[lbo-talk] catastrophy

Peter Fay peterrfay at gmail.com
Wed Mar 16 09:12:06 PDT 2011


On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:


> CG: "Nuclear reactor safety, kiss my ass."
>
> [WS:} This is not a very rational attitude, to say the least. It
> seems to ignore two crucial facts: (1) that all energy production is
> dangerous and polluting and (2) that breach of safety is more of a
> function of cost cutting (or rather cost shifting) measures than the
> technology itself.
>

Hard to believe cost-cutting is what caused the safety problems. I would say the more likely reason is plain old idiocy [read 'corporate arrogance'].

The seawalls were 3 meters high. The tsunami was 10 meters high. It has now been proven by High Energy Particle Physics that 10 > 3, so that's no longer in doubt. To make the walls high enough would have cost "peanuts" according to the expert below.

"Peter Yanev, one of the world’s best-known consultants on designing nuclear plants to withstand earthquakes, said the seawalls at the Japanese plants probably could not handle tsunami waves of the height that struck them. And the diesel generators were situated in a low spot on the assumption that the walls were high enough to protect against any likely tsunami.

"That turned out to be a fatal miscalculation. The tsunami walls either should have been built higher, or the generators should have been placed on higher ground to withstand potential flooding, he said. Increasing the height of tsunami walls, he said, is the obvious answer in the immediate term.

“'The cost is peanuts compared to what is happening,' Mr. Yanev said."

-- Peter Fay http://theclearview.wordpress.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list