Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

If there's truth to the principle of "economies of scale and numbers", can we order three, now, while the going is good? - one for Chernobyl, the second for Fukushima and the third in kit form ready for shipping to the next 'totally safe' nuclear plant site where radiation leakage is also "so remote a possibility" as to be discounted entirely. Until it happens.

The comments of "lacked an architectural flair" illustrate the source of the growing irrelevance of architects in the discourse of the greater built environment. This containment is a utilitarian function to save us from the grave errors of judgement which placed expedience over prudence. It needs no dressing to make it look like something it is not, no waste of resources that may be better used elsewhere. It should never 'blend into its surroundings". Architectural double-speak should be called for what it is - gobbledygook and waffling.

This containment will stand for centuries to symbolize man's arrogance. Few will see it directly, the millions will only see the aerial images. It should have a giant yellow-and-black radiation warning sign on the roof, as large as there is space for. It must remain a brutal reminder of the brute forces which we thought we could predict and control under all circumstances, it must humiliate.

The cracking and eventual failure of the concrete dumped on Chernobyl was entirely predictable by any structural engineer. The stuff expands and contracts and needs expansion joints all over the place. If there aren't any, it makes it's own. It is seen all the time on ordinary construction. Underneath this containment, Chernobyl's concrete containment will continue to degrade, leaving the steel as the last frontier. What then are the risks to this containment structure? Who decides what acceptable technical limits to target in this structure? The bean counters? What is unforeseen? Nobody knows.

A Fukushima melt-down is still a possibility. They knew the terrible extent of the damage and failure in week one, but were too intent on 'saving face' to admit it and less intent on saving people and the environment. So a rash of "try this" and "try that" followed. Designed as earthquake resistant, indeed. Who decided that magnitude 7.something was a good specification anyway? on what basis?

An appropriate quote : "Most people don't think about what they don't think about." You see, even in the land that gave us the word "tsunami", when they designed specs for Fukushima, they didn't make the simple and obvious connection of "earthquake" = "tsunami".

(Chanting in background "No more nukes! no more nukes! no more nukes! ... )

Your details

Cancel