On 3/14/11 7:13 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 7:11 PM, Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 7:09 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 7:04 PM, Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 6:58 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 6:48 PM, True North wrote:
Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of
nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.



There is not a no risk utopia.
We have to learn to safely handle nuclear power, and coal, etc.
Ultimately nuclear wins out.
Japanese are not
ultimate technologists. Our Nuclear Power Plants are a lot more
sophisticated and more redundant safety.


Oh, really? Please provide proof that our creaky old nuclear power
plants are a lot more sophisticated and more "redundant safety" than
the
equally old (or new) Japanese nuclear power plants. I understand at
least one of our nuke plants, in California, is literally built over an
earthquake fault, and that several plants in the South East are also
built in areas of seismic activity.
So there are seismic areas everywhere.
The problem in Japan was cooling shut down, at least with limited info
published. They perhaps could have not had a problem with something as
simple as adequate back up diesel generators or pumps.
What would you do? Pick out a cave yet?



What I wouldn't do is make a pronouncement that our nuclear plants are a
"lot more sophisticated and more redundant safety" than the Japanese
plants, since both probably were designed and built by the same US
manufacturer, GE.


NRC is pretty strict. They'll fine your butt for chewing gum on the
sidewalk, so to speak.


Which has nothing to do with the comparative safety of Japanese versus
U.S. nuclear plant facilities. For all you know, the Japanese equivalent
of the NRC is stricter.