That's one massive "citation needed". I think this falls into the range of statements which one shoudn't offer - let alone in bold increased size - until after one has presented clear evidence. I suspect this is going to involve a lot of caveats, dubious comparisons and selective data.
An improper comparison, as the Soviet RBMK-style reactor had no shielding.. unlike the Japanese reactors. Moreover, they were shown to have cut any and all safety protocols in the course of daily operation
( ... )
No argument there regarding site planning, but even that could've been accounted for if they'd used a backup power supply that was designed to be, if not directly submerged.. indirectly. Like that in a submarine.
They certainly designed a core and supporting superstructure that withstood the earthquake. It was the Tsunami that bit them in the arse on this one.
It's nothing like the "Chernobyl" tragedy so far; no structural fires, no significant escape of long-lived isotopes, no dangerous exposures, let alone fatal ones. The overzealous order to evacuate nearby hospitals even of very ill people that shouldn't have been moved and whatever traffic accidents the departing inhabitants have had have been the only source of casualties not caused by the tsunami itself.
Checking back, I see there were injuries reported from one of the hydrogen explosions. I am not able to find if these injures were severe enough to count as casualties, FWIW.
In short: Chernobyl.
Reply
Reply
Reply
They certainly designed a core and supporting superstructure that withstood the earthquake. It was the Tsunami that bit them in the arse on this one.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment