H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote:
> How do you view the decision to not build a higher sea wall? > Unfortunate. But understandable. The previous tsunami of this magnitude occurred in 869 AD. There were records of it, and even man-markers of the high water mark. But I think experts assumed the ancient records were exaggerations. See: http://www.pri.org/stories/2012-01-17/scientist-warned-tsunami-disaster-japan http://www.pri.org/stories/2012-01-17/scientist-warned-tsunami-disaster-japan I have heard they are now going back and reviewing these ancient records and paying closer attention than they did before the disaster. In retrospect, I think they should have moved the emergency generator fuel tanks to a safer location. That would not have prevented damage to the facility, but it would have stopped the event from spiraling into a disaster. It would be cheaper and faster than building a better seawall, I think. It would take a gigantic seawall to stop this, judging by the videos of the tsunami striking the plant. > Was it an acceptable cost vs risk tradeoff or a criminal mistake? > I do not think it was criminal. Responsibility is too dispersed. Obviously, in retrospect, it was not acceptable. I do not know how I might have judged it before the event. Hindsight is easy. - Jed
