classified it as one of the four worst performing nuclear plants in the United States and prompted increased inspections in recent months
I hope we dont start seeing a thing called CLG or combat loss grouping in these older plants.
CLG happens in a military unit where loss's start of as a trickle, then suddenly a mass grouping of loss happens as the units collective damage reaches a critical point.
Again, anyone who can look at what happened in Chernobyl and now Japan and pompusly declare they are "beyond safe" is beyond stupid, it doesnt matter where they are, when (not if) they go boom the results as we have seen....... well there is nothing "safe" about the results.
Is there some "special" laws of physics that make a reactor meltdown "safe" in the US ?
The technology, the mechanisms the fuel is the same no matter where its located.
All the regulation in the world wont prevent an unforseen accident, regulation didnt prevent 3 mile island from a partial meltdown, it didnt save chernobyl from a meltdown, it didnt prevent fukushima...... Accidents happen, and in the case of these devices the results are catastrophic.
US reactors are not somehow magically immune from the possibility of a meltdown, neither the russians or the japanese expected their meltdowns, they both had regulations and safety protocols.....but it happened anyway.
Im sure they too said their reactors were "beyond safe"........ they were wrong
