[ RadSafe ] "Communicating with the public and the press"

Wed Aug 21 18:04:59 CDT 2013

Actually, the plant's designs when initially envisioned had the structures placed up on a bluff 25 meters above the current plant. Costs to operate and construct the plant dictated a different approach and the path chosen was to locate the plant closer to sea level primarily to reduce the costs of plant construction and the operation seawater circulation pumps operation over the plant life - as a result the bluff was cut down with scant regard given to tsunamis (3.1m) in that era - however such misunderstandings were rectified to a larger extent by the 1980s. Needless to say, in hindsight the initial siting of the generators and meta-kura were poorly thought out.

“We decided to build the plant at ground level after comparing the ground construction costs and operating costs of the circulation water pumps,” wrote Hiroshi Kaburaki, then deputy head of the Tepco’s construction office at the Fukushima No. 1 plant, in the January 1969 edition of Hatsuden Suiryoku, a technical magazine on power plants.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2011/07/13/national/fukushima-plant-site-originally-was-a-hill-safe-from-tsunami/#.UhTR2oe9LCQ

Best Regards,
David Lawrence
646-246-3465

On Aug 21, 2013, at 9:54 AM, "Estabrooks, H Bates (IHK)" <estabrookshb at y12.doe.gov> wrote:

> Joe,
> 
> Good point.  We clearly understand now the "new reality" of coastal Japan.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Bates
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of JPreisig at aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:52 AM
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] "Communicating with the public and the press"
> 
> Radsafe:
> 
>      No impugning desired.  However, current  oceanfront Japanese reactors 
> apparently need a 50 foot
> high tsunami wall for NEXT TIME.
> 
>     Joe Preisig
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a message dated 8/21/2013 9:46:19 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
> estabrookshb at y12.doe.gov writes:
> 
> The EDGs  were flood protected.  It's disingenuous to impugn the plant  
> designers/builders by suggesting otherwise.  The seawalls were just not  
> sufficient to protect against the historically unprecedented wave  heights.
> 
> 
> ---
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster:
> 
> "The  earthquake was followed by a 13-15 m (43-49 ft) maximum height 
> tsunami  arriving approximately 50 minutes later which topped the plant's 5.7 m 
> (19 ft)  seawall,[74][75][76] flooding the basement of the Turbine Buildings 
> and  disabling the emergency diesel generators[77][78] located there[73] at  
> approximately 15:41.[71][79]"
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original  Message-----
> From: William Lipton [mailto:doctorbill34 at gmail.com] 
> Sent:  Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:39 AM
> To: Estabrooks, H Bates (IHK);  radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu; Peter Crane
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ]  "Communicating with the public and the press"
> 
> Are you saying that it  takes a "prophetic" engineer to flood protect
> emergency systems for a  tsunami susceptible plant?
> Bill Lipton
> It's not about dose,  it's
> 
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> From: Estabrooks, H Bates  (IHK)
> Sent: 8/21/2013 8:47
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu; Peter Crane;  William Lipton
> Cc: Estabrooks, H Bates (IHK)
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ]  "Communicating with the public and the press"
> Bill,
> 
> How far beyond  the "beyond design basis event/accident" do you design for?
> 
> The  magnitudes of the earthquake and resultant tsunami were
> historically  unprecedented.
> 
> To insist on a design/build to protect against them  would not have
> called for a "courageous" engineer, but rather a prophetic  engineer.
> So far we have no degree programs for that skill.
> 
> Bates  Estabrooks
> Y-12
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:  radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu]  On Behalf Of William
> Lipton
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:38  AM
> To: Peter Crane; radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ]  "Communicating with the public and the press"
> 
> (Otto G.  Raabe)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="utf-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> Instead  of debating what brand of lipstick to put on the pig, we should
> be  addressing the real safety issues. You can never explain away
> Fukushima or  other fiascos.
> 
> Compliance with the letter of the regs is not good  enough. One engineer
> with the competence and courage to insist the  emergency generators be
> flood protected would have prevented a tragedy that  will affect
> generations.
> Bill Lipton
> It's not about dose, it's about  trust.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are  currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a  message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
> the RadSafe rules.  These can be found at: 
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For  information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit:  http://health.phys.iit.edu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu