Fukushima Daiichi: It May Be Too Late Unless the Military Steps In

[FBaggins]

48. Do you often require strawmen in order to debate?

Nobody said that an earthquake can't damage the plant. What I did say was that the claim that the structure simply couldn't survive another earthquake is ridiculous on its face. The author says "The crippled building of Reactor 4 will not stand through another strong earthquake."

The reality is that the structural support of the spent fuel pool at unit #4 was in no sense "crippled" It hardly appears damaged at all (and has since been reinforced above the original specifications. One of the largest earthquakes in recorded history did almost no damage and it's extremely dishonest to claim that it can't possibly stand another quake (especially after it has survived several already).

The author make other claims that amount to bald-faced lies... but one this obvious should be sufficient, no?