Fukushima Cooling Knocked Offline By... a Rat

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fukushima Cooling Knocked Offline By... a Rat

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @07:30AM from the rats-of-nimh-are-running-our-nuclear-reactors dept.

necro81 writes "The cooling system at the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, responsible for keeping the spent fuel pools at an appropriate temperature, lost power early on March 18th. During the blackout, the temperature in the spent fuel pools gradually increased, although TEPCO officials indicated the pools could warm for four days without risking radiation release. Power was restored earlier this morning, and the pools should be back to normal temperature in a few days. During the repairs, the charred remains of a rat were found in a critical area of wiring, leading some to believe that this rodent was the cause of this latest problem. At least it wasn't a mynock — then we'd really be in trouble."

84 of 123 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

No giant rats? by Haoie · 2013-03-20 07:36 · Score: 2

And here I am thinking all radiation makes stuff grow really big, really fast.

--
If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
1. Re:No giant rats? by Tablizer · 2013-03-20 07:40 · Score: 2
  
  a Mutant Ninja Rat
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
2. Re:No giant rats? by phobos512 · 2013-03-20 07:47 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  RoUS's?
3. Re:No giant rats? by buchner.johannes · 2013-03-20 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Bugs for electronics, bird poop for science and now rats for engineering?
  http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h96000/h96566kc.htm
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/06/cern-big-bang-goes-phut
  http://www.aps.org/programs/outreach/history/historicsites/penziaswilson.cfm
  
  --
  NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
4. Re:No giant rats? by Synerg1y · 2013-03-20 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Or... it's a mouse that mutated into a rat... which mutates into... ???
5. Re:No giant rats? by MrYingster · 2013-03-20 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think they exist...
6. Re:No giant rats? by Synerg1y · 2013-03-20 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  the zombie version of "???"
7. Re:No giant rats? by rmdingler · 2013-03-20 10:31 · Score: 2
  
  Donnie Brasco.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
8. Re:No giant rats? by hraponssi · 2013-03-20 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  so if people claim bugs in electronics led to the term bugs in software, where would these rats lead? every time your nuclear plant fails you say "oh rats!"?
Happens to me all the time... by hamster_nz · 2013-03-20 07:43 · Score: 3, Informative

Every other year I have to remove fried mice out of my in-wall stove's wiring, In autumn they try to come in side and look for a nice warm place for winter. I guess they find the oven before they find the mousetraps.
This, however, never makes it to Slashdot...
1. Re:Happens to me all the time... by gman003 · 2013-03-20 07:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well, your stove hopefully isn't containing radioactive waste.
2. Re:Happens to me all the time... by smooth+wombat · 2013-03-20 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Why not? It's a great place to store the stuff. Who would think to look there?
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
3. Re:Happens to me all the time... by Sarten-X · 2013-03-20 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  I, for one, welcome our mutated sentient comestible overlords.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
4. Re:Happens to me all the time... by Sarten-X · 2013-03-20 08:10 · Score: 2
  
  Rats, naturally.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
5. Re:Happens to me all the time... by erroneus · 2013-03-20 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Well I'm surprised there isn't mention of how the term "debugging" came to be.
  Turns out there was once a software irregularity being investigated in one of the earliest computers. The problem discovered was an insect has gotten into the machine hardware and shorted out one or more components.
  This is a serious matter, however, as a nuclear facility should not have things like rats running around. This is evidence that they are STILL not taking nuclear safety seriously.
6. Re:Happens to me all the time... by DNS-and-BIND · 2013-03-20 08:18 · Score: 2
  
  You can't keep rats out. They get in. They are smart and tough and are capable of amazing feats of ingenuity. They are one of humanity's oldest enemies for a reason.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
7. Re:Happens to me all the time... by Immerman · 2013-03-20 08:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Nah man, they may be a bit parasitic but they're not enemies, they love us - no other species creates nearly the mountains of delicious food waste and cozy warm walls to live in. Sure, they extract a bit of a tithe in grain and property damage, but in exchange they clean up a lot of our waste and share all sorts of cool things like bubonic plague that we might never discover on our own..
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
8. Re:Happens to me all the time... by Synerg1y · 2013-03-20 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Is it really that hard to keep rodents out of the house... or a nuclear power plant in this case.
if only it by HPHatecraft · 2013-03-20 07:50 · Score: 2

were this radioactive rat: Pizza!!
They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by hawguy · 2013-03-20 07:51 · Score: 5, Informative

They didn't say that the pools would risk releasing radiation after 4 days, they said:

Tepco said it would have taken several days for temperatures in the pools to have risen above the safe level of 65 degrees Celsius, or 149 degrees Fahrenheit.

The company said that temperatures in the fuel pools would have remained at safe levels for at least four days.
A rise above "safe" levels doesn't necessarily mean radiation release. I don't think there's any danger of radiation release until the water boils down to a level where the rods are exposed (and presumably even in an extended power outage, additional purified water could be added to the pools to maintain water levels).
Rat induced power problems are not uncommon in large industrial plants. All it takes is an unsealed conduit cover while workers take a meal break, and a rat can slip inside. Rats wreaked havoc on network cables (both fiber and copper) at a building I once worked at -- many of the conduit runs were left unsealed by a vendor (or poorly sealed by foam plugs that eventually shrank enough to be displaced by the rodents) and the rats found them convenient for getting around the building (as well as a cozy place to live), and apparently they liked to nibble on cables or their feces+urine degraded the cables enough to cause failure. They ended up replacing almost all of the cables in uncapped conduit (and properly sealing the conduit this time).
1. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by datapharmer · 2013-03-20 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely dead on. Rats love the plastic sheathing on cat 5 like nothing else. I can't tell you how many times I've had to rerun cables at one customer's business because of rats and mice. Things would start flaking out and it would be a rat chewed cable 9 times out of 10 (the other times it would be a leaky roof). I even told them that they could get a good exterminator for less than they were paying me to re-pull wires.
  
  --
  Get a web developer
2. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-20 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  You are making a distinction where there is none. The summary says the exact same thing you say:
  "officials indicated the pools could warm for four days without risking radiation release".
  That's the same thing. For 4 days there is no significant risk. After 4 days, then there is a significant risk. That doesn't mean it's "imminent", or that radiation will be released at 4 days, 1 second.
3. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by hawguy · 2013-03-20 08:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Mistakes, bugs or rodent problems are understandable. But c'mon, we're talking about nuclear power here. I expect at least some redundancy and fail-safety. Unless we're talking about some soviet era facility, I guarantee you that you'll never hear about such a problem on any other nuclear power plant in the world. It's like they didn't learn anything from two years ago. And Tepco is one of the most well-funded companies in Japan. Lack of money and staff shouldn't be a problem. As a guy who lives in Japan I hate Tepco. Thanks to them my power bill is freaking expensive and yet they can't even do a decent job. What a disgrace to Japan.
  How much redundancy do you need in a system that stays at safe levels for 4 days after a failure?
  I can see having full double or triple redundancy for systems that will result in unsafe conditions in hours or minutes, but for 4 days?
4. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by Charliemopps · 2013-03-20 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  I used to work in the NOC for a major Telco and when we had outages the techs had to fill out a ticket explaining what caused it. It was a drop down, and the #1 cause was "Lightening related power surge", #2 cause was "Animal - Rodent" About 90% of all failures were in those 2 categories.
5. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by Rhywden · 2013-03-20 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  #3 for us would have been: Resident felt need to dig a foxhole.
6. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by Immerman · 2013-03-20 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but is not Fukushima in fact a Soviet-era reactor, or nearly so? They could potentially perform massive refitting of the plant, but that's expensive, you're already complaining about the current energy prices
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
7. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by hawguy · 2013-03-20 08:55 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but is not Fukushima in fact a Soviet-era reactor, or nearly so? They could potentially perform massive refitting of the plant, but that's expensive, you're already complaining about the current energy prices
  You are wrong. The reactors are Fukushima-I are all USA design BWR's (designed by General Electric, several were manufactured by GE). I'm not sure that "era" means what you think it does...Unless by "Soviet-era" you meant the period of time that the USSR existed? That would put most of the nuclear plants in the USA in the "Soviet-era".
8. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by ls671 · 2013-03-20 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  Did you install cat 5 cables with rat repellent ?
  http://www.okidensen.co.jp/en/prod/cable/lan/mouse_lan.html
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
9. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by cheater512 · 2013-03-20 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't there a product made from chillies that you can cover the cables with?
10. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-20 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  4 days is apparently not enough. Have you heard of Fukushima? They didn't build it as a pile of wreckage to start with you know.
11. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by sjames · 2013-03-20 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Wiping my Christmas lights down with Tabasco solved the squirrel problem we had.
12. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-20 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  How much redundancy do you need in a system that stays at safe levels for 4 days after a failure?
  I can see having full double or triple redundancy for systems that will result in unsafe conditions in hours or minutes, but for 4 days?
  You forgot to account for the level of danger in the event of prolonged failure in your argument.
13. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by rmdingler · 2013-03-20 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  Rats and mice will chew anything (though they have a weakness for the taste of wire cable sheathing) because like a dog's toenails, their teeth never stop growing. They must be worn down by constant use.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
14. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by Immerman · 2013-03-20 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  era, (noun); a long period of time, often marked by distinctive characteristic events.
  What did you think the word meant?
  And yes, I would consider most US nuclear reactors to be at least borderline Soviet-era, though probably with better control and safety systems than soviet-built reactors. They're old, creaky reactors being operated long past their scheduled end of life, and bear only a passing resemblance to modern reactors.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
15. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by hawguy · 2013-03-20 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  era, (noun); a long period of time, often marked by distinctive characteristic events.
  What did you think the word meant?
  And yes, I would consider most US nuclear reactors to be at least borderline Soviet-era, though probably with better control and safety systems than soviet-built reactors. They're old, creaky reactors being operated long past their scheduled end of life, and bear only a passing resemblance to modern reactors.
  Well, it just seemed like a weird way to say "20 or more years old" -- usually when people say "Soviet-era", they mean that it's associated with the Soviet Union. I.e. "Soviet era T-54 tanks" or "Soviet era nuclear missiles".
  Referring to USA designed reactors as "Soviet era" just because they were designed when the Soviet Union still existed is a bit like saying "The Smithsonian Museum has the Ottoman Era Declaration of Independence on display".
16. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by Immerman · 2013-03-20 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  Fair point. But in terms of nuclear reactors not only were they built at the same time, they were also built with pretty much the same technology and goals, though priorities were perhaps slightly different and the US was mostly better at "high tech". Unlike military hardware which was highly customized to suit different tactical and strategic applications.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
17. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by wjwlsn · 2013-03-20 13:10 · Score: 2
  
  The technology and goals were actually very different. In the US, you had regulator-imposed general design criteria that said things like "thou shalt have a void-coefficient of reactivity that is negative" and "thy shutdown systems shall be fast acting" and "thou shalt have diverse and redundant safety systems" and "when the shit hits the fan, thou shalt contain thy fission products".
  In Soviet Russia, reactor design imposes criteria on YOU! Design reactor for maximal plutonium production and easy removal of fuel ---> minimal containment, minimal redundant systems, positive void coefficient, control rods that have graphite followers. So, when you begin to lose control of the reactor and you insert control rods, the graphite followers go in first, spiking reactivity and power, which causes your coolant to flash to steam, increasing void fraction, and because your void coefficient is positive, power goes UP even more instead of going down, and then the few safety systems you have don't work because you shut them all down or they suck to begin with, and then reactor (not containment, REACTOR) goes boom and chunks of FUEL and FLAMING GRAPHITE are forcefully ejected into the air.
  So, then, why did Fukushima fail so badly, even though it had fast-acting shutdown systems, a negative void coefficient, diverse and redundant safety systems, and a containment design that satisfied all of the regulations that existed at the time? That's the real story here, and its moral has a lot to do with the idea of "beyond design basis" accidents and designing to be more robust than required by regulation.
  
  --
  Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
18. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by The+Master+Control+P · 2013-03-20 14:05 · Score: 2
  
  So, then, why did Fukushima fail so badly, even though it had fast-acting shutdown systems, a negative void coefficient, diverse and redundant safety systems, and a containment design that satisfied all of the regulations that existed at the time? That's the real story here, and its moral has a lot to do with the idea of "beyond design basis" accidents and designing to be more robust than required by regulation.
  The Mark I and Mark II reactors installed at Fukushima 1-4 were part of an effort by GE to design lower-cost reactors that could be afforded by nations that weren't rich like America (in the 50s/60s post-WWII era, that was "everybody else"). This is where things like the now-infamous suppression torus originated.
  
  One of GE's own engineers resigned because he was certain that the design was not safe. Analyses conducted in the late 1970s concluded that the Mark I would almost certainly result in disaster in the event of sustained power loss - and it did.
19. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by sjwt · 2013-03-20 14:39 · Score: 2
  
  Not as well as running live wall voltage in a parallel would of =>
  
  --
  You have 5 Moderator Points!
  Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
20. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by wjwlsn · 2013-03-20 15:38 · Score: 2
  
  Analyses conducted in the late 1970s concluded that the Mark I would almost certainly result in disaster in the event of sustained power loss - and it did.
  Yeah... unfortunately, the containment failures at Fukushima matched the models pretty well. I've posted it before, but the following document is illuminating... see the section titled "BWR 3/4 Perspectives", including the parts regarding station blackout (SBO), transients with loss of coolant injection, and transients with loss of decay heat removal (DHR).
  http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp?purl=%2F205567-BJIEKT%2Fwebviewable%2F
  I still don't understand why TEPCO didn't install hardened containment vents back in the '90s. If they had, things would have gone very differently. They must have known about NRC Generic Letter 89-16.
  https://forms.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/gen-letters/1989/gl89016.html
  The other thing I don't understand is why Unit 1 didn't handle the situation better than the others. It should have because it has an Isolation Condenser instead of Reactor Core Isolation Cooling... I'm not sure that anyone has yet explained what happened with this.
  
  --
  Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
21. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by sjames · 2013-03-20 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  Who wants to pick up dead squirrels every day?
22. Re:They didn't say radiation release after 4 days by Sigg3.net · 2013-03-20 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's because their teeth grows continuously, they have to chew.
  Bought a rat when I was a 16yo rocker. We taught it to come when we called for it. Smart animals. Ate my discman.
  
  --
  Defining Statistics and Social Research
Godzirra!! by DougOtto · 2013-03-20 07:51 · Score: 1, Funny

Everyone panic.

--
Solving Unix problems since 1989...
Image by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-20 07:55 · Score: 1

Image:
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/bild-890027-475494.html
A little humility by onyxruby · 2013-03-20 07:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nature is very good at serving us humility in small bite size portions that can bring great things down. Events like this should remind us that we are mere stewards of the planet and that the rest of the ecosystem will happily take over the best laid plans we have if we let our guard down even a little.
No matter how well you design something nature can and will find a way to get in, and it is arrogance in the extreme to assume otherwise. About the only way to avoid something like that is to have a clean room environment, and I'm quite certain that you can't fit a nuclear power plant inside a clean room.
1. Re:A little humility by hawguy · 2013-03-20 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Nature is very good at serving us humility in small bite size portions that can bring great things down. Events like this should remind us that we are mere stewards of the planet and that the rest of the ecosystem will happily take over the best laid plans we have if we let our guard down even a little.
  Isn't that the lesson Jeff Goldblum was trying to teach us in Jurassic Park?
  
  No matter how well you design something nature can and will find a way to get in, and it is arrogance in the extreme to assume otherwise. About the only way to avoid something like that is to have a clean room environment, and I'm quite certain that you can't fit a nuclear power plant inside a clean room.
  Sure you can:
  http://techblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/11/neighborhood-nuclear-power-pla.html
2. Re:A little humility by Chris+Mattern · 2013-03-20 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Sure you can:
  http://techblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/11/neighborhood-nuclear-power-pla.html
  Can you? This article was predicting they'd be on sale in less than five years, and was written over four years ago. They appear to be a little behind schedule. Their website (http://www.gen4energy.com/) still talks about everything as being still on the drawing board; no mention of actual deployment or any target dates or milestones.
3. Re:A little humility by hawguy · 2013-03-20 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Sure you can:
  http://techblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/11/neighborhood-nuclear-power-pla.html
  Can you? This article was predicting they'd be on sale in less than five years, and was written over four years ago. They appear to be a little behind schedule. Their website (http://www.gen4energy.com/) still talks about everything as being still on the drawing board; no mention of actual deployment or any target dates or milestones.
  There's a lot more than physics behind the inability of in newer (and safer) nuclear power plant designs being deployed.
  There are other examples of small-scale reactor deployments - like the ones used in nuclear submarines (including the small NR-1), as well as the nuclear reactors used in spacecraft (not something you'd power a neighborhood with, but they are still reactors).
4. Re:A little humility by onyxruby · 2013-03-20 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, politics is by far the greatest impediment to deploying small scale nuclear reactors. I'd love to see small scale nuclear reactors deployed on a wide scale, it's the best green technology that we have. If you get down to it you /could/ fit one of those in a clean room. I was speaking more metaphorically than literally in this case.
5. Re:A little humility by onyxruby · 2013-03-20 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Woodsy? Get real, I'm a guy with many years of experience of making process happen in real world production environments. The littlest damn thing can bring down the biggest damn thing and I've seen it time and again. How do you thing the term 'bug' cam up, as a metaphor? Production is messy and has jack to do with ivory tower ideals.
6. Re:A little humility by ultranova · 2013-03-20 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Events like this should remind us that we are mere stewards of the planet and that the rest of the ecosystem will happily take over the best laid plans we have if we let our guard down even a little.
  
  Yeah. We should just nuke the whole thing from the orbit, it's the only way... Oh.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
7. Re:A little humility by hawguy · 2013-03-20 09:36 · Score: 2
  
  Agreed, politics is by far the greatest impediment to deploying small scale nuclear reactors. I'd love to see small scale nuclear reactors deployed on a wide scale, it's the best green technology that we have. If you get down to it you /could/ fit one of those in a clean room. I was speaking more metaphorically than literally in this case.
  I think you're on the wrong website - I flippantly ignored the point you were making and corrected something you said, and you didn't call me any names, and even agreed with something I said in a later post.
  I think that Slashdot protocol requires that you make a derogatory comment about my mother, or at least attack my virility and/or sexual orientation..
8. Re:A little humility by onyxruby · 2013-03-20 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'm being trolled, however I'll indulge you anyways with a little history lesson as I sometimes answer rhetorical questions. They even have a pretty picture you can look at.
9. Re:A little humility by onyxruby · 2013-03-20 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  What can I say, I was wrong on a point? I'm okay with that, it was metaphorical anyway. Disagreement with me is something everyone is going to do on something, I don't take it personally.
  I could be jerk next time if you want, but that just isn't my style.
10. Re:A little humility by Sigg3.net · 2013-03-20 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  Stewardship implies sovereignty and superiority over the presumed animal 'kingdom'.
  
  --
  Defining Statistics and Social Research
Not true. by sunking2 · 2013-03-20 08:01 · Score: 3, Funny

It was a Rodent of Unusual Size.
1. Re:Not true. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-20 08:10 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I don't believe they exist.
2. Re:Not true. by fph+il+quozientatore · 2013-03-20 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Inconceivable!
  
  --
  My first program:
  Hell Segmentation fault
3. Re:Not true. by FirstOne · 2013-03-20 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  "It was a Rodent of Unusual Size"
  It was either a mouse or small rat.
  PS. Small animals can tolerate much higher levels of radiation verses those with larger body masses
  .
So rat is the new term? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2013-03-20 08:09 · Score: 2

Remember the bug that allegedly shorted out the vacuum tubes and triggered the coining "bug" as a term for errors in computation? Hereinafter all errors in nuclear power plant design and operation will be called a rat?

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
And then by JustOK · 2013-03-20 08:12 · Score: 1

James Herbert dies....coincidence!?!?!?!?

--
rewriting history since 2109
Re:Ironic since Chernobyl was caused by a cat by X0563511 · 2013-03-20 08:22 · Score: 1

Not sure if that's just a lame joke, but that was not the cause.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Spent fuel pools by dpidcoe · 2013-03-20 08:26 · Score: 2

Obligatory XKCD: http://whatif.xkcd.com/29/
Nuclear power fears by sl4shd0rk · 2013-03-20 08:36 · Score: 2

When you are dealing with a potential calamity on the scale of Fukishama (or even Deepwater Horizon for that matter) the system needs to be able to rebound easily from instabilities such as fire, earthquake, overheating, floods or Rats. The biggest problem with Nuclear is you need guaranteed cooling for the system to remain stable -- and you can't get that to 100%. Ever. The entire system needs to shift over to one of the less problematic alternatives in order for it to gain wide acceptance.

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
1. Re:Nuclear power fears by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-20 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  You can't cordon off nuclear fallout.
  I'd be perfectly happy with nuclear power so long as corruption and incompetence weren't so rampant, (this includes viable solutions to waste management.)
  Yes, nothing is perfectly safe, but a field of windmills a few miles from here isn't going to force me to relocate if some idiot does something wrong, as we have to expect will happen sooner or later.
  Humans have proven that they're not worthy of nuclear power. Plain and simple.
  And damn it, I want to see solar power used to its full potential in the West. It could do wonders as it has done in more progressive countries.
Re:Ironic since Chernobyl was caused by a cat by flimflammer · 2013-03-20 08:48 · Score: 1

You could have easily established that it was in fact a joke had you clicked the link to verify:

Bill the Cat, or Bill D. Cat (according to the final Outland strip), is a fictional cat appearing in the works of cartoonist Berkeley Breathed, ... he was responsible for the Chernobyl nuclear disaster
Re:At least it wasn't.... by ls671 · 2013-03-20 08:56 · Score: 1

I remember seeing one resting in a nuclear plant pool in the X-Files...

--
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Pro-green energy rat by bryan1945 · 2013-03-20 09:03 · Score: 1

He was willing to keep it real in protest.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
a rat named Shredder? by GodfatherofSoul · 2013-03-20 09:05 · Score: 2, Funny

Last seen training irradiated juvenile turtles to kick ass with medieval Japanese weaponry.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
1. Re:a rat named Shredder? by GodfatherofSoul · 2013-03-20 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Shredder was the bad guy wasn't he...
  
  --
  I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
2. Re:a rat named Shredder? by Sigg3.net · 2013-03-20 21:45 · Score: 1
  
  Splinter wouldn't have trained them if it hadn't been for Shredder.
  I feel the same way about Printer.
  
  --
  Defining Statistics and Social Research
Re:Ironic since Chernobyl was caused by a cat by X0563511 · 2013-03-20 09:20 · Score: 1

I know who bill the cat was. But what is not clear, from that link or Gray's use of it, was if Gray was implying that a cat caused the disaster - which is most definitely not true.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Ironic since Chernobyl was caused by a cat by CanHasDIY · 2013-03-20 09:27 · Score: 1

Wow, people aren't getting Bill The Cat references anymore? Shit, I must be getting old...

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Clearly by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-20 10:05 · Score: 1

there aren't enough cats in power plants and labs.
Re:R.A.T by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-03-20 10:11 · Score: 4, Funny

This was clearly a Trojan Mouse.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Ironic since Chernobyl was caused by a cat by rmdingler · 2013-03-20 10:53 · Score: 1

Opus, Bill, and Bloom County rocked liked Slayer! Syndicated strips are presently & unfortunately going the way of dead tree newspapers. Back in the day, it was comics section first to check out The Far Side.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Re:Ironic since Chernobyl was caused by a cat by Kyusaku+Natsume · 2013-03-20 10:55 · Score: 1

At our datacenter, in the routine inspection of facilities we found a dead cat in the emergency power plant room. The poor thing managed to get inside the room and stayed under the warm engine block, but when a power failure triggered the power plant on it had his skin ripped off by the fan of the generator's diesel engine.

--
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Springfield Nuclear Power Plant is full of them an by Joe_Dragon · 2013-03-20 12:16 · Score: 2

Springfield Nuclear Power Plant is full of them and mr burns will not pay to clean them out.
Radioactive Mutant Ninja Rat ... by porky_pig_jr · 2013-03-20 12:56 · Score: 1

fights the nuclear power. More news at 11.
Better a rat... by ShoulderOfOrion · 2013-03-20 16:05 · Score: 1

...than a giant green lizard.
Lack of proper disposal sites by Animats · 2013-03-20 17:21 · Score: 1

This business of storing used fuel rods at working reactors needs to stop. Once they've cooled off enough for dry cask storage, they should go to dry storage in a mountain somewhere.
The US repository was supposed to be in Yucca Mountain. Early plans called for a second repository somewhere on the east coast, probably in hard-rock mountains in Maine or Vermont. There are mountain ranges that haven't done anything exciting geologically in the last 20 million years or so, and those are the best sites.
Are you pondering what I am pondering? by der_joachim · 2013-03-20 18:07 · Score: 2

Pinky?

--
Geek runner, motorcyclist and professional know-it-all
Re:Ironic since Chernobyl was caused by a cat by CanHasDIY · 2013-03-21 04:29 · Score: 1

Calvin & Hobbes fan myself, have the entire Bill Watterson collection on a sacred shelf in the home library.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Splinter Dies Tragically Before His Time by mindfullygreen · 2013-03-26 00:04 · Score: 1

Master Splinter is deceased. We should be grieving the thwarting of the age of the TMNT as Splinter will never be able to train the TMNT. Which anthropomorphic rat sensei will train the anthropomorphic turtles to defeat Shredder now?