[AngryData]

Total nonsense, Fukushima was designed in the 50s only around 15 years after we first invented nuclear power and then started construction around a decade after that using that old technology. It is like using a Model-T as an example of why cars are too dangerous to use. Or judging flight safety based on wood and canvas planes.

[metta2uall]

Yes it was designed in the 50s but there was plenty of time for the design faults making it vulnerable to a tsunami to be fixed..

[zazagura]

If it was soo dangerous, why didn't all those safety experts shut it down?

You don't see wood and canvas planes flying today.

[anoncareer0212]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20725361

[zazagura]

One year before Fukushima:

> Computed risks for new reactors are lower than for current designs "when only internal events are considered," according to a 2009 report that the Nuclear Energy Institute wrote for the NRC. (That includes fires or pipe breaks, for example.) But when risks of damage caused by external events — earthquakes, for example — are factored in, the new reactors are no safer than older reactors. In addition, because utilities have no operating experience with the new reactors, the probable risk assessments are purely theoretical and not as reliable as years of actual operating data from existing plants.

> The new designs are engineered only to withstand a predictable sequence of events, something engineers theorize may happen. In nuclear parlance that is called a "design basis accident." The new reactors, like their older counterparts, are not designed to survive an unexpected sequence of events. That is the critical flaw, says Lyman: "Three Mile Island was a beyond-design-basis accident."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/21/how-safe...