And if the earthquake didn't happen there wouldn't have been that acceleration or the inundation by tsunami to expose that TEPCO had not made seawall modifications or adequate protections for the backup generators protecting S class facilities so that design basis issues were not exposed.
I think one of the things I find most offensive about the Fukushima accident are all the armchair engineers who, although exercising no real experience, responsibilities, or perceivable judgment in engineering themselves, have no trouble equating hindsight with foresight.
I think one of the things I find most offensive about the Fukushima accident are all the fanbois who chose to vomit rhetoric based on their own internal belief systems whilst ignoring the fact and evidence that has been placed before them. The difference between our positions is that yours is based on your own internal assumptions and mine is based on observation, and understanding of the facts and exidence. You post no evidence to back-up your claims, just a 'cause khallow says so'.
It's easy to claim that there were "management failures".
Not as easy as claiming that the whole thing was some random act of Nature, that no further investigation is warranted and then spew forth that ignorance to whoever you can beat-up intellectually with your dogmatic skeptic fanboi-ism. The difference between your position and mine is yours is a beginning point that requires no-further mental expense and mine is an endpoint that requires asking questions an examining the available evidence to draw a conclusion.
The other difference in our positions is that yours are an oversimplification that deny opportunity to uncover which systems failed and if they can be corrected. Your fanboi-ism is clearly an obstacle in the path of evolving Nuclear systems because your belief system prevents improvements being made leading to accidents like this one, as found in the official report.
Fortunatley, oversimplifications, such as yours are not taken seriously as they have no credibility.
You just type it in. A work of a few seconds
hahahaha, you demonstrate supreme arrogance based on the confidence of your assumptions. It is so completely amusing and, as usual, wrong.
picking your nose...armchair engineers
As opposed to a featherweight aguments against the facts presented. It's one of the benefits you get from reading and comprehension as opposed to insults and ignorance.
From the beginning,...no trouble equating hindsight with foresight
Ok, well if we go back to the *actual* beggining what do I see you say:
"In other words, this is['nt] one of those dumb "human error" accidents that caused the other three meltdowns of civilian power plants, but a genuine natural disaster. And the reactors weathered it pretty well."
Fairly obvious you meant "isn't" or "is not" here however an examination of The official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission" in the Chairmans message he says, and I quote "Although triggered by these cataclysmic events, the subsequent accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster – that could and should have been foreseen and prevented.""
So are you saying that the entire commission, with it's multi million dollar budget, the force of law, a panel of expert examiners, full access to TEPCO and the governmant records, expert witnesses and all the resources of the Japanses government are wrong to make that statement and that you are in fact right?
In my sarcastically worded response I say Yeah, Fukushima shows that the Nuclear Industry really applied itself to learning the lessons of safety from Chernobyl.. If we then continue to look at the Chairmans message in The official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission" he says, and I quote "Japan's nuclear industry managed to avoid absorbing the critical lessons learned from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl"
In stark contrast, your comment is the definition of how wrong you can be by being arrogant and my first comment to you looks like forsight reflecting the eventual findings of the commission.
I'll note here there was no real attempt on your part to consider the accident.
Yet another erroneous assumption on your part, I thought the reactor did have a seawall at the proper height and that the generators were well above the flood zone at the time of the accident. I had already given TEPCO the benefit of the doubt however as the facts were revealed it was fairly clear to me that two key basis design issues were exposed as creating the hydrogen that caused the explosions and that it was just a matter of time before a systemic root cause was revealed.
The rest was based on existing understanding of the issues involved well before Fukushima occurred.
But the ignorance of the above quote shines through on the claim that they should have designed for a magnitude 15 earthquake.
You take a comment, made to someone else where you wern't involved, where my knowledge has been since updated and cite that as some major flaw in my argument upon which you base your fucking magnum opus. That's pathetic.
What shines through is that it shows why my arguments have to be so tight because a fanboi like you is sure to shill his shrill shill as any error is seized upon to demonstrate how my argument is wrong!wrong!wrong! The only thing that makes me feel smug is presenting the information that demonstrates how wrong you are and then watching the mental gymnastics you go through to attempt to maintain face because you have been wrong with the base premise of your argument from the start.
Ultimately, your opinion is irrelevant as, ironically, the very statement I replied to "the more real knowledge we have about nuclear power and its problems, the more comfortable people will get to nuclear power" has been heeded by everyone else and like me the more they have learned about the nuclear industry the more they can see what an out of control failure it is and lobbied for shutting the industry down due to the safety problems exposed.
Yet no one has thought to consider that maybe the generator placement slipped through the cracks just because of how complex the Fukushima plant was? Finally, engineering doesn't magically get it right the first time.
Any responsible nuclear advocate would be able to make an honest ownership of those issues and cite how they have been improved, not deny they exist and try to cover them up. You continually demonstrate you lack any substantial knowledge on the subject as The official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission" reveals the collusion that took place with the regulator so improvements would not be put in place, precisely because the same beleif system in the safety of Nuclear Power that you maintain affected all of the safety proposals put forward within and by TEPCO.
The belief that the reactor is safe allowed it to be run at capacity, whereas a safety culture would have recognised the issues and perhaps only certified the reactor to 30% of its production until the problems had been resolved. A recertification the following year with new lessons learned and risk aversity proportional to the impact mean there is no need to 'get it right the first time'. This is the outcome you strive to produce in a safety culture. Had it been in place, as a simple policy decision, they may have prevented the accident because there was less thermal heat and they may have been able to continue using the reactor today because they chose to be risk averse appropriately.
the Japanese building codes are based on the fact that earthquakes WILL happen.
Oh, indeed, I agree wholeheartedly. What some people can't seem to wrap their head around is that the Reactor itself was rated to 600Gal and was only ever exposed to 150Gal on the day, for which it SCRAMed correctly and shut itself down. There was never any question that the reactor itself could have survived the Earthquake and the Tsunami.
I find it interesting that some people, like our friend above, like to mask the capabilities of the Reactor design and make sweeping statemnents such as "magnitude 9 earthquakes can cause nuclear accidents" when in fact, the official investigation revealed that this accident was "wholey man-mad" due to a series of management failures. Who can understand their motivations, perhaps it's their ignorance, it could be they are apologists for the nuclear industry or it could be because their belief in Nuclear safety is so challenged by the Fukushima accident they have to excuse, mask the foolishness they feel when confronted with rigorous and precise reasoning and fact to protect their sense of reality.
In the meantime, their oversimplifications tend to distract us from Tepco's criminal negligence. It's a bit silly to think that the designers didn't say to themselves "hey we had better prepare ourselves for an earthquake here at this reactor one day". They would have us beleive that it was too hard to prepare a reactor that way and pin it on a single cause because it is something we can accept in a meme size information morsel.
sed -e s/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g joke > fact
Sala, Dood no!
Don't get me wrong, Rajnikanth is a great actor, hilarious and tough however he just doesn't practice any Martial arts that I can see. Chuck Norris however, 10th degree black belt Chun Kuk Do, 9th degree black belt Tang Soo Do, 8th degree black belt Taekwondo, black belt Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, black belt Judo. Even if Rajnikanth was a dedicated Kushti practitioner he would not even get past the BJJ so Norris would still kick his ass. You're going to have to come up with another meme for Rajnikanth (he is still a great actor though).
I find it interesting how people can't wrap their heads around the idea that magnitude 9 earthquakes can cause nuclear accidents.
Maybe they can't wrap their heads around why anyone would build a Nuclear Reactor in an earthquake zone in the first place.
The stuff of nightmares for the Spanish learner-of-English is the "phrasal verb". "pick up" may use the words "pick" and "up", but the verb "pick" means "choose", whereas there's no implied choice-of-thing in "pick up". When we "pick up a ladder", we "pick it up".
Right! When I goto a nightclub to "pick up" a girl, I literally club her over the head at night, until she is unconscious, then "pick her up" to take her home (after that though I not sure what I should do).
The lack of clear shared roots, a long and thankless task.
Oh, I couldn't agree more.
Also, listening to music with intelligible lyrics is no problem at all. Having the a video playing while programming is also no problem whatsoever.
How interesting, if I know the song I can listen to the words and I seem to code sexier.
Coding while someone is talking nearby can be downright impossible.
Yes but, grabbing that person by their neck, holding them down and repeatedly punching them in the face whilst saying 'DO YOU UNDERSTAND' is *exactly* like coding.
Languages take time and effort to learn. Try to remember, C++, although complex by the standards of most computer languages is ridiculously easy compared to learning French. If the programmers spent a proportional amount of time on the foreign language, I think they would have the same level of mastery.
Yes but telling jokes in a ridiculous C++ accent has no comedic value whatsoever. However if you said "I am a programmer, let me manipulate your objects" in a French accent, that's hilarious!
You want to see bits of the brain "lighting up"? You're going to need to get some genetically modified mice. If you want to understand the brain it's not that simple.
Well, we could use the genetically modified mice to program inside of an fMRI, then extropolate the results into a human brain using highly sophisticated neuro mathematical linguine anal isolation probes to produce results that prove, what were we talking about?