Re: [sc] Some details about Japan Nuclear reactors

Re: [sc] Some details about Japan Nuclear reactors

From: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr_at_xxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:05:40 +0100
Message-ID: <20110321120539.GA28533@xxxxxx>
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Peter Bishop wrote:

> One interesting fact that does not appear to have been given any  
> prominence is that other Japanese nuclear plant survived much better
> The Onagawa nuclear plant (3 reactors) was closer to the earthquake  
> epicentre than Fukushima
> - about half the distance in fact, so it should have suffered more  
> seismic disturbance and a bigger tsunami.
> Perhaps we should be asking what Onagawa did right?
while that is a legitimate question - it also is important to note that
this is not a sufficiently simply causal relation to imply that being
closer to the epicenter automatically means more damage. Also the
reports indicate that the earthquake was not the decisive factor for
Fukoshima but rather the tsunami (which took out the generators) and
the effective impact of a tsunami also has a high dependency on local
effects. Last if you look at the list of incidences in Onagawa - it
also does not necessarily raise the confidence in this technology.

Notably the handbook error in 1988 that was not reported until 2007 which
would have prevented a similar incident in 1999 in Shika is a good example
of this not being problems that have technological mitigations.

I would be very interested in hearing how members of this list expect that
the organisational issues involved in this high-complexity technology can
be handled in a way to achieve acceptable residual risk - the past 50 years
of nuclear power - while seing dramatic improvements of technology - have
not been able to answer this question in any way (and I might add the still
open issue of a permanent repository for nuclear waste)

Received on Mon 21 Mar 2011 - 12:05:44 GMT