2011-03-14, 10:17 PM
Kalovale Wrote:You are one to talk about inability to read.
>> not taking that presumably negative cost-effective course of action jussssst because it was ratified that the reactors could go for another decade after inspection.
It was believed to be safe, and guess what, up until now, it has been safe. This is not Italy, we don't change power plants because they are unfashionable.
What was that about the vulnerabilities by the way?
Why was it, again, stated that it was "seriously flawed" and not detailed how? I surely didn't read any of his statements because, frankly, I can make those as well within the time I take to blink my eyes twice. If one is going to claim that the design for 55 reactors in the most sensitive industry are flawed and will surely cause disasters, he should be sensible enough to at least include an example.
The plants have suffered through earthquakes twice as powerful as they where designed to handle. Only a moron would not even consider the fact that they are sitting on a ticking time bomb.
Only a moron would believe this is safe.
He pointed out that big quakes had taken place in "close proximity" to three nuclear power plants in Japan from 2005 to 2007. In each case, the ground motion caused by the quake was stronger than that for which the plants had been designed.
A tremor at the Kashiwazaki Kariwa plant, about 300km across the main island from Fukushima, had experienced a tremor with ground motion of 993 gal (a measure of ground movement), far beyond its design value of 450 gal.
"Not only are the new design guidelines defective but the system to enforce them is in a shambles," wrote Professor Katsuhiko after his resignation. He said it was just a matter of luck that the epicentre of each earthquake had not been nearer.
Even if you say, they believed it was safe, the facts show that it was not safe at all.