they compare? Very cursory search says 7mSv/year for
Cornwall. The released levels are levels way beyond 7mSv per hour in
places outside the evac zone.

I don't think it's clear how many people will be affected and in what
way or for how long. But pretending there isn't a nuclear accident in
progress just seems bizarre to me. I'm quite pro-nuke and I don't
think it helps the cause. I think it would be better to be honest and
upfront, and deal with it. It's a very old plant, built to superceded
standards many decades ago, with no real containment over the SFPs
unlike even the later BWRs. And near to a very active fault line
where (perhaps with the benefit of hindsight) they underestimated both
the quake and tsunami risks. That's something which can be dealt with
for future plants by being less complacent rather than more
complacent. It's pretty clear that slack regulation allowed them not
to harden the vent stacks despite that being a required update in the
US. It's clear they were very slack about inventory in the SFPs.

There will be all sorts of lessons learned from this accident which
will progress the cause and the safety of nuclear power. Pretending
it isn't even an accident is an industry trope which will only
increase rather than decrease trust.

I second all your remarks.