[kcdusk]

To be fair to the Japanese, and their slow decommissioning (after) useby date because the replacement wasnt ready & storage of rods in #4 ... its not surprising to people is it? Happens in the western world all the time. Projects dont run to the gant chart or timeline, over budget ect .... long lead time items not ordered ... items asked to run longer than there stamped service life.

Now, all this happening in the nuclear world where the worst case outcomes are so bad? Still not surprising in my view. And except for a nine point Ohhhh earthquake and tsunamia it probably all would have ended well.

If the reactors were 3 years old, would the situation be any different?

I have some questions though.

1. Theres 2 reactors going hot. If they go too hot is that like 2 nuclear bombs going off?

2. Would that set off the remaining 2?

3. Theres a nuclear site in california situated 8 miles (?) from a fault line, right on the coast. I'm not trying to throw stones or anything, but the facility is probably going to withstand an earthquake. But what about a 10m wave? Or even a 9.5 earthquake within a mile or two of the reactor?

4. Some reports came out tonight that the jap govt has asked for a 30km exclusion zone, the USA has asked for a 80km zone and Franch and Germany have said they think everyone should leave the island of Japan altogether! Um, theres no question here.