# Still support nuke power plants? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2011, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647 "2011-03-14T11:56:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 47
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/921 "2011-03-23T04:20:05Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > One thousand years is a long time. Wait till you see what 1000 years of global warming and expensive green energy do to civilization and the Earth. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/922 "2011-03-23T04:22:00Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Ok. What is it? What is the magical stopgap energy source? > > -XT Nuke only contributes about 8% of the US’s energy. Efficiency improvements alone could save more than that, and eliminate the need for nuclear at all. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/923 "2011-03-23T04:22:45Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > From your cite: Indeed. So? Clearly nuclear power was at the low end. That said I am fine with circumstances dictating a different solution for a given area. Whatever makes sense. Point is saying nuclear power is “too expensive” is not really correct. > [@](#): > > Compared to what? Compared to most power generating techniques. ([cite](http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html)) > [@](#): > > Nuke plants currently take something like 13 years to complete, assuming they’re ever completed. Add a new design like ones that “deal with waste” you’re talking even longer than that. So? To me that means we need to get started. If there is an immediate shortfall of power then sure, build something that can get online faster. Our issue is with fuel prices going up in the next 15-30 years. Time enough to build nuclear plants. None of the other options on the table suffice to meet the need. Other options are certainly part of the mix but can come nowhere near meeting all our power requirements (hell, imagine the power requirements if we replace gasoline with electric cars…solar and wind just will not do the trick and I think we are already about maxed on hydro). ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/924 "2011-03-23T04:28:13Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Nuke plants currently take something like 13 years to complete, assuming they’re ever completed. Add a new design like ones that “deal with waste” you’re talking even longer than that. 13 YEARS? So what? How about hydro, do you know how long that takes? Take the Clyde dam on the Clutha river for example - 11 years The Three Gorges Dam? - 15 years (andd then some) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/925 "2011-03-23T04:33:30Z")
[QUOTE=levdrakon] Nuke only contributes about 8% of the US’s energy. Efficiency improvements alone could save more than that, and eliminate the need for nuclear at all. [/QUOTE] How are you calculating US’s energy there? Do you mean total energy including the stuff that drives our cars and trucks, or generated power? Because if it’s the latter you are wrong…it’s more like 20-30%. [This](http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/usnuclearpowerplants/) cite says 20%, so I’ll go with that. > [@](#): > > Nuclear energy provides 20 percent of the United States’ electricity and is its No. 1 source of emission-free electricity. And this is after letting nuclear languish for the last few decades…and it’s STILL a major source of generated electricity. And after a major push in the last few years, especially wrt wind, what do you think wind and solar combine account for, generated energy wise? > [@](#): > > Nuke plants currently take something like 13 years to complete, assuming they’re ever completed. That’s true, especially the last part. But the REASON they take so long and may never get completed is sort of the point. -XT ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/926 "2011-03-23T05:04:42Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > We need a stopgap energy source until we get the clean energy of the future working. Nuclear is not it. I think it _could_ be, with sufficient effort. We disagree on this but I respect your position. I’m not sure nuclear _has_ to be the stopgap energy source, however. Something that has been bothering me the last couple of days: wiki details direct diesel-driven pumps as one of the emergency cooling systems (the LPCI) for boiling-water reactors. I could not understand how this system could be disabled by tsunami or blackout since those diesels surely had to be located within the reactor buildings. Then I found this document: [Mark 1 Containment Report](http://www.scribd.com/doc/51291366/Report-BWR-Mark-I-Containment-03192011-2) From page 10: > [@](#): > > As a result of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, additional actions and equipment wereput in place at certain U.S. plants to allow water makeup to the reactor and the fuel pools shouldsignificant damage occur to the reactor buildings. These changes include pre-staged diesel-driven pumps, piping, and procedures that would support water makeup from various water supplies without the need for electrical power. If a diesel-drive pump is a change, this implies that the original Mark 1 didn’t have them. Maybe the Japanese didn’t make that modification, if they even received the memo. Another layer of redundancy that wasn’t there. And from page 20 (Attachment 5): > [@](#): > > In the 1980s, the NRC staff reviewed the potential for accidents more severe than those the plants were licensed and designed to mitigate. In order to enhance the ability of all containments to prevent and mitigate the consequences of severe accidents beyond the design basis accidents, the NRC requested that all plants install a hardened vent. In the event of a core damage accident,the hardened vent would allow reduction in containment post-accident pressure. Hardened meant that the vent would transport hydrogen, steam and other accident products and release them outside the reactor building. This would preclude damage to the reactor building and equipmentfrom steam and the possible hydrogen explosions. That implies that the original Mark 1 design had no facility for venting the containment. That is INSANE. All these cooling systems designed to compensate for a worst case “full guillotine break” in a steam pipe, blasting steam out into the containment, but no facility to actually vent the containment. That is a design defect so blatant I can only assume it was like an elephant in a ballroom - nobody could quite believe it was really there. That explains perfectly why venting has taken place into the reactor buildings themselves. Why they continued to vent into no.s 2 and 3 after no. 1 blew, and why the horribly kludgy step of cutting holes in the roofs of buildings 5 and 6 was necessary. Not that it would have saved no 4, but 1, 2 and 3 could have been still intact right now, boiling off steam and venting it by bubbling through the wetwell, scrubbing out most of that iodine and cesium that’s been released. Shit. The good news is that these modifications were made years ago to the Mark 1s still in operation in the USA, but OMG. The post mortem to this is going to be ugly, especially if it turns out GE distributed these recommendations to all their Mark 1 customers. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/927 "2011-03-23T05:17:43Z")
> [@matt](#): > > Something that has been bothering me the last couple of days: wiki details direct diesel-driven pumps as one of the emergency cooling systems (the LPCI) for boiling-water reactors. I could not understand how this system could be disabled by tsunami or blackout since those diesels surely had to be located within the reactor buildings. I am curious (not being snarky) why you would think this. The diesel generators could be pretty much anywhere. Hell, you could put them in the next town over if you wanted to and run power lines (not saying that would make sense but you could). I see no reason why the generators would need to be in the reactor building. Indeed, if you are having problems with your reactor I doubt you want the generator backups anywhere near it. Backup systems should be insulated from damage that causes them to be needed in the first place. Having them co-located with the reactor would seem a poor choice. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/928 "2011-03-23T05:32:08Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I am curious (not being snarky) why you would think this. > > The diesel generators could be pretty much anywhere. Hell, you could put them in the next town over if you wanted to and run power lines (not saying that would make sense but you could). I’m not talking about the backup diesel power generators. I’m talking about pumps on the emegency cooling loops, driven _directly_ by diesel engines. Since the pumps are within the reactor building, those diesels would have to be as well. Wiki says: “The Low Pressure Coolant Injection System, the “heavy artillery” in the ECCS, can be operated at reactor vessel pressures below 465 psi. The LPCI consists of 4 pumps driven by diesel engines, and is capable of injecting a mammoth 150,000 L/min (40,000 US gal/min) of water into the core . Combined with the CS to keep steam pressure low, the LPCI is designed to suppress contingencies by rapidly and completely flooding the core with coolant.” From [Boiling water reactor safety systems - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor_safety_systems) My link in my previous post said “changes include pre-staged **diesel-driven pumps** ” (my bold). I’m inferring that the diesel driven LPCI mentioned by wiki is the modification recommended in my link, and that previously the LPCI was driven by AC electric motors. Also that the Japanese reactors did not have this modification. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/929 "2011-03-23T05:40:31Z")
> [@matt](#): > > I’m not talking about the backup diesel power generators. I’m talking about pumps on the emegency cooling loops, driven _directly_ by diesel engines. Since the pumps are within the reactor building, those diesels would have to be as well. > > Wiki says: “The Low Pressure Coolant Injection System, the “heavy artillery” in the ECCS, can be operated at reactor vessel pressures below 465 psi. The LPCI consists of 4 pumps driven by diesel engines, and is capable of injecting a mammoth 150,000 L/min (40,000 US gal/min) of water into the core . Combined with the CS to keep steam pressure low, the LPCI is designed to suppress contingencies by rapidly and completely flooding the core with coolant.” > > From [Boiling water reactor safety systems - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor_safety_systems) > > My link in the previous post talks said"changes include pre-staged **diesel-driven pumps**" (my bold). I’m inferring that the diesel driven LPCI mentioned by wiki is the modification recommended in my link, and that previously the LPCI was driven by AC electric motors. Also that the Japanese reactors did not have this modification. I would be surprised if the pumps were directly driven by a diesel engine. The pumps in a nuclear reactor are run by electric motors. The backups are other sources of power to run the pumps (the nuclear reactor normally provides its own power to run the pumps then they have grid power from other power plants to fall back to then diesel generators then batteries). I cannot imagine why they’d have the diesel engines directly drive the pumps. You’d need transmissions and junk adding to the complexity if you did that. Hell, a diesel locomotive uses its diesel engines to turn electric generators which power electric motors that move the train. I am not an expert in this stuff but from what you have cited I’d say it is just sloppy writing that short hands diesel \> generator \> electric motor \> pump (I am guessing the motor is part of the pump itself) to “diesel-driven pumps”. Having the motors (diesel or electric) near the reactor seems a bad idea. In an accident with a radiation release or high pressure steam venting and so on would be a great way to disable the very systems meant to save the reactor. I think you’d want to keep them in a separate building. There is no reason they _have_ to be next to the reactor that I can think of. I could be wrong though so won’t bet the farm on this. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/930 "2011-03-23T05:48:21Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Do you crusade against all industry? Because industry has left lots and lots and lots of scars on the planet. Not sure how many Superfund sites are currently in the US but it used to be several hundred. [Here’s a copper mine](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Chino_copper_mine.jpg) in New Mexico. What about the Gulf of Mexico recently? > > Frankly, nuclear power should be low on your radar. Except for Chernobyl has anywhere else in the world been “scarred” by nuclear power plants? > > As for costs see post #905 just above. They considered all costs of a plant (building, running and so on) and nuclear power was about the cheapest overall. That does not make it correct. The plants take ten years and cost billions to build. They practically invented the term cost over runs. The energy has never been cost competitive. You are comparing them to coal plants and coal mines. Try comparing them to solar panels and wind farms. Fossil fuels are passe. Their time is gone. Frankly nuke should be on the top of the list. It has nothing to offer unless you build and operate them. Then you make out like a Haliburton. Today they found very elevated levels of radiation in 11 crops in the area. The US is stopping them from being shipped here. Things are not getting better. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/931 "2011-03-23T05:53:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I would be surprised if the pumps were directly driven by a diesel engine. The pumps in a nuclear reactor are run by electric motors. The backups are other sources of power to run the pumps (the nuclear reactor normally provides its own power to run then they have grid power from other power plants to fall back to then diesel generators then batteries). > > I cannot imagine why they’d have the diesel engines directly drive the pumps. You’d need transmissions and junk adding to the complexity if you did that. Hell, a diesel locomotive uses its diesel engines to turn electric generators which power electric motors that move the train. The document I linked to was talking about hardening reactors in the wake of September 11, so I guess they were worried out terrorist-induced station blackout. A diesel water pump isn’t a big deal transmission-wise and they are ubiquitous - firetrucks being the obvious example. A train is a very specific case where having the infinitely-variable gear ratio of a diesel-electric is rather useful. > [@](#): > > I am not an expert in this stuff but from what you have cited I’d say it is just sloppy writing that short hands diesel \> generator \> electric motor \> pump (I am guessing the motor is part of the pump itself) to “diesel-driven pumps”. You could be correct, but I’m not seeing it. My cite was talking about modifications after 2001 - I sincerely hope diesel power backup for the pumps wasn’t absent for the previous 30 years! Additionally my cite says “These changes include pre-staged diesel-driven pumps, piping, and procedures that would support water makeup from various water supplies **without the need for electrical power** ” (my bolding.) Again this could be sloppy writing, but I suspect not. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/932 "2011-03-23T05:57:29Z")
It’s going to take a couple or a few months for the Iodine isotope that’s in the area to decay into harmless amounts. So, really, that contamination was somewhat expected and that’s why the authorities have been looking for it. It’s not a permanent problem in regards to the iodine. The more serious issue is the cesium, that’s the stuff that hangs around for decades. It’s that area of contamination, and to what extent, that’s really meaningful long term. So I’m much more interested in knowing the extent of that. The power company _will_ be compensating the farmers for the produce that needs to be destroyed. This has been announced as certain. It’s not a perfect solution, but it should minimize the economic impact for people already traumatized by the earthquake and tsunami. And it’s not the US that has stopped shipping of the affected produce - it’s the _Japanese_ government that stop its sale and distribution. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/933 "2011-03-23T06:23:59Z")
> [@matt](#): > > The document I linked to was talking about hardening reactors in the wake of September 11, so I guess they were worried out terrorist-induced station blackout. A diesel water pump isn’t a big deal transmission-wise and they are ubiquitous - firetrucks being the obvious example. A train is a very specific case where having the infinitely-variable gear ratio of a diesel-electric is rather useful. Well, in the case of a train the issue is the power involved makes a transmission impractical and not so much that having an infinitely variable gear ratio is a necessity (although nice). I see your point with fire trucks but my sense is when the power needed is so large a direct mechanical hook-up becomes a problem so you put an electric motor between the components. I am guessing (but do not know) the pumps in a nuclear plant are more substantial than a fire truck’s pumps. One would suppose they want to be able to vary the intensity of the flow. I guess it depends where that break point is between the two. That is an engineering question I have no ability to answer. Hopefully **Una Persson** will see this and shed some light on it. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/934 "2011-03-23T06:45:03Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Well, in the case of a train the issue is the power involved makes a transmission impractical and not so much that having an infinitely variable gear ratio is a necessity (although nice). I was sloppy. Not to highjack too much, but it’s the very large effective gear ratio _range_ that makes a diesel-electric system so attractive for locomotive applications. Stepless variability isn’t so important, but getting a really, really low effective gear ratio is needed when you want get a train rolling with a 2000 rpm diesel. On trawling through the tech specs for BWRs at the nrc site I’m coming to the conclusion that you were right and I was wrong. A search for “diesel” only brings up mention of diesel generators, and those specs are painfully detailed. I guess that wiki page needs revising. This pdf indicates that the RHR pumps are electric, there are four of them, and they are 2000 hp each. [http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0230/ML023020246.pdf](http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0230/ML023020246.pdf), page 56. ---
**Author:** ![Norse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a9adbd/32.png) [@Norse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Norse)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/935 "2011-03-23T06:45:11Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Cesium-137 is more problematic. Almost all occurrence of it is due to the nuclear age and it lasts longer than Iodine-131. But that also means that “normal background” is vanishingly small, outside of an area like Chernobyl or a nuclear test site You forgot to include fallout areas from the Chernobyl explosion. They still scan for - and find - Cs137 in some areas in Scandinavia. [Cite](http://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/Global/Publikationer/Rapport/Stralskydd/2005/ssi-rapp-2005-17.pdf). Cs137 still a problem for parts of the Sami people who still base a lot of their diet on reindeer (AKA Rudolph), which feed on lichens, which again is doing a very good job on picking up any Cs137 in the neighborhood. ---
**Author:** ![Norse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a9adbd/32.png) [@Norse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Norse)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/936 "2011-03-23T06:48:49Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > First you say a half an inch stops 50% of gamma rays, then you say lead of any thickness is useless as protection. > > You really don’t see how this makes you look like a total idiot? Not if one is convinced that any ionizing radiation!!!|!!!1!! is teh evil!!!1!!! and that safe levels do not exist. That is, of course, completely and utterly wrong, but being wrong hasn’t particularly made people refrain from making stupid statements in the past. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/937 "2011-03-23T06:56:03Z")
> [@Norse](#): > > You forgot to include fallout areas from the Chernobyl explosion. They still scan for - and find - Cs137 in some areas in Scandinavia. [Cite](http://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/Global/Publikationer/Rapport/Stralskydd/2005/ssi-rapp-2005-17.pdf). Cs137 still a problem for parts of the Sami people who still base a lot of their diet on reindeer (AKA Rudolph), which feed on lichens, which again is doing a very good job on picking up any Cs137 in the neighborhood. It has a half-life of about 30 years so not surprising (been 25 years since Chernobyl so close to half of what landed there is gone now…of course the other half is still there). They’ll keep detecting the stuff for awhile yet. Fortunately Caesium does not hang out in the body for very long. Not saying you want to eat it if you can avoid it. Stay away if you can. ---
**Author:** ![Norse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a9adbd/32.png) [@Norse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Norse)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/938 "2011-03-23T07:10:50Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It has a half-life of about 30 years so not surprising (been 25 years since Chernobyl so close to half of what landed there is gone now…of course the other half is still there). > > They’ll keep detecting the stuff for awhile yet. I know. My point was that it is still and is going to be found well _outside Chernobyl and nuclear test sites_ for quite a while, because there’s been a bit of distributed fallout. First from the Soviet nuclear bomb tests in the 50s, then from Chernobyl. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/939 "2011-03-23T07:19:43Z")
> [@Norse](#): > > I know. My point was that it is still and is going to be found well _outside Chernobyl and nuclear test sites_ for quite a while, because there’s been a bit of distributed fallout. First from the Soviet nuclear bomb tests in the 50s, then from Chernobyl. Unfortunately I cannot read your cite (I cannot speak Swedish despite my dad being Swedish). Modern equipment is capable of detecting minute amounts of things like this. That Cs137 is present is not something to be happy about but the quantity is the important thing. There are idiots in the US rushing to buy iodine to protect themselves from radiation from Japan. The measured levels, while detectable, are well below background radiation. Like 100,000x below. Again, I can;t read your cite so I have no clue what levels they are detecting there. Just saying. ---
**Author:** ![AndrewL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@AndrewL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndrewL)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/940 "2011-03-23T12:44:20Z")
What really needs to be determined in the upcoming investigation is to what degree the problems might have been caused by negligence and cost-cutting on the part of TEPCO. There are a lot of claims surfacing that TEPCO falsified inspection reports, didn’t test emergency systems, didn’t accept help offered in days just after the earthquake. There needs to be a thorough investigation to determine if their actions made this incident worse, and if this plant would have handled the earthquake and tsunami better had it been brought up to safety standards mandated elsewhere in the world. I believe that nuclear power is our safest and cleanest power source, but I also believe that it is too important and the consequences of an accident too severe to let plants be managed by the incompetent or corrupt. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647.md?page=46) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647.md?page=48)