Second Worst President in US History.

[choff]

They did a lousy job of site surveying, and an engineer admitted he didn't report flaws in the reactor vessels that would have cost TEPCO a half billion to replace during construction. They were designed to withstand up to magnitute 8, not 9 as well.

[Schneibster]

They did a lousy job of site surveying, and an engineer admitted he didn't report flaws in the reactor vessels that would have cost TEPCO a half billion to replace during construction. They were designed to withstand up to magnitute 8, not 9 as well.

No point in even mentioning that after they failed to make the manufacturer recommended upgrades.

[Stubby]

If you don't like Fukishima, there's always Chernobyl,

This indicates your hysteria. The two are incomparable.

Chernobyl was an inherently unsafe design. Fukushima was not, but it was not correctly maintained, and the disaster it caused is far smaller. It's still a catastrophe, but it's not the fault of the design; they didn't maintain it correctly. Having had to fix a lot of servers the owners didn't bother to maintain, and tell them at the end they were going to have to pay us because it wasn't our fault, they're responsible for their servers, I know this situation extremely well. You have to comply with the manufacturer's instructions or the manufacturer has no liability.

Also, the Soviets made Chernobyl; they never admitted civil liability for their screwup. GE made Fukushima, but the Japanese government didn't make TEPCO maintain it, so the Japanese government is liable. Not TEPCO, not the US, not GE, not anyone else. The Japanese ministers should be committing seppuku to atone.

Fukishima was a bad design. the plant I mean not the reactor.
As choff said they ignored the engineer . They also ignored data about previous tsunamis. Therefore the seawall was not high enough.
The back up power protocol was a joke. They were a disaster waiting to happen.

[ladajo]

Well Schnyder, I am glad to find out you are an expert on Nuclear Power as well.

They must have taught you a lot at Jackass School. Star Pupil even.

You wouldn't happen to remember how to derive the three reactor kinetics equations would you?
In case you forgot, I am sure that google can help you.

One day you will have to tell us what you are not an expert in. We are all waiting to see if it is possible. I swear.

Really.

No...really.

Tool.

[Schneibster]

Fukishima was a bad design. the plant I mean not the reactor.
As choff said they ignored the engineer . They also ignored data about previous tsunamis. Therefore the seawall was not high enough.
The back up power protocol was a joke. They were a disaster waiting to happen.

Yep, pretty much.

[Stubby]

benign religion is an oxymoron

Asserts an actual-moron.


Atheism exist only because of the teaching of tolerance by the dominant religious groups. Were this Islam, or Ancient Rome or Greece, you would be executed for blasphemy.

You need a shovel.
Did you have a religion in mind when you said

a functional and benign government (of this size) can't exist in the absence of some sort of benign religion

??

What is your proposal to convert non believers to this benign religion?

[Schneibster]

A person without a religion is like a fish without a bicycle.

[paperburn1]

FYI Chernobyl had the "roof" collapse last month.

[Schneibster]

FYI Chernobyl had the "roof" collapse last month.

So? Nobody's gonna make another Chernobyl. It was (pretty self-evidently I'd say) a bad design.

[ladajo]

FYI Chernobyl had the "roof" collapse last month.

So? Nobody's gonna make another Chernobyl. It was (pretty self-evidently I'd say) a bad design.

Why don't you tell us everything you know about the Cherynobl design and how no-one is using it anymore?

I would love to hear what you know.

Please just go away.

[Schneibster]

FYI Chernobyl had the "roof" collapse last month.

So? Nobody's gonna make another Chernobyl. It was (pretty self-evidently I'd say) a bad design.

Why don't you tell us everything you know about the Cherynobl design and how no-one is using it anymore?

I would love to hear what you know.

OK.

Chernobyl was a fast breeder reactor. The managers wished to obviate a design flaw that they believed could result in a catastrophe in a power-loss incident. They believed they had fixed it, but when they tried to test it in a shutdown it experienced a catastrophic intrusion of molten fuel metal into the coolant, followed by a classical loss-of-coolant meltdown which caused a reactor fire spreading radioactive material over a wide area.

I'll be happy to go into the follow-on effects, but I believe that covers the design flaw which is what you asked about.

[hanelyp]

I don't know a lot about the Chernobyl design. I understand it was a water cooled, graphite moderated reactor, a combo the deals poorly with loss of coolant by becoming more reactive. On top of which, the operators, conditioned by a society where people had to break rules to get anything done, had disabled several safeties to run en experiment in what was known as unstable conditions. And the reactor didn't have a containment building, just a weather resistant building around the reactor and associated equipment.

[Schneibster]

I don't know a lot about the Chernobyl design. I understand it was a water cooled, graphite moderated reactor, a combo the deals poorly with loss of coolant by becoming more reactive. On top of which, the operators, conditioned by a society where people had to break rules to get anything done, had disabled several safeties to run en experiment in what was known as unstable conditions. And the reactor didn't have a containment building, just a weather resistant building around the reactor and associated equipment.

You're pretty much right. We could spend ten pages arguing about the details but most people wouldn't learn much from it and we'd both still be right.

[ladajo]

Chernobyl was a fast breeder reactor. The managers wished to obviate a design flaw that they believed could result in a catastrophe in a power-loss incident. They believed they had fixed it, but when they tried to test it in a shutdown it experienced a catastrophic intrusion of molten fuel metal into the coolant, followed by a classical loss-of-coolant meltdown which caused a reactor fire spreading radioactive material over a wide area.

Please be more specific:
What design flaw are you speaking of?
How did the molten fuel metal get into the coolant?
How did the "classical loss-of-coolant meltdown" occur?
Which of the above two things occured first?
What caught fire?
How did this fire spread radioactive material over a wide area?
What is a "wide area" in your description?
What timeframe are you referencing?
Can you describe the cooling system?
Can you describe the emergency cooling system?
What specific "test" were the operators running "in a shutdown"?

Also answer the other part of my previous question regarding the use of the design and how no-one is using it anymore.

[ladajo]

I don't know a lot about the Chernobyl design. I understand it was a water cooled, graphite moderated reactor, a combo the deals poorly with loss of coolant by becoming more reactive. On top of which, the operators, conditioned by a society where people had to break rules to get anything done, had disabled several safeties to run en experiment in what was known as unstable conditions. And the reactor didn't have a containment building, just a weather resistant building around the reactor and associated equipment.

You're pretty much right. We could spend ten pages arguing about the details but most people wouldn't learn much from it and we'd both still be right.

What exactly was Hanely arguing about?