>>>>>And we don't even know about the radiation yet. (At least we won't be hearing for a while about how safe and economical nuclear energy is).
>>>>
>>>>On the contrary - if you have any interest in this issue, there's an excellent analysis at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/ .
>>>
>>>Nice PR piece.
>>
>>LOL - I don't know how much you follow the Reg, but the entire staff there would consider that just about a mortal insult.
>>
>>No, if the Reg writes a piece like that, it's well-researched and the opinions expressed are the results of thorough analysis.
>
>I know, what is mainstream media thinking publishing pieces like this:
>http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fukushima-mark-nuclear-reactor-design-caused-ge-scientist/story?id=13141287

"Bridenbaugh told ABC News that he believes the design flaws that prompted his resignation from GE were eventually addressed at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Bridenbaugh said GE agreed to a series of retrofits at Mark 1 reactors around the globe. He compared the retooling to the bolstering of highway bridges in California to better withstand earthquakes."

>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/16/japan-nuclear-fire-fuel-pools-radiation

That's a potentially serious development. However, I'm not sure it's directly related to the reactor design; if the spent fuel had been stored in a different manner ("The engineers called for nuclear waste to be stored instead in dry casks at a distance from the reactors") then that likely wouldn't have been an issue in this case. Still, one could argue it reflects badly on the safety of the nuclear industry as a whole.

>http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/16/japan.nuclear.reactors/index.html?hpt=T1

More of the same. I got a small chuckle out of their report of a "massive hole"; by definition, a hole has no mass ;)