On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > > Yes > > >> 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 > > It seems nulcear plants built after the Fukushima plant and along the same stretch of coast were deliberately built at higher elevations. Ironically there was a natural sea wall which would have protected the Fukushima plant from the tidal wave, but it was razed during construction of the plant: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/11/tepco-destroyed-the-natural-seawall-which-would-have-protected-fukushima-from-the-tsunami.html Harry
