Yikes! Do we want Fukushima right here on the coast of California?

[Cleita]

Just got this my email:

Map of earthquake faults underneath this nuclear plant

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Here

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

This was actually titled cynically as "El Diablo all cracked up" by the sender.

Articles accompanying this in one of our local press, New Times:

All right, so maybe that’s not how it actually went down. That’s certainly how it would have gone down if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were responsible for overseeing licensing to operate a motor vehicle. Fortunately, they’re just responsible for keeping an eye on nuclear plants, and I’m sure a car can do a lot more damage than a nuclear reactor. Worst-case scenario, our dry, brown hills turn a vibrant, radioactive green and our wildlife sprouts a spare eyeball or tentacle. Sounds like tourism gold, if you ask me.

As for the reason a concerned citizen might justifiably jump down the NRC’s throat for its lackadaisical oversight of nuclear reactors in general, and PG&E’s Diablo Canyon specifically: In the fall of 2011, against the recommendation of one of the few inspectors who seemed to be asking the right questions, the NRC agreed to allow PG&E to eliminate two out of three of its seismic safety requirements because the company knew it couldn’t meet them. That’s like the person administering the driving test for the DMV eliminating the requirement that I signal before turning because I don’t know how to flick a blinker. Of course, lowering the standards at the DMV might result in a fender bender, whereas worst-case scenarios for Diablo involve everyone dying from radiation poisoning. Hopefully we’ll all grow flippers first.

The timing of this decision—a mere seven months after the Fukushima disaster, seven months after the world realized what could happen if we don’t take these things seriously—doesn’t do much to mitigate the impression that the NRC is once again bending over for PG&E, at everyone’s expense. It’s actually not all that surprising that PG&E is playing dirty here. They are, after all, going to milk the taxpayers for every penny we’re willing to pay, for as long as we’re willing to pay, whether they’re using a nuclear plant that meets the most stringent safety requirements or not. The real villain is the so-called regulatory commission, which has become indistinguishable from PG&E’s PR company.

“PG&E chose not to do all three [tests] because it’s a waste of money,” said one PG&E spokesperson—er, I mean NRC branch chief. It’s so easy to get the two mixed up sometimes. In fact, if you removed the attribution from “Calculatory garbage” (page 10), I’ll bet you couldn’t differentiate the PG&E spokespeople from the people being paid to oversee and regulate PG&E. Given what’s at stake, that’s a bit of a problem. Referring to tests that assess safety standards at a nuclear plant as “a waste of money” is bad enough if you’re a PG&E employee. Coming from the “regulator,” it’s downright ludicrous. Throw in the fact that a PG&E supervisor wanted to use an NRC seismologist who’s “on our side”—and in case you’re dense, the “our” they’re referring to is not the ratepayer or the average citizen, but PG&E—in an argument with the one NRC inspector who actually seemed to take his job seriously, and the situation escalates from ludicrous to outrageous.

more at link

http://www.newtimesslo.com/shredder/9677/regulatory-meltdown/

And

'Calculational garbage'

Did the NRC allow PG&E to dodge Diablo Canyon seismic licensing requirements?

BY MATT FOUNTAIN

Did Pacific Gas & Electric sidestep what some people consider to be critical seismic requirements for Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant following the discovery of the Shoreline Fault? Whether that’s even a valid question to raise depends on to whom you’re talking.

The U.S. Geological Survey’s 2008 Shoreline discovery prompted PG&E to quickly assess whether the fault—a roughly 12-kilometer-deep, 24-kilometer-long vertical strike-slip that intersects with the nearby Hosgri fault to the north, and lies some 600 meters from the plant’s power block—is capable of producing an earthquake large enough to damage vital plant components.

A subsequent PG&E report found that the Shoreline is capable of producing up to a magnitude 6.1 earthquake. The plant was built to withstand a 7.5-magnitude event.

But practical application of knowledge of the fault, as well as a hazy grasp on how it could interact with neighboring faults, turned into a years-long internal Nuclear Regulatory Commission debate focusing on the plant’s seismic safety design basis.

An operable plant’s safety components must be theoretically capable of functioning even after the impact from seismic events likely to occur at a facility given its known neighborhood hazards. Most plants have two design basis testing requirements to meet. Diablo Canyon is the only plant in the country required to meet three requirements: the Design Earthquake (DE), the Double Design Earthquake (DDE), and the Hosgri Event (HE). They differ by something called dampening assumptions, which are standards for how the plant’s components react to different ground motions. The DDE is considered the most conservative criteria, in that it’s the hardest to pass.

more at link

http://www.newtimesslo.com/news/9668/calculational-garbage/

I am frankly stunned about the lack of concern about this by the entities who could do something about this, PG & E and the NRC.

[Cleita]

1. ...

[KoKo]

2. Thanks...it's not only CA...but what comes to You comes eventually to East Coast...

We are ALL IN IT...eventually!

Thanks for this post. It's something that isn't local...but, getting to be UNIVERSAL worry.

[Cleita]

5. Yes. It will pollute across the USA and up and down the west coast.

[Electric Monk]

3. That 2nd picture just looks like they passed it (zoomed) through a photoshop paint filter or two

not a 'map of earthquake faults'.

[Cleita]

4. Whatever.

The fact is that there are two major faults and many others of varying degrees right under it and that is a fact. The plant can't handle an seismic event more than 7.5 magnitude.

[FBaggins]

6. That's incorrect.

People frequently misunderstand that, but the design basis earthquake for a nuclear plant is the level that it's designed to withstand without significant damage (i.e., returned to service a few weeks later after detailed inspections). It is not the level beyond which the plant "can't handle" it.

A pair of reactors in VA went through a beyond-design-basis earthquake a bit over a year ago... with essentially zero damage.

It would take substantially beyond a 7.5 to send the plant into meltdown... and 7.5 is already roughly ten times as powerful as the strongest quake that those faults are predicted to potentially deliver.

[Cleita]

9. The nuke plant is not safe, even if it were sitting on a faultless terrain.

Considering that magnitude 8 earthquakes are being witnessed across the planet due to global climate change, it won't be hard for one to hit here. We have already had in excess 6+ magnitude.

[dbackjon]

13. It is safe

And global climate change is NOT causing more earthquakes.


Sorry, but that is a magnitude 10 level of stupidity.

[NickB79]

15. I'm not so sure about that any longer

5 years ago, I would have been right there with you, laughing off the idea that global warming would trigger geologic events like more earthquakes and volcanic activity.

Now, I'm not so sure. There has been some interesting research lately that seems to indicate it's possible: http://e360.yale.edu/feature/could_a_changing_climate_set_off_volcanoes_and_quakes/2525/

[dbackjon]

16. You should still laugh

Canada is still rebounding from the last ice age - you don't see any magnitude 8 earthquakes there.

[NickB79]

18. You obviously didn't read the link I posted

3 min. from the time I posted to the time you replied? Are you a speed reader?

Anyway, if you bothered to read what I posted, it might make you re-think some of your notions.

[dbackjon]

20. I did read entire article

And yes, I am a speed reader. I would read articles books in school, teacher would tell me know way I read it all, and I would proceed to give him all the plot details.


Nothing in the article made me rethink - all a bunch of unsupported assumptions, which no other scientist found credible.

DID YOU read the full article?

[NickB79]

32. Have you read this yet?

http://www.nature.com/news/energy-production-causes-big-us-earthquakes-1.13372

Yes, I know that fluid injection through fracking is different from mass redistribution through global warming, but only a few years ago many people thought it was just as laughable that fracking and geothermal could generate earthquakes, much less one approaching a 6.0.

[dbackjon]

33. Quite a bit of difference between injecting fluids at a high pressure directily into a fault zone

And global warming cause 8.0 earthquakes.

[darkangel218]

55. "Climate change is not causing any more earthquakes???"

Perheps you should direct the last part of your statement to your own post.

[dbackjon]

65. So you think climate change is causing 8.0 earthquakes?

[FBaggins]

19. Sorry... that's just imaginary nonsense.

Climate change may very well impact the number of small quakes, but it's ridiculous to extend that statement into "and 8 can happen anywhere!"

We have already had in excess 6+ magnitude.

Do you have any idea what the difference is between a 6 and an 8?

[Cleita]

21. The evidence is all around us. Do not try to minimize it.

This plant is only a few miles from the San Andreas fault. Remember that one, the one that will cause the BIG ONE?

[FBaggins]

41. Thank you agent Mulder

"The evidence is all around us" yet you can't actually come up with any? (more importantly... the geologists don't see it either)

Remember that one, the one that will cause the BIG ONE?

You mean... the one that the plant was designed to handle?

This plant is only a few miles from the San Andreas fault.

50 miles is "a few" now?

Note that Fukushima was about that distance from the epicenter of a 9+ earthquake. It was closer to a 7 at the plant... and Diablo canyon was designed to handle without significant damage 2-3 times the ground motion that Fukushima was designed to handle.

[Cleita]

43. I don't know why you are apologizing for this industry. n/t

[darkangel218]

54. All these apologists should go live right next to a nuke plant. nt

[Gravitycollapse]

60. I live 50 miles downwind from the largest nuclear power plant in the United States.

The 11th largest nuclear power plant in the world.

I do not for a second fear it or feel that I am in danger.

[darkangel218]

63. Maybe thats why youre in denial.

You WANT to think you're safe.

Lmao!!!!

[Gravitycollapse]

64. I actually wrote a report about the safety violations at Palo Verde.

I am well aware of it's questionable inspection history.

Regulators have since clamped down hard on plant operations. Even then, Palo Verde is one of the best protected plants in the world. The domes can withstand a direct impact from a jet airliner.

I've been to the site and stood outside the reactor buildings. Still felt perfectly safe.

[darkangel218]

67. Are you working in the industry then?

[Gravitycollapse]

68. Nope. I have absolutely no skin in the game.

I went with a group of fellow ASU engineering students to tour the plant.

[darkangel218]

69. You write safety reports on nuke plants but have no skin in the game.

Okays

[Gravitycollapse]

71. By "report" I mean I wrote a report for an ecology class.

As in a school report. Nothing official.

[darkangel218]

73. Take a field trip to Chernobyl and speak to the people there. Or whats left of them.

Perheps that would change your mind.

They thought they were safe too, you know. Until it happened.

[Gravitycollapse]

77. Chernobyl power station used deeply flawed and substantially outdated technology.

Suicidally high positive void reactors, nearly non-existent containment buildings, poorly trained staff. It was a horrific relic of Soviet craftsmanship.

[dbackjon]

66. Same plant as me. No fear here.

[darkangel218]

56. Are you trying to minimize the effects of the climate change??

Nevermind, I get it.

[FBaggins]

86. Of course not

Just laughing at the imaginary ones.

[Gravitycollapse]

50. Yes, it can. Fukushima experienced extreme ground acceleration and was fine.

[greyl]

93. Yep, that's exactly what it is. It's almost hilarious that people buy it. nt

[NickB79]

7. Fukushima's meltdown was caused primarily by the tsunami

Not as much by the earthquake.

Yes, the earthquake did create the tsunami, and did crack the foundation and containment structures that held the nuclear core. To this day, TEPCO still has to add water constantly to prevent the pools from running dry.

However, if there had been no tsunami (or if the generators were on an upper level of the facility), the backup generators wouldn't have been flooded out, and water circulation could have been maintained for cooling systems. The slow leaks through the subsoil foundation cracks could have been offset by increased pumping while the cores were removed to a more stable location. The nuclear reactors would have still been a complete loss, but no meltdown would have occurred.

So, not only must we know where the fault lines lie, and what size quakes they could produce, but if the reactor is in a position to be flooded by a tsunami. AND, if it is in position to be flooded, are the backup generators and related electronics protected enough/high enough up in the structure to keep working if a tsunami did hit?

[Cleita]

8. Oh, for chrissakes, tsunamis follow earthquakes. We are by the ocean and actually

the tsunami that hit Japan also hit parts of the coast of California, including our port that is not far from the power plant. To minimize the danger is disingenuous of you.

[NickB79]

12. Most earthquakes do NOT generate tsunamis

In order to generate a damaging tsunami, you not only need a powerful earthquake, but also the correct geography to focus and amplify the energy released by the earthquake.

Was your port devastated in the same fashion that the coastline of Japan was? Did a wall of water 10 ft tall slam into the shoreline and rush a mile inland? If not, why do you think that is? It's not due to the distance; the energy in a tsunami can propagate across vast distances in the ocean while retaining their energy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletsunami

I'm not minimizing the danger. I'm pointing out that A) the comparison between Fukushima and this reactor isn't accurate because of different geologic circumstances, and B) we need to consider MULTIPLE ways in which the reactor could fail. If, for example, there was no fault line under this reactor, BUT it was in a coastal area that could easily be swamped by a tsunami, it's still a real hazard that must be accounted for.

[Cleita]

23. Big ones do. But to take your ridiculous argument a step further.

I guess because there's a chance a large magnitude earthquake won't cause a tsunami, I guess it's okay then to ignore the danger that most likely it will?

[NickB79]

31. I have at no point said to ignore any dangers

What I DID say is that we have to account for ALL the potential dangers in a given area, and prioritize them.

If an area on the West Coast doesn't have the geography to support a tsunami strike, the reactor is built 50 ft above sea-level, or it's backup systems are set high enough to avoid any flooding, then it's pretty stupid to waste large amounts of time and energy arguing about the risk.

However, I've never stated in this thread that we should ignore the danger of reactor damage from the earthquake itself. What I've been saying is that we can't compare the reactors in the OP directly to what happened in Japan, because of vastly different circumstances.

As I said in post #17:

I didn't say that an earthquake COULDN'T cause a nuclear disaster.

What I DID say was that the specific incident the OP was referring to (Fukushima) would NOT have occurred if it were just an earthquake that struck the reactor.

Like I said, the cracks in the containment vessels from the earthquake would have guaranteed the plant would never function again, but the destruction of the generators by the tsunami is what caused the cores to go into melt-down. If those generators had remained functional, the plant could have been shut down in a controlled fashion and the radioactive rods removed safely.

I recognize the danger of an earthquake strike on a CA reactor. If large enough, it would permanently cripple the reactor. However, short of a quake so large that the entire facility itself crumbles to the ground, a meltdown like what we saw in Fukushima isn't likely.

[FBaggins]

39. That too is wrong.

It isn't just "big ones" that produce tsunamis... it's a particular type of big one.

A type that California isn't prone to and Diablo Canyon isn't at risk of. California has had LOTS of significant earthquakes... you haven't noticed that their version of tsunami isn't particularly dangerous?

(Of course... even if they were prone to them... being placed 85 feet up a cliff is pretty substantial protection)

[Cleita]

40. Just the fact there is a chance should be a reason to decommission this plant.

It's not like it's not going to be that bad if something goes wrong. It's that it will be devastating. It's not like a fire that destroys it and we rebuild. If there is a Fukushima disaster and all the makings are there, making it possible, there is no rebuilding for 50,000 years. Wake up!

[FBaggins]

42. More imagination

That simply isn't the standard.

"If I can imagine it... we need to act on that risk!" simply doesn't make sense.

If there is a Fukushima disaster and all the makings are there

None of "the makings" are there except for the fact that it's a nuclear plant and you're scared of things that you don't understand.

[Cleita]

44. Yes, tell all those people who survived Chernobyl and Fukushima that it's their

imagination.

[FBaggins]

45. Thanks for proving my point

"They all have 'nuclear' in their name... so they're all the same."

Why pretend to apply more analysis than that when clearly you haven't got anything?

[Cleita]

47. I have plenty of analysis about this plant alone, studies on El Diablo,

by experts in nuclear energy, geologists, oceanographers and many others including from some ex NRC executives, who have decided to tell some uncomfortable truths. I have 140 documents on this dating back to 2011. I would love to post them to you but that would take a whole forum on its own, so I post some information to get people interested. But the truth is out there Scully. Become a believer.

[L0oniX]

14. I am sooo relieved that earth quakes by themselves will never cause a nuclear catastrophy.

[NickB79]

17. Re-read what I posted

I didn't say that an earthquake COULDN'T cause a nuclear disaster.

What I DID say was that the specific incident the OP was referring to (Fukushima) would NOT have occurred if it were just an earthquake that struck the reactor.

Like I said, the cracks in the containment vessels from the earthquake would have guaranteed the plant would never function again, but the destruction of the generators by the tsunami is what caused the cores to go into melt-down. If those generators had remained functional, the plant could have been shut down in a controlled fashion and the radioactive rods removed safely.

[Le Taz Hot]

10. And it makes me want to hurl when I think

of where it's located -- right off the ENVIRONMENTALLY FRAGILE Central Coast where it's taken DECADES to get some of the wildlife back after over-hunting/fishing and after horribly polluted coastal waters. I was just at the Monterey Bay Aquarium a couple of weeks ago and the whole time I was touring kept thinking what a wonderful, but fragile eco-system it is and how little it would take to wipe EVERTHING out.

[Cleita]

11. I know. It's awful and our government isn't doing anything about it.

They keep relicensing it and they shouldn't. There's plenty of activism, but as usual we are being ignored, although the majority of us who live here want it decommissioned and replaced with renewable energy.

[MineralMan]

22. Better move upwind, I think.

Los Osos is nice.

[Cleita]

24. Los Osos wouldn't be safe either. Half the nation wouldn't be safe. n/t

[MineralMan]

25. Well, I moved to Minnesota.

Aside from the nastyish winters here, it's a pretty safe place. No earthquakes. In fact, it's the state with the least number of earthquakes. Housing is still affordable, too.

[Cleita]

26. They need to decommission the damn thing like they are doing to San Onofre and Humboldt up north.

Problem then is mostly over other than trying to figure out what to do with the waste. But our NRA and PG & E are holding hands on this and not letting it get done.

[MineralMan]

27. Yes, well, I protested it from the very beginning.

They paid no attention. Do you suppose they're going to start now?

You are directly within the main plume zone under normal conditions. Why?

[Cleita]

28. This is why I keep posting. I hope people realize what a danger a Fukushima event would be

to more than central coast California. Our food basket in the Central Valley that feeds much of the nation would be contaminated for thousands of years. I hope someday some national figure picks up this up and hammers some sense into our whole nation about this.

[MineralMan]

29. Oh, dear. Diablo Canyon has been in operation for how long now?

Do you truly think it will be shut down now? Trust me. It will not.

[Cleita]

30. It will be if we get that large mag earthquake we have been promised, but it

won't be the way we should have done it.

[Cleita]

38. Yeah, but they are sniffing around your state to do some fracking. n/t

[MineralMan]

49. We have nuclear plants here, too.

Life goes on.

[Cleita]

51. And with fracking you will have earthquakes so I hear. n/t

[MineralMan]

52. We have tornadoes. I am familiar with quakes.

[locks]

34. Thanks for the post, Cleita

Since 1945 the government has been trying to convince us that industrial nuclear power is warm and fuzzy (or at lease clean and safe). As compared to what? Maybe nuclear bombs. I thought after Chernobyl that thinking would change; instead more nuclear plants were built in the most "civilized" nations. I thought surely we would hear from the Japanese, the only nation that knows first-hand what nuclear power can do, after the earthquake and tsunami that would lead the world in closing plants and finding some way to dispose of all of that nuclear waste. Instead, their government too has tried to shut up their best scientists who want to shut down the industry. I thought surely California, our most earthquake-prone state, would be the first state to say "no more". But then I took for granted that Obama would make sure that no more nuclear plants would be built and no more bombs would be dropped.

[Cleita]

37. We the people have been saying no more, but PG & E and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

is a federal agency with the jurisdiction of being able to override a lot of our local attempts at getting rid of this plant. Somehow I wish we could get a nuclear Elizabeth Warren in there to oversee it. Then things might change.

http://www.nrc.gov/#&panel1-1

[LadyHawkAZ]

35. I'm pretty sure we knew it was sitting on fault lines

when they built the place. No one but the dirty librul commoners cared then either. PG&E wields a big stick and is also a big employer in an area without a whole lot of industry. Back in the day, if you wanted a well-paid job and didn't have a degree or connections, you worked for CMC or you worked for Diablo. Otherwise known as "winning hearts and minds".

An entire generation has now grown up viewing the emergency sirens as just another thing, without stopping to really think about what they are there to do. They won't think about it until something actually happens. Neither will the people in charge of the plant. It's sad.

[Cleita]

36. I actually know a couple of workers at El Diablo and yes it's a job

where they wouldn't have one. One is an engineer and the other a security guard. But they are quite aware of the problems. I believe at the time it was built, it was sold as a non-polluting way of generating energy. They didn't bother to inform people about the downside. Of course they wouldn't. Back then we didn't know much about solar and wind energy, so it seemed a better alternative to coal and oil. People were told it was perfectly safe and the earthquake faults not a big problem. Of course then two new faults were discovered after it was built and running. Also, a magnitude 7.5 quake back then was almost unheard of. Not so much today. So times have changed. We have alternative ways of delivering energy. Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown us just how unsafe and dangerous these plants are. It's time to decommission them, especially the ones over earthquake faults.

I do believe those workers who might lose their jobs can be given new jobs in the solar and wind industry.

[FBaggins]

46. You're kidding... right?

Also, a magnitude 7.5 quake back then was almost unheard of. Not so much today.

Do you seriously believe that you get to make up your own version of reality and everyone else has to play along?

The big San Andreas earthquakes:
1680 - 7.7
1857 - 7.9
1906 - 7.8
None of 7.5 or greater since the plant was built.

The plant was built in the 1980s. The two largest earthquakes of the last century (Chile and Alaska) happened just a couple decades earlier. The one in Chile was 100 times larger than that "almost unheard of" 7.5

In short... as with so much of the thread... your claims have more basis in fantasy than reality.

[Cleita]

48. Get real. I was talking about what the experts thought would be a safe seismic

max here in the Central coast. No one was talking about Chile, a country I have lived in incidentally and that is 6000 miles from here. You may try to discredit me if you like. Go ahead, it won't change any facts.

[Gravitycollapse]

53. The 5 largest earth quakes in California history occurred between 1680 and 1952

All between 7.3 and 7.9 magnitude.

So maybe it's about time you revised your argument.

[Cleita]

57. So then that is more reason to decommission this plant.

My argument was that the people of the central coast were told they had nothing to worry about because, there would never be an earthquake much beyond a 6 mag something a structure at 7.5 mag was more than adequate yes siree.

[Gravitycollapse]

58. Who said there would never be an earthquake over 6.0 magnitude?

[Cleita]

59. That's how the plant got built. This is what the people

Who lived here then were told.

[Gravitycollapse]

61. I need some evidence beyond your own claim.

Nothing personal.

[Cleita]

76. They have their own website. All their history, half truths and

lies are there. I would post a link but am unable to while I'm on a mobile device. If you are really interested Google will get you there.

[Gravitycollapse]

79. I can't find any claim by anyone that there would not be any earthquakes over 6.0 magnitude.

When you get home, please post a link.

[KoKo]

62. Yes...it's concerning...and even we on the East Coast will be affected

since so much of our Fruits and Veggies come to us here. It affects us all as a Nation and we need to be truly concerned.

I'm hoping more will wake up.

[dbackjon]

70. You will lose more life worrying about this

Than the plant will ever cause.

[darkangel218]

72. What are you, a psychic? how can you be so sure that plant will never have a melt down?

What are you basing your statements on??

There have been multiple articles and studies done regarding the safety of nuke plants, and they're not in agreement with you.

[Gravitycollapse]

74. Nuclear power plants are safer per terawatt/hour than any other form of power generation.

[Cleita]

75. For chrissakes, solar is much safer.

[Gravitycollapse]

78. Surprisingly enough, it actually is not.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

[Cleita]

80. Solar does not contaminate a site for 50,0000

years. Not even close. Fail!

[Gravitycollapse]

85. Didn't bother to read the link, did you? Deaths per terawatt/hour.

Nuclear is at the bottom. Although solar is very close. So close in fact that it would be the obvious choice if only it were currently feasible to supply all our power from solar. We're nearly there.

[dbackjon]

92. Three Mile Island was basically the worst case scenario for American Nuke Plant

Everything that could go wrong did, and no deaths.

Only minor exposure in the plant.

[El Supremo]

81. Diablo will soon follow San Onofre.

But both will cost billions to become safe.

[Cleita]

82. Yep. But I doubt if it will be PG & E and Duke Energy

that will pay for it.

[El Supremo]

83. San Onofre is SoCal Edison. n/m

[Cleita]

91. I was referring to El Diablo, but Edison should pay for San Onofre too, however, I doubt

if anyone will make them do it.

[RobertEarl]

84. Thanks Cleita

Thanks for reminding us. Let's hope the people there are successful at ending that monster's reign. So far we have been lucky. Tic toc.

[suffragette]

87. "Support Deployment of Nuclear Power Plants"

• Why:
– Japanese manufacturers and electric utilities have nurtured capability to complete NPP construction on time and within budget, satisfying stringent quality requirement and safety requirement that reflects severe natural environment such as frequent visits of typhoon, tsunami and earthquakes.
– They have cultivated an excellent organizational culture to value quality, safety culture, cleanliness of workplaces and visualization.


http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloads/Infrastructure/meetings/2010-09-22/5.Japan-ne.pdf


From an The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting in 2010.
Shunsuke KONDO Chairman
Japan Atomic Energy Commission


Then, in 2011, we have the disaster at Fukushima.

Worth thinking about when reading current reassurances about safety.

[Cleita]

88. I don't believe any of the assurances of those

proven liars.

[suffragette]

89. Right there with you Cleita

I found that nugget on a brief search. I'm sure we could find many similar statements on a longer one.

And earthquakes can trigger more than tsunamis. Dams can collapse. And up here, The Hanford site with its active plant and new waste and with the toxic waste that's already leaking could be hit by water from that direction.

[Cleita]

90. I was reading that about the Hanford plant.

It's a shame on a beautiful river like the Columbia.

[suffragette]

94. Yes, it is terrible

Yet they keep piling on error after error and doubling down on these, even while wind has been exceeding expectations. If they would pump a fraction of that money and knowledgable personnel into building new infrastructure to support other energies, we could have the positives of better, cleaner energy and a jobs program. Sustainable energy and sustainable jobs at a decent wage (and likely better distributed for both).

[locks]

95. Chernobyl

You might want to read "Chernobyl, My Primeval, Teeming, Irradiated Eden" by Henry Shukman, in The Best American Travel Writing (William T. Vollmann, Editor).

Or make sure the heads of the NRC and PG&E take their vacations there.