"There was no disaster in the fourth reactor." You should update the Wikipedia with your knowledge here. They're working under a different set of assumptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster "On 15 March, an explosion damaged the fourth floor rooftop area of unit 4. Japan's nuclear safety <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safety> agency NISA reported two large holes in a wall of the outer building of unit 4 after the explosion. It was reported that water in the spent fuel pool might be boiling. Radiation inside the unit 4 control room prevented workers from staying there permanently..In October 2012, the former Japanese Ambassador to both Switzerland and Senegal Mitsuhei Murata said that ground under Fukushima unit 4 was sinking, and the structure may collapse.[103]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#cite_note-103> [104]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#cite_note-104> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> "So, if the reactors had not been running there would be no disaster" >> >> "Idle", loaded reactors, and spent fuel pools still require continuous >> cooling water. >> > > There was no disaster in the fourth reactor. Therefore, the cooling > capacity was sufficient, even though it was greatly reduced. (Some of the > emergency cooling systems survived the tsunami.) The cooling pool needs > much less cooling capacity than a reactor core right after a SCRAM. > > - Jed > >
