TEPCO risks all at Fukushima

[FBaggins]

28. Simple

Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2013, 01:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Bananas' errors were definitive statements of physical principles that in most cases were simply wrong independent of scenario - absent an incredibly unlikely occurrence like someone hanging a giant gamma reflecting grazing mirror 15,000 feet over Fukushima.

The scenario that you insist RC account for requires that unlikely scenario. The premise of your question presupposes that the following statement is accurate.

Since fire and smoke are the anticipated dispersal mechanisms for contaminated particulate pollution

They most certainly are not. They may be imagined by the wildest anti-nuke still grasping at SOME way for a major death toll to still occur... but that doesn't make them anticipated or even rational.

Pam is no more required to imagine incredibly rare exceptions to the plain science (nor RC to accept the "fission restarting at any moment now" scenarios) than I was required to accept the nonsensical claims in March of 2011 that Fukushima was still critical because spontaneous fission counts.