Why a profit first philosophy is bad for the world

[Quantum Windbag]

I personally think that procedures should be put in place, to save the people first. I would bet that these people allowed the nuclear plants to be put near them, with that understanding....

On something like this, when in doubt, saving the people and the farm lands and water, should come first.

I may not agree with TM's delivery of this message, but I do understand the message.

I'd also bet my bottom dollar, Nuke plants in the future, will have stronger and better emergency plans that would cover this...

What I find amazing is that you are actually demanding that they do exactly what they did, put the safety of people first. Dumping seawater on the reactors required them to send workers directly into the danger zone of the reactor building because none of the remote control systems were working. If they had been there would have been no need to talk about flooding the reactors because the cooling system would have been keeping the core cool.

 

[boedicca]

Tepco was reluctant to use seawater because it worried about hurting its long-term investment in the complex, say people involved with the efforts. Seawater, which can render a nuclear reactor permanently inoperable, now is at the center of efforts to keep the plant under control.

Tepco "hesitated because it tried to protect its assets," said Akira Omoto, a former Tepco executive and a member of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, an official advisory body involved in the effort to tame the plant. Both Tepco and government officials had good reason not to use saltwater, Mr. Omoto added. Early on, nuclear fuel rods were still under cooling water and undamaged, he said, adding, "it's understandable because injecting seawater into the fuel vessel renders it unusable."

You don't even comprehend what you post.

The nuclear fuel rods were still under cooling water and undamaged - yet you expect that the company should have immediately added sea water and destroyed them?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Just out of curiosity, Do Nuclear Power Plants have insurance that covers situations like this....?

 

[syrenn]

I am getting really sick of you people pretending you were not given the facts right from the start.

Tepco was reluctant to use seawater because it worried about hurting its long-term investment in the complex, say people involved with the efforts[/COLOR]. Seawater, which can render a nuclear reactor permanently inoperable, now is at the center of efforts to keep the plant under control.

Tepco "hesitated because it tried to protect its assets," said Akira Omoto, a former Tepco executive and a member of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, an official advisory body involved in the effort to tame the plant. Both Tepco and government officials had good reason not to use saltwater, Mr. Omoto added. Early on, nuclear fuel rods were still under cooling water and undamaged, he said, adding, "it's understandable because injecting seawater into the fuel vessel renders it unusable."

I get really sick of you not understanding THE FACTS OF WHAT YOU POST!

 

[jeffrockit]

workers who were there when the disastors first took place.

If they were concerned first with lives instead of perserving the reactors they would have been shut down without as much mess as we are seeing.

Wrong, they died from the earthquake and tsunami. To date 1 worker has died and that was due to a crane collapse. This was mainly fodder for the 24/7 media who seemed to forget while they were placing blame on the plant that it was all caused by the earthquake and tsunami.

 

[martybegan]

workers who were there when the disastors first took place.

If they were concerned first with lives instead of perserving the reactors they would have been shut down without as much mess as we are seeing.

Do you even understand how a nuclear reactor works? You just dont shut one down instantly, its physically impossible. its not like there is an off switch for the thing.

Actually, as soon as you drop the rods in a reactor it is shut down. The problem is that it is still hot, both with radiation and heat. It is, however, completely shut down, which is why they were forced to rely on backup power to run critical systems. That should have been provided by electricity from the other reactors, then the grid, then the backup generators, and finally the batteries. They went straight to the batteries, and were forced to prioritize their use of that meager power supply based on the fact that they knew two reactors had no fuel rods at all, and the fact that the 3 of the others were indicating that they were cooling properly.

Good clarification. by shutdown I was referring to a cold shutdown, where the residual decay heat had lowered to a point where only minimal external cooling would be required.

 

[Truthmatters]

workers who were there when the disastors first took place.

If they were concerned first with lives instead of perserving the reactors they would have been shut down without as much mess as we are seeing.

Wrong, they died from the earthquake and tsunami. To date 1 worker has died and that was due to a crane collapse. This was mainly fodder for the 24/7 media who seemed to forget while they were placing blame on the plant that it was all caused by the earthquake and tsunami.

How many do you think will die from exposuer over the next few months and years?

To pretend that this is not a dangerous situation which could have been seccured more successfully by not thinking of the future profits and assets but instead of thinking of lives first is to ignore the entire article I posted and all its facts.

 

[manifold]

it would have even saved money in the end.

Thanks for self-pwning your own thread title/OP in your very next post.

It wasn't a failure of the philosophy as you assert, but rather a failure in it's pragmatic application.

 

[martybegan]

workers who were there when the disastors first took place.

If they were concerned first with lives instead of perserving the reactors they would have been shut down without as much mess as we are seeing.

Wrong, they died from the earthquake and tsunami. To date 1 worker has died and that was due to a crane collapse. This was mainly fodder for the 24/7 media who seemed to forget while they were placing blame on the plant that it was all caused by the earthquake and tsunami.

How many do you think will die from exposuer over the next few months and years?

To pretend that this is not a dangerous situation which could have been seccured more successfully by not thinking of the future profits and assets but instead of thinking of lives first is to ignore the entire article I posted and all its facts.

Your article has opinions, not facts. Facts will be found in the accident report, and we are going to have to wait for it.

It is only in your mind that the word profits appears. In the end they did use the seawater method. You also have to remember that by using seawater in large volumes, they would have to return it to the ocean. This water will have some short term radioactivity associated with it. Again, its a measure of risk versus reward for everything. If they could have stuck with the feed water and thier normal cooling towers it would have been far better than just going with a seawater dump right away.

 

[editec]

Just out of curiosity, Do Nuclear Power Plants have insurance that covers situations like this....?

It's complicated, but basically yes, they have SOME insurance from one company designed specifically to insure nuclear plants.

The Price-Anderson Act, which became law on September 2, 1957, was designed to ensure that adequate funds would be available to satisfy liability claims of members of the public for personal injury and property damage in the event of a nuclear accident involving a commercial nuclear power plant.

The legislation helped encourage private investment in commercial nuclear power by placing a cap, or ceiling on the total amount of liability each holder of a nuclear power plant licensee faced in the event of an accident. Over the years, the "limit of liability" for a nuclear accident has increased the insurance pool to more than $12 billion.

Under existing policy, owners of nuclear power plants pay a premium each year for $375 million in private insurance for offsite liability coverage for each reactor unit. This primary, or first tier, insurance is supplemented by a second tier. In the event a nuclear accident causes damages in excess of $375 million, each licensee would be assessed a prorated share of the excess up to $111.9 million. With 104 reactors currently licensed to operate, this secondary tier of funds contains about $12.6 billion. If 15 percent of these funds are expended, prioritization of the remaining amount would be left to a federal district court. If the second tier is depleted, Congress is committed to determine whether additional disaster relief is required.

The only insurance pool writing nuclear insurance, American Nuclear Insurers, is comprised of investor-owned stock insurance companies. About half the pool's total liability capacity comes from foreign sources. The average annual premium for a single-unit reactor site is $400,000. The premium for a second or third reactor at the same site is discounted to reflect a sharing of limits.

Claims resulting from nuclear accidents are covered under Price-Anderson; for that reason, all property and liability insurance policies issued in the U.S. exclude nuclear accidents. Claims can include any incident (including those that come about because of theft or sabotage) in the course of transporting nuclear fuel to a reactor site; in the storage of nuclear fuel or waste at a site; in the operation of a reactor, including the discharge of radioactive effluent; and in the transportation of irradiated nuclear fuel and nuclear waste from the reactor.

Price-Anderson does not require coverage for spent fuel or nuclear waste stored at interim storage facilities, transportation of nuclear fuel or waste that is not either to or from a nuclear reactor, or acts of theft or sabotage occurring after planned transportation has ended.
Insurance under Price-Anderson covers bodily injury, sickness, disease or resulting death, property damage and loss as well as reasonable living expenses for individuals evacuated.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 extended the Price-Anderson Act to December 31, 2025.

Note, that this insurance clearly do NOT cover accidents not directly associated with plant activity?

This is, I think, a HUGE mistake.

Well it's not a mistake if you own a nuclear power plant, its merely a mistake for the REST OF US.

 

[Truthmatters]

Tepco "hesitated because it tried to protect its assets," said Akira Omoto, a former Tepco executive and a member of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, an official advisory body involved in the effort to tame the plant. Both Tepco and government officials had good reason not to use saltwater, Mr. Omoto added. Early on, nuclear fuel rods were still under cooling water and undamaged, he said, adding, "it's understandable because injecting seawater into the fuel vessel renders it unusable."

Tepco spokesman Hiro Hasegawa said the company, "taking the safety of the whole plant into consideration, was trying to judge the appropriate timing to use seawater."


"This disaster is 60% man-made," said one government official. "They failed in their initial response. It's like Tepco dropped and lost a 100 yen coin while trying to pick up a 10 yen coin."

why do you ignore the very people dealing with the inccident and their words?

 

[martybegan]

Tepco "hesitated because it tried to protect its assets," said Akira Omoto, a former Tepco executive and a member of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, an official advisory body involved in the effort to tame the plant. Both Tepco and government officials had good reason not to use saltwater, Mr. Omoto added. Early on, nuclear fuel rods were still under cooling water and undamaged, he said, adding, "it's understandable because injecting seawater into the fuel vessel renders it unusable."

Tepco spokesman Hiro Hasegawa said the company, "taking the safety of the whole plant into consideration, was trying to judge the appropriate timing to use seawater."


"This disaster is 60% man-made," said one government official. "They failed in their initial response. It's like Tepco dropped and lost a 100 yen coin while trying to pick up a 10 yen coin."

why do you ignore the very people dealing with the inccident and their words?

Funny, as you ignore the very first part in the fact that they had the rods under cooling water, while they were thinking about using seawater if they have to. To use seawater at that point would have been stupid. The fact they did use seawater and ruin the reactor shows they were willing.

Your final statement is the one you like the most, and of course, it is unsourced. "government offical." the people you quote with actual names back up what everyone who is disagreeing with you is saying, and yet you dont get it.

Do you even have a high school degree? or am i arguing with some uneducated child?

 

[Truthmatters]

If they wanted to end the possibility of people being harmed they would have acted differently.

The Tepco guy says himself that they didnt want to pump in seawater because it would ruin the reactor.

They had a earthquake of mega porportions and KNEW huge after shocks would be coming soon.

If they had worried about people instead of Maybe trying to save a moneymaker then they would have done the right thing and contain it without a doubt.


like the man said , they tried to save money and ended up losing more.

 

[martybegan]

If they wanted to end the possibility of people being harmed they would have acted differently.

The Tepco guy says himself that they didnt want to pump in seawater because it would ruin the reactor.

They had a earthquake of mega porportions and KNEW huge after shocks would be coming soon.

If they had worried about people instead of Maybe trying to save a moneymaker then they would have done the right thing and contain it without a doubt.


like the man said , they tried to save money and ended up losing more.

He also said it wasnt needed in the beginning because the core was still covered with water. You keep ignoring that point. What is the issue with trying to save something, that if restored to functionality, could prevent all the rolling blackouts they need to do now, due to the loss of the plants load?

I find it comical that you then assume that if they did what you think is right (I'd like to see your nuclear engineering degree) everything would be fine. That adding seawater right away when they didnt have to would allow some magical neptunian fairy to wave her want and make the problem dissapear.

You are hedging all your arguments on that one statment, from an offical that may be an accountant for all we know.

My degree is in ChemE, (masters), whats yours in?

 

[Rozman]

This is exactly what you will get with any privatization of the peoples needs.

So another example to have government run everything.Government is the answer for everything.Corporations are evil and need to be destroyed.Profit is bad.

If someone has a degree in Nuclear Physics and has worked at a Nuclear reactor for 50 years
and maybe worked in another nuclear field I welcome your feedback If not you might do well to go back to watching Dancing with the Stars or American Idol and let the professionals who do this stuff for a living handle this.

This is like those here on the message board in the conspiracy theory site that saw a little video in their Mom's basement and came up with a whole theory.

Please....Now companies are evil for trying to stop a reactor from melting down.

 

[syrenn]

If they wanted to end the possibility of people being harmed they would have acted differently.

The Tepco guy says himself that they didnt want to pump in seawater because it would ruin the reactor.

They had a earthquake of mega porportions and KNEW huge after shocks would be coming soon.

If they had worried about people instead of Maybe trying to save a moneymaker then they would have done the right thing and contain it without a doubt.


like the man said , they tried to save money and ended up losing more.

Idiot. It was not the earthquake that caused all of this. It was the tsunami.

 

[boedicca]

workers who were there when the disastors first took place.

If they were concerned first with lives instead of perserving the reactors they would have been shut down without as much mess as we are seeing.

Wrong, they died from the earthquake and tsunami. To date 1 worker has died and that was due to a crane collapse. This was mainly fodder for the 24/7 media who seemed to forget while they were placing blame on the plant that it was all caused by the earthquake and tsunami.

How many do you think will die from exposuer over the next few months and years?

To pretend that this is not a dangerous situation which could have been seccured more successfully by not thinking of the future profits and assets but instead of thinking of lives first is to ignore the entire article I posted and all its facts.

How many people died from Three Mile Island?

 

[boedicca]

Using TMN's logic (well, poor facsimile of logic), we should shut down all wind farms as they have much higher fatality rates than do nuclear power plants.

Nuclear accounts for about nine percent of America's energy, according to the Energy Information Administration, and has yet to cause a single fatality here. Wind, on the other hand, provides the United States with only 0.7 percent of its energy, and has been responsible for 35 deaths in the United States alone. So if we're trying to weigh the costs and benefits of each, it seems wind fares far worse than nuclear. Yet no one seems to be discussing plans to halt production of all new wind farms until Americans' safety can be guaranteed.


Inconvenient Truth: Wind Energy Has Killed More Americans Than Nuclear | NewsBusters.org

 

[Quantum Windbag]

workers who were there when the disastors first took place.

If they were concerned first with lives instead of perserving the reactors they would have been shut down without as much mess as we are seeing.

Wrong, they died from the earthquake and tsunami. To date 1 worker has died and that was due to a crane collapse. This was mainly fodder for the 24/7 media who seemed to forget while they were placing blame on the plant that it was all caused by the earthquake and tsunami.

How many do you think will die from exposuer over the next few months and years?

To pretend that this is not a dangerous situation which could have been seccured more successfully by not thinking of the future profits and assets but instead of thinking of lives first is to ignore the entire article I posted and all its facts.

All of them. It is called old age.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Stop the presses