Fukushima: Mark 1 Nuclear Reactor Design Caused GE Scientist To Quit In Protest - ABCNews

[WillyT]

Fukushima: Mark 1 Nuclear Reactor Design Caused GE Scientist To Quit In Protest
Damaged Japanese Nuclear Plant Has Five Mark 1 Reactors
BY MATTHEW MOSK - ABCNews
March 15, 2011

<snip>

Thirty-five years ago, Dale G. Bridenbaugh and two of his colleagues at General Electric resigned from their jobs after becoming increasingly convinced that the nuclear reactor design they were reviewing -- the Mark 1 -- was so flawed it could lead to a devastating accident.

Questions persisted for decades about the ability of the Mark 1 to handle the immense pressures that would result if the reactor lost cooling power, and today that design is being put to the ultimate test in Japan. Five of the six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, which has been wracked since Friday's earthquake with explosions and radiation leaks, are Mark 1s.

"The problems we identified in 1975 were that, in doing the design of the containment, they did not take into account the dynamic loads that could be experienced with a loss of coolant," Bridenbaugh told ABC News in an interview. "The impact loads the containment would receive by this very rapid release of energy could tear the containment apart and create an uncontrolled release."

The situation on the ground at the Fukushima Daiichi plant is so fluid, and the details of what is unfolding are so murky, that it may be days or even weeks before anyone knows how the Mark 1 containment system performed in the face of a devastating combination of natural disasters.

But the ability of the containment to withstand the events that have cascaded from what nuclear experts call a "station blackout" -- where the loss of power has crippled the reactor's cooling system -- will be a crucial question as policy makers re-examine the safety issues that surround nuclear power, and specifically the continued use of what is now one of the oldest types of nuclear reactors still operating.

GE told ABC News the reactors have "a proven track record of performing reliably and safely for more than 40 years" and "performed as designed," even after the shock of a 9.0 earthquake.

<snip>

More: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fukushima-mark-nuclear-reactor-design-caused-ge-scientist/story?id=13141287

:kick:

[femrap]

1. So since GE is a person,

can we put it on trial and if found guilty, put it in jail?

Taxpayers will get all its/his money...

[Liberal Veteran]

3. It sorta underscores where our economic system has failed.

No insurance company would insure a nuclear facility. So the government forces them to pay a pittance into a liability pool and if something goes wrong, the only agency responsible for cleaning up is the government (aka the taxpayer).

Socialize the risks, privatize the profits.

Something is very, very wrong with that kind of set up. It's a con-game masquerading as a mutually beneficial public/private arrangement.

In the final analysis, the moment things go bad, the private company pockets the money and runs, while the public is stuck with the damage and it's associated costs.

Back to your point, GE is very much a person when comes to engaging in politics (and it shouldn't take a genius to figure out that might be a bad thing, yet eludes the republican party), but when it comes to asking it to live up to it's end of the bargain in our social contract, GE hides behind it the fact that it isn't really a person.

Thus, a con-game.

[femrap]

4. A Con-game brought to us by a

Con-gress.

I am beginning to believe that the scales are being removed from the eyes of many....Alas, possibly too late. Now that radiation will circle our globe over and over. But maybe it's never too late.

You are very correct....'Socialize the risks and privatize the profits.'

Where is Robin Hood?

[Liberal Veteran]

2. But...GE brings good things to life.

If you consider bringing Japan to a THIRD nuclear tragedy "good", that is.

Personally, I place the blame on capitalistic greed (is that a redundancy).

There was a saying when I was in the military when it came to trusting our equipment: Remember, your equipment was manufactured by the lowest bidder who expected a very healthy profit margin.

Same thing holds true here.