It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
MARCH 16, 2011, 3:50 P.M. ET.
"Japan's nuclear crisis is drawing attention to aging U.S. reactors, especially the 23 most similar to reactors at the Japanese plant where workers are racing to avoid a full-scale meltdown.".....
Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by manta78
The batteries are part of the defense in depth. It would be quite something if a US reactor lost external power as well as its primary and secondary emergency diesels. And before you tell me “it happened in Fukushima” let me remind you that the NRC standard for emergency diesel siting is very stringent and emergency power busses are specified for interfacing with many commercially available industrial portable generators.
You could say the same thing about a skyscraper, but in fact it's possible to build buildings to withstand Earthquakes.
Originally posted by randyvs
How can anyone think it's safe to put a reaction chamber on a siezmic hotspot?
Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by manta78
You know what the first thing I noticed looking at it was ? None of those reactors in the U. S. are any where near yellowstone.
Originally posted by zorgon
Well I just hope they learn the lesson on where to store spent fuel rods... Had they been stored off site or in a separate building, they wouldn't be in such a mess right now...
Also when you build diesel generators on Tsunami beach, maybe a steel and concrete bunker might have been wise
Originally posted by WeRpeons
I think we need to rethink the dangers of using reactors to produce electricity. The catastrophic implications on the human race is just too great. The NRC has always said they had safety precautions to prevent reactor melt downs. But with the events unfolding in Japan, it's proving that there is no such thing as preventing a reactor melt down.
Originally posted by queenofsheba
The wariness now towards nuclear plants could get us to look into other alternatives, such as coal power plants, that are less expensive to build and coal is plentiful in the US. My opinion is they are safer and more cost effective. We have them now and they are working on fixing the carbon dioxide issue which has the environmentalists up in arms, so to speak.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Arbitrageur
BS! You have to be a complete and utter moron to build anything dangerous on top of a faut line or anywhere close to the sea...