|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on Aug 10, 2012 22:43:19 GMT 9.5
Interesting to note the very video in that Japan Times article came from TEPCO's data releases of the Fukushima crisis. are they really corrupt? Link is here: photo.tepco.co.jp/en/date/2012/201208-e/120806-02e.htmlTo which they also released how they set up the system when they have a conference because there was criticism that they post-edited the audio to remove former PM Kan's statement, it was input error which isn't surprising seeing as they were in the midst of a crisis where stresses are high. www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/images/handouts_120809_10-e.pdfWhen you can't even get solid readings on pressures, temps, water flow rates for a nuclear reactor stress levels will be elevated. Particularly if your family resides in the next town over that just got annihilated by the largest tsunami modern Japan has ever seen. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt from natural occurrences can cause people to make mistakes. Clearly not everyone was on the same page in that conference. But as the reports have shown they did inject sea water, so this argument is really in effect moot. Hindsight is 20-20. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Aug 11, 2012 9:38:42 GMT 9.5
TEPCO knew all along that injecting seawater into the reactor would write it off, even before the reactors have ever generated power.
The issue of at what point do you stop trying to save the reactors and do something which will write them off is an important one but it is not one which you should oversimplify (and it is not an easy decision to make).
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Aug 11, 2012 16:45:13 GMT 9.5
The issue of at what point do you stop trying to save the reactors and do something which will write them off is an important one but it is not one which you should oversimplify (and it is not an easy decision to make). it is a very easy decision. a reactor without power (and no immediate way to restore power) makes this decision a very easy one. economic aspects are of zero value under such conditions. it should have not been considered at all. so i have another link that is highly relevant to this discussion. Tepco was very reluctant to share in formations about the accident. a very important example of this is, how they dealt with the explosions. www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120807004826.htmThe video shows, how Tepco made decisions to keep information from the public and even to give a false impression of security. here is what is being said in the video: "It's my judgment on whether we can cause the general public anxiety. If I'm asked about that at the next news conference, I'll deny it and say it would never happen,"Katsumata said. " (Katsumata is a TEPCO chairman) Not only does he deny the explosion, he even declares that he will rule out the possibility of an event that had already happened! the current reactions towards nuclear (like the changing of minds of the expert who is the subject of this topic) have more to do with how TEPCO is handling the accident than the accident itself. People seem to have lost confidence in the way the nuclear industry is working. So i think it is good for everyone, when we get as much information as possible about the accident and how Tepco and the government reacted to it. |
|
|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on Aug 12, 2012 12:39:54 GMT 9.5
The issue of at what point do you stop trying to save the reactors and do something which will write them off is an important one but it is not one which you should oversimplify (and it is not an easy decision to make). it is a very easy decision. a reactor without power (and no immediate way to restore power) makes this decision a very easy one. economic aspects are of zero value under such conditions. it should have not been considered at all. For you sitting in a chair in an environnent where external stressors like those experienced in Japan in mid March 2011 do not exist. They just witnessed the most horrific natural disaster Japan has seen since the Kobe earthquake in the 90's. They had three reactors which were in complete black out providing little data on their status, so assumptions had to be made in an environnent with significant stress. It is invendable people will make errors of judgement. Note the first line of what he said. Limit anxiety. WHO, UNSCEAR, IAEA, and the UN all noted that the main effect from Chernobyl was the fear causing panic that lead to psychological trauma. In effect his first thought was right, but made an error of judgement. To state that it was malicious will need to be proved in the correct context and time frame. Also TEPCO released the video, hardly the actions of an organisation who wants to cover up everything. They made bad decisions, before and during the crisis. However assuming that actions made during the crisis were absolvent of stress is haphazard at best. |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Aug 12, 2012 18:03:41 GMT 9.5
again: we are talking about a reactor with no cooling and no power. financial interests are utterly irrelevant in such a situation.
there are difficult questions: for example whether salt water could damage parts and make later cooling more difficult.
but economics should not even be considered and anyone talking about it should be fired on the spot.
these decisions are also made in the centre in Tokio, and not under direct stress. If they had done catastrophic scenarios before, they would also act according to prepared plans and based on experience. managers get paid a lot of money to make such decisions. They failed on all accounts, as obviously pressure by the government was necessary to put them into action!
|
|
|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on Aug 12, 2012 19:27:29 GMT 9.5
Did they have the ability at that time in March 2011 to see what temperature and level of water was in all three reactors at Fukushima Daiichi to make an informed decision? No. A lot was assumed, hence errors of judgement can creep in.
Also they were still getting information from the ground in Fukushima which did carry a liability of being incorrect due to uncertainty and stress, i.e. FUD.
All I am saying is keep an open mind to the total situation rather than running to the "TEPCO is evil" narrative and applying data and information to that. Judge each piece on its merits within the correct context and timeframes.
|
|
