Ethics, Strategy, Value Engineering, Greed

WTF?

I'm with you on this. Pure gibberish!

Greed has overpowered ethics. There is no more ethics in the world.

Lawyers and accountants have seen to it.

The TEPCO power company did not anticipate the loss of their backup power.

After the tsunami, everyone was in shock, including the plant workers. This is the worst state of mind to try to overcome an unforeseen problem, when you are reeling from the shock of a disaster, worrying about your home, family, friends etc etc.

There are people (usually military) who are trained and hand picked for their ability to respond creatively and decisively in the worst circumstances. But even if TEPCO had someone on staff with those characteristics, there is no guarantee that they would be in a position to lead the decision process or marshall the resources needed for an effective response.

The jury is still out on that matter, whether TEPCO made the best decisions possible under the circumstances. The workers who have exposed themselves to radiation to do what must be done, are heroes.

The reactor was designed by GE, not by the Japanese. This design was criticized back in the 70's by experts who believed there was a 90% chance of meltdown in case of a systems failure because the containment is weak. However the company insisted it was only a 10% chance of meltdown. Commerce won out over safety concerns, and the design was approved, implemented and reactors sold.

In the case of TEPCO, the space-saving features of the design were probably seen as important because of the intensive land usage in Japan. This doesn't mean that they didn't care about risks, but when you are faced with a choice and it affects the bottom line and feasibility, will you believe the company's assurance of safety, or the critics? In the present case, three of six reactors are in trouble. That's 50%, effectively split the difference between the company and the critics to get a true risk value. Who is at fault for the risk assessment?

The Japanese ethic in design which you discuss is parsimonious. There is nothing wrong with the principle unless it comes to the point where safety and utility is compromised. Yes, there was questionable product after the second world war, and the label"made in japan" was a stamp of poor quality. But this poor management did not persist. In the present era the Japanese produce a lot of great products of very high quality, and are in demand worldwide.

Nowadays, producers everywhere are looking for that parsimonious sweet spot, where a 'leaner' use of resources can be implemented without compromising utility and safety. However, it goes without saying, that nuclear reactor containment is not on the table for a "leaner" scene, and never should have been.

I don't like your statistical take, it is misleading.

"The reactor was designed by GE, not by the Japanese. This design was criticized back in the 70's by experts who believed there was a 90% chance of meltdown in case of a systems failure because the containment is weak. However the company insisted it was only a 10% chance of meltdown. Commerce won out over safety concerns, and the design was approved, implemented and reactors sold."

How many of these were built and how many have suffered meltdown? This may be the first. You then go on to say that in the case of TEPCO, it is three out of six, 50%. TEPCO runs fifteen BWRs. At best, so far, they are partial meltdowns, not of the catastrophic type that burns it's way through to China.

Neither Chernobyl nor Three Mile Island were BWRs.

The risk assessment figures from the 70's are quoted from a New York Times article. As for the number of reactors, I don't know of any other than the six in question, actually affected by the tsunami.

You say they have 15 in total. Please correct me if I'm wrong, and give the true number of reactors that suffered systems failure because of the tsunami.

Actually, I might have to revise that statistic, since according to this article, three of the six reactors were down for maintenance at the time of the quake.

Looking more like the 90% risk is the most accurate.