03/17/11, 05:17 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,758
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Paw
This is really a superficial analysis. If a bridge falls on my car, I am totally screwed, but my remains won't be giving people cancer for the next 30 years.
The risk assessment has to factor in the negative consquences of the worst case scenario, including the depth and breadth of the impact.
I have read that the NRC stopped approving these kinds of reactors for construction in the 1980's or so. That would suggest it is a sub-optimal design, or at least not state of the art as of that time.
Any reactors of this sort left in the US, and those in Japan, would have been allowed to continue operating because someone determined the risk inherent in the design was not large enough to warrant the cost in immediate decommissioning. This is Ford Pinto thinking, logical enough from an economic standpoint, completely unacceptable from a human health perspective.
Now that the chickens are coming home to roost on this design, there is going to have to be some somber reflection on where those trade off points are.
|
Not really. They would be allowed to operate until their lifespan was up unless they had safety issues. One of the reactors in Japan was nearing its lifespan and due to be retired either this year or next. It would have worked fine until then without the huge earthquake. Technology is always advancing and it is not feasible to replace a nuclear reactor every time an upgrade in the design is made.
__________________
Dear Math, it is time you grew up and solved your own problems.
|
