On 17/12/2016 09:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 16-Dec-16 8:10 PM, alan_m wrote:
On 16/12/2016 19:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 21:31, alan_m wrote:
On 16/12/2016 18:21, harry wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


Not when you build the reactor in an earthquake zone.

earthquake didn't touch that reactor. It was a wave 2 meters higher than
designed that dun it.


A wave caused by an earthquake, and not for the first time in that area.


Neither the wave nor the earthquake did any damage to the nuclear
reactors themselves. What caused the problem was not being able to get
external power back on line within the next eight hours and the cooling
pumps then shutting down. The design dates back to the 1960s and more
modern designs would have survived. Reactors of similar design have also
since been modified since to avoid the same problems.



The really stupid thing is they had generators available but nobody
wanted to say fly them in and fix the problem.

It wasn't an earthquake that caused the melt down it was the Japanese
culture.


In the UK someone would have said sod this, take the bloody generators
in and nothing would have happened.