Comments on: Retrospective: What we talked about in April, 2011

By: The Swordfish, Supreme Overlord of Sporks

The Swordfish, Supreme Overlord of Sporks — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:49:43 +0000

Oh, Greg, please don’t stop complaining about Unity and Gnome 3.0! They’re filthy, pus-encrusted abominations unto the Linux way, and the more people we have loudly denouncing them for what they are, the better!

By: James Aach

James Aach — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:02:14 +0000

For the moment, developing an understanding of the event kind of depends on your sources, I guess. Perhaps at some point it will all become clear, but I rather doubt it. There is a lot of confusion and obfuscation and ulterior motives on all sides of the equation, made worse by a lack of understanding of the technology by most of the intended audience and some of those providing the commentary. No doubt though it was (is) a collosal mess.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 21:19:05 +0000

I wouldn’t count on that, necessarily, depending on the initial level of concern.

“The explosion at Reactor 3 may have been a prompt moderated nuclear critically within the reactor 3 fuel pool. Also, the containment at Reactor 3 was probably badly damaged and cracked independently. (see video below from Fairewinds)”

http://goo.gl/AgKkp

With respect to widespred terrestrial contamination (as opposed to the ocean and groundwater near the plant) the fuel pools may have been as big a problem as the reactors.

By: James Aach

James Aach — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 18:52:07 +0000

FYI: It appears the used fuel stored in the fuel pools at Fukushima was not in as much jeopardy as previously thought, at least according to the US Institute of Nuclear Operations (INPO) report and timeline of the incident. (A small consolation, but defintely a change from what was being reported at the time.)

James Aach, author of “Rad Decision: A Novel of Nuclear Power”