 |
 |
Karen et al, Please see comments embedded below. On 17 March 2011 13:28, Karen <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > [...] > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Clive Dilnot <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > [...] > > Totally agree on this aspect. But unortunately many scientists, engineers > etc > do not think this way. Despite the prowess of what advance science and > technology can do, > the ultimatum is still human factors. I see this tragic event the result of > systemic loopholes. > Could you identify the specific systemic loopholes to which you refer? > The other thought that came to my mind is that we over emphasis about > nuclear energy and being > awfully over confident about our abilities to contain such technology. > [...] > Again, look at the track record of nuclear power. It's excellent. I don't understand the source of your concern. > Nuclear energy is by far, I think, the most dangerous form of energy to > use. > What? More dangerous than petroleum?!?! Please indicate how you arrive at this conclusion. > It may be economical from a commercial standpoint, but the opportunity cost > is often devastating. Apparently Fukushimaya had mechanical problems way > back in the 70s. But strangely, they have not been totally cleared off. It > makes me wonder how could engineering problems such as pressure and cooling > systems were solved. I would have thought policies or products to encourage > alternative fuel sources with possible policies to cut down unneccessary > consumption would greatly reduce the need for electrical energy. On many > levels, psychology may well be the most fundamental aspect in solving > energy > problems. > I would remind the audience again that the Fukushima reactors are, like, 50 years old. Too many people seem to think that all reactors are the same. They're not. The new ones are FAR superior. And considering how well the Fukushima reactors did given the severity of the events, that's saying a lot. > The immediate thought was to design a kind of 'lead net' that covers the > entire nuclear plant in several layers before it actually explodes. Damn > thick wall, but I suppose it is better than nothing or leaving 50 brave > Japanese rescuers choosing to risk their lives to look for survivors. I > think its utterly unfair to these people. The persons who design > the reactors and those who allowed the faulty systems to be in place for so > long should be the ones > to take on most of the responsibilities. > That won't work. Lead is *incredibly* toxic. Concrete would be better. Cheaper and easier to work with. And if you're referring to the Fukushima 50, I think they were workers trying to control the reactors, not look for survivors. It is completely unclear that there were any "faulty" systems at all. Those reactors were designed in the 1960's. One must place their design in context, and one cannot expect a 50 year old design to be as good as what could be done today. There may have been management and political errors - experience suggests that is far more often the problem. Let's at least wait for some solid information on what really happened before we start hunting witches. > > > > My original post asked two questions. The first was open—what does the > > word “design” mean when it is used in connection with the design of (or > > what I would call the configuration) of the Japanese nuclear plants? > > What is “design” here? What is that in the nuclear plant or as a quality > > of the plant, that causes commentators to talk of its ‘design”? > > > > > Design here would simply mean to be responsible; be wise & honest to know > the risks; be > intelligent to fit all the demands with a solution that has a backup for > possible accidents despite the > magnitude. > *A* backup? Most reactor systems have 2 or 3 backups. Your definition isn't as stringent as that used in the nuclear industry. > > No design is considered even passable, when any kind of problem is > overlooked. > The age of the reactors may be a problem. But I think the system in place > is > a greater problem. > The thinking of those people who design the policies and the physical > product are the most > important factor. Everything grows old with age. But why is it that some > products/buildings could last > while some don't? Simply because the strict attention to every design > detail > in compliance to > different kinds of human environments & our common natural environment > keeps > it good. > While this is a partial explanation, let's consider again the "perfect storm" in Japan. The earthquake was far stronger than anything else ever felt in Japan. A magnitude 9 earthquake releases the equivalent of over 450 megatons of energy. Converted to kilowatts, that would be enough to power the ENTIRE UNITED STATES for a MONTH. That's a lot of energy. Then a 10m wall of water came in. And you think the reactors would /not/ have suffered? > > Only have this bit of bedtime for the long torso and tail bit of Clive's > detailed thought on the mega accident. > It's actually a wake up call not only for Japan but to everyone of us on > this globe. We have not yet figure out > the pending danger it poses to the environment. Looking at the line of > eathquakes that have happend,will there be a string of other similar > earthquakes waiting to errupt ? > Don't you think the earthquake scientists are well aware of this? If they saw a trend, you think they'd withhold that info? I don't. If they've not reported anything, that's because they've not found a pattern (yet). Again, when one looks at the facts, I cannot see how one can claim that there is pending danger. I think there's far more pressing problems than nuclear accidents. I think those other problems are FAR more likely to ruin the planet. > > Pretty frighteining stuff if you pile all these up with what Dr Stephen > Hawkings had mentioned that > our future is in space. But instead of lining up to fly to Mars or wherever > into the unknown, we need to solve the problem that is inherent within us. > I > see it as a root problem. For if it is not solved by the root, your > evergreen tree cannot grow, and nevermind if it would last. > Sorry; what problem is that? That we're not perfect? > > That's how I see it. > > Night night all, > Karen Fu > Sweet dreams. Sincerely. Cheers. Fil -- Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng. Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Ryerson University 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749 Fax: 416/979-5265 Email: [log in to unmask] http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/