SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Eric who wrote (1452459)4/16/2024 7:17:21 AM
From: maceng21 Recommendation

Recommended By
Broken_Clock

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576346
 
Nuclear power plants are advertised as safe, that all contingencies are covered. Your suggestion that the designers had not considered the possibility of a tsunami on the West of Japan is unlikely.

Just had a look at this.

WHY WEREN’T THESE PRACTICES AND ACTIONS CARRIED OUT AT FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI?

<<There is no simple answer to the question of why there were major safety deficiencies in the protection against tsunamis at Fukushima Daiichi and other Japanese nuclear power plants. On the basis of information provided by Japanese government and industry experts for this paper, there appears to be no consensus in Japan about what were the most important contributory factors and, in the most general sense, who was to “blame” for the accident. This paper does not intend to provide conclusive answers to these questions.>>

Why Fukushima Was Preventable - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

All accidents are preventable, those are the watch words of the safety industry. Yet they still occur.

Looks like my original surmise is correct. Corruption. The current fad for all disaster reports is to not find anyone responsible and diffuse the situation into vagaries "nothing could be done, it's fate". It's been going on for a long time
Just like the current "excess deaths" phenomenon. The global statistics say there is a problem, no one in authority is willing to acknowledge the fact or look into it. Not publicly anyway.



To: Eric who wrote (1452459)4/16/2024 6:23:32 PM
From: Doren  Respond to of 1576346
 
> right next to the Pacific Ocean?

Or next to earthquake faults. At least three in CA. Two were built next to a fault not known when they were built. Storage of deadly nuke waste is still on the faults.

I remember spokesliars in the 60s telling us the odds of a melt down were a billion to one.

NO PRIVATE INSURER has EVER insured a nuke plant. They don't buy the lies & neither do I.

They ALL have to be government SUBSIDIZED... and they are woefully under insured.