undefined | Better HN

0 pointsahi11y ago0 comments

Here is some support for that argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site

A lot of smart people being very very sloppy.

0 comments

There's a huge difference between any nuclear power plant and the Hanford Site, which was setup as a wartime production facility. The majority of the river contamination took place in the early years, from 1945 to 1951 when knowledge, technology, and experience was extremely limited at the time compared to today. At the time, they sacrificed environmental concerns for expediency because they had a war to win. Even if they knew exactly what would happen in the years and decades afterwards, I'm fairly certain that the same decision would be made. We're stuck with the cleanup, but there's nothing about the situation that would suggest the possibility of a repeat.

iSnow11y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power...: "In 1990, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ranked the failure of the emergency electricity generators and subsequent failure of the cooling systems of plants in seismically very active regions one of the most likely risks. The Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) cited this report in 2004. According to Jun Tateno, a former NISA scientist, TEPCO did not react to these warnings and did not respond with any measures.[35]

Filmmaker Adam Curtis mentioned the risks of the type of boiling water reactors cooling systems such as those in Fukushima I,[36] and claimed the risks were known since 1971[37] in a series of documentaries in the BBC in 1992 and advised that PWR type reactors should have been used.

Fukushima had been warned their seawall was insufficient to withstand a powerful tsunami, but the seawall height was not raised in response"

Still no indication of greed, sloppiness, cut-corner mentality and general incompetence?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

Bluestrike211y ago

iSnow11y ago

Fukushima had been warned their seawall was insufficient to withstand a powerful tsunami, but the seawall height was not raised in response"

Still no indication of greed, sloppiness, cut-corner mentality and general incompetence?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse