U.S., Japan use same design for react...

U.S., Japan use same design for reactor containment

There are 52 comments on the www.thenewstribune.com story from Mar 15, 2011, titled U.S., Japan use same design for reactor containment. In it, www.thenewstribune.com reports that:

As Japan copes with one crisis after another at its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex, federal records indicate almost a quarter of America's nuclear reactors in 13 states share the same containment system design of the ill-fated Japanese reactors.

The boiling water reactor plants were designed by General Electric and use its Mark I design for containing radioactivity.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.thenewstribune.com.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Dimitri at the races in Russia”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#1 Mar 15, 2011
Anything designed by GE could not function properly.
American know-how was, is very feeble to say the least.
Scottar

Albuquerque, NM

#2 Mar 15, 2011
Your understanding of the technology is dysfunctional and feeble. They are not subjected to tsunamis like Japans plant was. And if they are I think the NRA would ensure they could withstand a tsunami. GE did not design the plants enclosure over the core and backup systems. Japan skipped on safety design.

But the way, toots, the reactor withstand a mag 9 Earthquake while being designed to withstand a mag 7.

Your just brained washed by all the hype from nuclear fear mongers.

“Dimitri at the races in Russia”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#3 Mar 15, 2011
Anything designed by GE malfunctions, even you in NM should know it.
Perhaps, you are not being informed in your hick-town ?

“Pink Ponies of Justice”

Since: Sep 07

Russia

#4 Mar 15, 2011
Even if this American design is bad (and this is a fact), the first mistake made Japanese when they decided to build this nuclear plants. Earthquakes and tsunamis are usual thing in Japan and it wasn't clever to build it.

“Dimitri at the races in Russia”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#5 Mar 15, 2011
How many times do you need to be told that Japan had no other alternatives ?
Don´t you know the magnitude of the current earthquake ?
Over 120 years Japan had not experienced such an earthquake, get it ?
God Save the Queen

York, PA

#6 Mar 15, 2011
coolncrazy wrote:
Even if this American design is bad (and this is a fact), the first mistake made Japanese when they decided to build this nuclear plants. Earthquakes and tsunamis are usual thing in Japan and it wasn't clever to build it.
Right on! I told them but they didn't listened. They should have used the CHERNOBYL DESIGN! Dummies!
Was just reminded: "This name is unavailable. Please choose another". Post name I wished to use was:
"Fuk-U-Shima" the name of the Japanese nuclear complex. Had to change names. Love it! LOL...
Roll the Bones

Shermans Dale, PA

#7 Mar 15, 2011
Pesky army wrote:
How many times do you need to be told that Japan had no other alternatives ?
Don´t you know the magnitude of the current earthquake ?
Over 120 years Japan had not experienced such an earthquake, get it ?
are you malfuctioning ?

Since: May 08

Kiev-Moscow-St.Peterburg

#8 Mar 16, 2011
Pesky army wrote:
How many times do you need to be told that Japan had no other alternatives ?
Don´t you know the magnitude of the current earthquake ?
Over 120 years Japan had not experienced such an earthquake, get it ?
There is a nice argument, Pesky. But now is goes uncontrolled chain reaction at reactor. They can lose at least half of their soil for ever. They have additional land anywhere?
Annie

UK

#9 Mar 16, 2011
coolncrazy wrote:
Even if this American design is bad (and this is a fact), the first mistake made Japanese when they decided to build this nuclear plants. Earthquakes and tsunamis are usual thing in Japan and it wasn't clever to build it.
I asked the same question myself. But it's apparently not usual to have anything on such a scale as this disaster and the reactors have been made to withstand abnormal force. However, this went way beyond their expectations in design and in reality the reactors have coped well given the impact is much greater than ever expected. The consequences are likely to be an increase in more robust designs going forward. Japan apparently has 53 reactors which generate 1/3 of it's energy. So it's not likely they will scrub nuclear, but will just make it better.
Annie

UK

#10 Mar 16, 2011
Roll the Bones wrote:
<quoted text>are you malfuctioning ?
he's actually right.

“Dimitri at the races in Russia”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#11 Mar 16, 2011
M_A_X_I_M wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a nice argument, Pesky. But now is goes uncontrolled chain reaction at reactor. They can lose at least half of their soil for ever. They have additional land anywhere?
Perhaps, you Russians could return those islands...you know ?
jose marti

Hollywood, FL

#12 Mar 16, 2011
Pesky army wrote:
How many times do you need to be told that Japan had no other alternatives ?
Don´t you know the magnitude of the current earthquake ?
Over 120 years Japan had not experienced such an earthquake, get it ?
There is a reason they use a Japanese word... tsunami.

They should build such plants far from the coast on land well above sea level. I doubt it was earthquake damage alone which caused this problem.

“Dimitri at the races in Russia”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13 Mar 16, 2011
Your doubts are based on your limited know-how.
Don´t ever underestimate Japanese.
These people are not some US corn pickers.
Live Free or Die

Brunswick, ME

#15 Mar 16, 2011
God Save the Queen wrote:
<quoted text>
Right on! I told them but they didn't listened. They should have used the CHERNOBYL DESIGN! Dummies!
Was just reminded: "This name is unavailable. Please choose another". Post name I wished to use was:
"Fuk-U-Shima" the name of the Japanese nuclear complex. Had to change names. Love it! LOL...
Chernobyl lacked a robust containment vessel. Attribute that to Soviet hubris.

GE boiling water reactors have robust containment vessels but lack pretty much every other functional containment contingency for an earthquake/tsunami zone. Chalk that one up to GE hubris.
Live Free or Die

Brunswick, ME

#16 Mar 16, 2011
Pesky army wrote:
Anything designed by GE could not function properly.
American know-how was, is very feeble to say the least.
Well, like I've already said, the core of my GE microwave went into meltdown two years after I bought it while the previous (non-GE) one lasted 8 years, so draw your own conclusions.

“Dimitri at the races in Russia”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#17 Mar 16, 2011
A robust vessel is not enough.
As for GE products, most of them could be compared to Polak goods. They too fall apart within warranty period.
ronan

Aldershot, UK

#18 Mar 16, 2011
I wouldn't blame the design of the reactors myself, but rather their location.

With the risk of tsumanis always present in Japan, one questions why these were located so near the sea and so vulnerable to the onslaught of a tsunami.

Nuclear power reactors require a lot of water, so maybe that's the reason, but in this case, the surrounding structure was obviously unable to defend them.

The Russian proposal of having floating nuclear power reactors seems a good idea now; in case of risk, one can imagine them sailing away from the trouble, and they could be taken for repair at sea far from urban concentration in case of leak.

“Dimitri at the races in Russia”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#19 Mar 16, 2011
I hate to speculate on the location of the reactor.
I assume Japanese could know much better than any of us here.
One thing you people keep omitting, the earthquake was of very high scale, and lasted for almost 10 minutes. Who could have known that before ?
I still say, don´t ever underestimate Japanese know-how. These people are not some dumb Polaks.

Since: May 08

Kiev-Moscow-St.Peterburg

#20 Mar 16, 2011
Pesky army wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps, you Russians could return those islands...you know ?
Thanks for your advise, I will ask wife.
Lukashenko is Dr Phil

Lempäälä, Finland

#21 Mar 16, 2011
coolncrazy wrote:
Even if this American design is bad (and this is a fact), the first mistake made Japanese when they decided to build this nuclear plants. Earthquakes and tsunamis are usual thing in Japan and it wasn't clever to build it.
Do you understand this was the worst earthquake they have exprienced in their thousand year history. Their plants have lasted fine over the years since earthquakes are very common there.

It was nature that defeated man once again. I doubt you russians could build a plant that would last as big of an earthquake and Tsunami was the one in Japan.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Doc Hastings Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Drone Use OK'ed for Agricultural, Real Estate C... (Feb '15) Feb '15 Peter Simmons 2
News Sen. Pat Roberts grabs early lead in Kansas GOP... (Aug '14) Aug '14 Asian Guy 5
News Tea party still has election hopes as chances d... (Jul '14) Jul '14 woofpack 19
News In historic vote, House backs medical marijuana (May '14) Jun '14 Cordwainer Trout 6
News McCain: no global warming action until the left... (Mar '14) Mar '14 SpaceBlues 1
News Survey: Many Americans Don't Know What Fracking Is (May '13) Dec '13 d pantz 217
News House Republicans vote to deport DREAMers (Jun '13) Jun '13 See the Light 9
More from around the web