Thoughts about the Japanese Nuclear Reactor Crisis

I read the following during the BP Gulf Oil fiasco:

{structural engineering is}...
“the art of molding materials we do not really understand
into shapes we cannot really analyze,
so as to withstand forces we cannot really assess,
in such a way that the public does not really suspect.”
-- Eric H. Brown

Duh!?!?!?

A word to the wise should be sufficient. We have built our infrastructure on sand and believed it was solid, immovable rock. What do you expect. Business is about business—they will ALWAYS downplay the hazards and glorify their precautionary measures, all for the ultimate purpose of saving money and increasing profit. That's not inherently good or bad. That's just the way it is. People are like that; and people operate businesses. Sadly, adequate regulations are the only way to counter that.

I'm all for balance (re energy needs vs source) but my sense is that that expression is touted too often by the business interests that would avoid being open and honest about the risks; about the assumptions and trade-offs they're making in the engineering; and about the problems that are really being encountered. We ASSUME (you know what that word breaks down to, don't you) that because there has not been a recorded quake above some number that it's ok to engineer for that number. Problem is we really don't know what might be possible. We're basically ignorant of many, many, many things about the workings of our world. For dangerous power plants built on / near a seismic fault line it seems to me that we need to over-engineer; not engineer to a 'reasonable' limit. The problem with reasonable is WHO defines that number and why that number is chosen. If it's to save money, then let's get real about the REAL costs of producing nuclear energy. If any one of those reactors has a complete meltdown what's the REAL cost due to loss of the reactor; loss of lives AND health; loss of energy output and business; loss of livable real estate due to creation of a 'no man's land' around the reactor; and so on and so on. If we're going to get real and take a balanced view and approach to the whole issue then let's get real and include EVERYTHING in the equation.

This appeared in a recent issue of Science News Magazine:

"At magnitude 9.0, the March 11 earthquake in Japan was the fourth largest since 1900. Though there is no theoretical limit to an earthquake’s size, it is extremely unlikely that motion along a known tectonic fault could produce an event of magnitude 10.0 or larger."

That’s what nuclear reactors should be engineered for! You know that’s not the case!

I think it's unlikely we can run away from Nuclear Energy anytime soon. It's a phenomenal energy resource. The problem this crisis underscores is that we need to reevaluate our assumptions. Nuclear energy is not a cheap easy fix for our energy problems. If we are REALLY honest about it we realize it's dangerous AND, if done properly, expensive. We need to face this reality.