Fukushima 10 years after the disaster

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Fukushima 10 years after the disaster




by sen-no-sen » 15/03/21, 18:46

Exnihiloest wrote:...

We never dimension a society according to exceptional events that are as unpredictable as they are improbable because they never happened in the past or never happened at such intensity. No one is bound to the impossible, and zero risk does not exist. [/ Quote]

Japan is located on the Pacific Ring of Fire, there is no need here to invoke "the impossible".
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14823
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4302

Re: Fukushima 10 years after the disaster




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 15/03/21, 18:48

Leo Maximus wrote:Nothing to see ? In both cases it is a flood.

Hats off! Exceptional analysis.
0 x
Leo Maximus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2183
Registration: 07/11/06, 13:18
x 124

Re: Fukushima 10 years after the disaster




by Leo Maximus » 15/03/21, 19:04

Ahmed wrote:"I would like to understand." wonders Guy.
But it's very simple Fukushima means etymologically "the lucky city *", so there was no risk to install this nuclear power station there; you shouldn't take the Japanese for fools, even if it ends up pretty much the same! : Wink:

* Lucky or happy, the translation is not possible in a too rigorous way ...

Fukushima is written 福島 in kanji.
Kanji free gives a good translation:
福 = fuku, means fortune, bliss, happiness
鳥 = shima, means island.
http://kanji.free.fr/kanji.php?utf8=%E7%A6%8F&x=0&y=0
http://kanji.free.fr/kanji.php?utf8=%E5%B3%B6&x=0&y=0
So the translation is "Island of fortune" ... For nuclear power, yes, until March 11, 2011 ...! : Shock:
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Fukushima 10 years after the disaster




by Ahmed » 15/03/21, 19:08

The initial meaning of "shima" is indeed "island", but it later includes the meaning of "village", hence my translation by "city", more in accordance with the current meaning in this case, it seems to me. ..
1 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Leo Maximus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2183
Registration: 07/11/06, 13:18
x 124

Re: Fukushima 10 years after the disaster




by Leo Maximus » 15/03/21, 19:12

Japan is a country at risk, earthquakes of extraordinary violence, monstrous tsunamis, typhoons, torrential rains, and we must now add the nuclear risk of North Korea. There are hundreds of Patriot anti-missile missiles on constant alert. : Shock:

But the main risk is the "Big One", a mega earthquake that will put Tokyo Sky Tree to the ground!
Last edited by Leo Maximus the 15 / 03 / 21, 19: 24, 1 edited once.
0 x
Leo Maximus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2183
Registration: 07/11/06, 13:18
x 124

Re: Fukushima 10 years after the disaster




by Leo Maximus » 15/03/21, 19:15

sen-no-sen wrote:We never dimension a society according to exceptional events that are as unpredictable as they are improbable because they never happened in the past or never happened at such intensity. No one is bound to the impossible, and zero risk does not exist.


The dikes were raised to 25 meters on 400 km of coastline. It will not protect against a 40-meter tsunami that may occur tomorrow, but it is a bit reassuring.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Fukushima 10 years after the disaster




by Obamot » 15/03/21, 19:40

The nuclear disaster of Fukushima Daiichi is the chronicle of an announced disaster, which should never have happened.

There is relief everywhere and even immediately BEHIND the power station.

F9EB9B7E-9657-423F-A076-698369F0C734.jpeg
F9EB9B7E-9657-423F-A076-698369F0C734.jpeg (259.89 Kio) Consulté 1576 fois


For any expert in seismic risk in Japan, it seemed obvious that this plant (like others) should have been built a little higher up, sheltered from tsunamis (which are known phenomena in this country) . Taking this type of risk into account is part of the basic training of any civil engineer, it is basically one of the central points of his training.

The supervisory authorities, also those who issue building permits, all these bodies are also made up of civil engineers, who should have prohibited construction on this site, as was done! The question is like t and why did we let it happen, how were they able to build such plants in the face of a risk of catastrophe which we knew sooner or later would occur.
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Fukushima 10 years after the disaster




by sen-no-sen » 15/03/21, 20:50

Leo Maximus wrote:
sen-no-sen wrote:We never dimension a society according to exceptional events that are as unpredictable as they are improbable because they never happened in the past or never happened at such intensity. No one is bound to the impossible, and zero risk does not exist.



This sentence is not from me but from Exnihilo.
I mentioned that, on the contrary, catastrophes were to be expected with regard to Japan's position on the Ring of Fire.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Leo Maximus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2183
Registration: 07/11/06, 13:18
x 124

Re: Fukushima 10 years after the disaster




by Leo Maximus » 15/03/21, 21:21

sen-no-sen wrote:
Leo Maximus wrote:
sen-no-sen wrote:We never dimension a society according to exceptional events that are as unpredictable as they are improbable because they never happened in the past or never happened at such intensity. No one is bound to the impossible, and zero risk does not exist.



This sentence is not from me but from Exnihilo.
I mentioned that, on the contrary, catastrophes were to be expected with regard to Japan's position on the Ring of Fire.

Ok, a thousand apologies!
0 x
Leo Maximus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2183
Registration: 07/11/06, 13:18
x 124

Re: Fukushima 10 years after the disaster




by Leo Maximus » 15/03/21, 21:51

Obamot wrote:The nuclear disaster of Fukushima Daiichi is the chronicle of an announced disaster, which should never have happened.

There is relief everywhere and even immediately BEHIND the power station.

For any expert in seismic risk in Japan, it seemed obvious that this plant (like others) should have been built a little higher up, sheltered from tsunamis (which are known phenomena in this country) . Taking this type of risk into account is part of the basic training of any civil engineer, it is basically one of the central points of his training.

The supervisory authorities, also those who issue building permits, all these bodies are also made up of civil engineers, who should have prohibited construction on this site, as was done! The question is like t and why did we let it happen, how were they able to build such plants in the face of a risk of catastrophe which we knew sooner or later would occur.

Must see the context of the time.

The construction of the first nuclear power station in Japan was planned in the 60s. There is no danger with nuclear power, there is no supervisory authority. There are no radiation protection standards. Nuclear tests are carried out in the atmosphere by the hundreds. The EDF reactors at Bugey, St-Laurent des Eaux, Marcoule, etc., do not even have containment enclosures. To do what ? There is no danger with nuclear power.

It should be noted that TEPCO has chosen to build the last 2 units of Fukushima-Daiichi, 5 and 6, at a higher level. They were little damaged by the tsunami. We were in the 70s and we were starting to realize that the first 4 units had been built at too low a level.
1 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 231 guests