Today's plants far safer than Fukushima: U.S. expert

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • -2

    some14some

    US expert...an architect talking about structural design? Surprised nuclear danger is taken so lightly.

  • 0

    Nicky Washida

    .... said former US Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman Richard Meserve.

    Still on somebodys payroll, perchance?

  • 0

    Darren Brannan

    Yeah but how about tomorrow?

  • 0

    zichi

    Fukushima was designed and built by General Electric of America. There are about 30 reactors in America of the same design.

  • 1

    CptCrunch

    What the hell? At Fukushima they ignored specific local historical data to build sea walls. Does not have jack to do with plant design or modernity in general. It was a human failure caused by laziness and greed, something that will never disappear ever.

    But even that human failure could have been corrected if not for another human failure, and that was a failure have adequate emergency plans to power the apparatus of the plant. Its got jack all to do with being modern. A proper array of 1940s technology to generate power stored in a safe place and having the connections and lines at the plant placed so as to be free of flooding (high up or in water tight areas) could have saved Fukushima.

    So give us a break with this "modern stuff is better" rubbish. The human has not changed significantly in 4000 years if not more, and the human will continue to screw up in the most unforgiveable ways despite all available technology.

    About the only two things that could have been improved was maybe the sheild, maybe, but not a peep about that, or using Throrium, but most "modern" plants are not doing that and not a peep about that either.

    I don't whether to blame the writers for this hunk of crap or Meserve.

    And while Meserve says they would never consider that design today, as Darren asks, what about tomorrow? Well yesterday's tomorrow is today, and many yesterday's ago, plants were slated for decommissioning by their designers on certain dates, but those dates are being ignored and for what? You guessed it! The same old human greed and laziness that caused the Fukushima disaster!

    Frankly, this sudden wave of pro-nuke propaganda is OBVIOUS. Well you are not paying me enough to forget! As I sit here wondering if my baby son will wind up with Chernobyl heart, I think some of the nuke execs ought to be more concerned with security than promotions.

  • 1

    beangry

    Plants are much safer in their designs today'

    This Expert just makes a statement and presents no evidence. Well, technically speaking the most recent designs are safer. What he left out is the fact that US reactors aren't modern, many are the same exact LWR (light water reactor) design that Fukushima has. This includes he same venting system that failed, old brittle steel (after 30 years the containment structures start to weaken, much like an airplane's fuselage and should no longer be used).

    He also failed to mention that some countries still operate the same exact reactors with the Chernobyl design ie. no containment at all, just a building!

    So yes the technology theoretically exists for safer plants, but as the Sweedish can tell you, they're nearly impossible to build, costs are more than 2 to 3 time the initial estimates, and the delays are endless. Years late they still havent finished them. That is inefficiency. I didn't make these things up, but whenever you see 'this expert'says his or that, look for the evidence he has. This bloke is using technology nobody has to claim reactors like Fukushima are safe. He knows full well the hoer reactors (104 commercial ones in the US) have very little differences, and are having their licences extended against the advice of other experts because hey know metal weakens and there are a host of other problems.

    'nuts'

  • 0

    Samantha Zoe Aso

    Unfortunately, time will tell. There is no place for smugness when dealing with nuclear reactors. Mother Nature hammered that point in very nicely this year.

  • -1

    Asagao

    Much safer, according to him. But, what is he going to do when the next disaster happens? Can Fukushima even be stopped? The problem is that nobody has a clue what to do after. Spray corrosive seawater? Six months later and they still can't test food cause there isn't enough testing equipment. Emergency response teams? It took a fire engine 4 days to get to Fukushima. Robots? There are none. Decontamination units? Still being designed, one at a time. Cars have seat belts, motorbikes have crash helmets. Nuclear power plants have Edanos.

  • 0

    zichi

    No, nuke power plants have the IAEA and the money and lobbying power of International Big Nuke, both more powerful than any Edano.

  • -3

    herefornow

    said plant developers in the United States always look at “what’s the maximum probable event in that environment,” and design accordingly.

    “It appears that this was not the case with regard to the Fukushima plant,” he said

    No, you think?

  • 1

    David B

    Someone says nuclear energy is safe and reliable? Perish the thought! Not on my JT. Cue all JT's posters making ill-informed attempts to deny reality or attack it.

Login to leave a comment

OR
Continuing Education: Seminars and Workshops in April

Continuing Education: Seminars and Workshops in April

Temple University, Japan CampusContinuing Education / MBA

Undergraduate: Information session (April 9)

Undergraduate: Information session (April 9)

Temple University, Japan CampusContinuing Education / MBA

Special Offers

グローバルに
活躍したいあなたへ
外資系転職

バイリンガル人材の
ための求人サイト

見てみる

More in National

View all

View all

Time
to Buy
in Japan

Find the perfect home today!

Search