ABC NEWS Nightline looked at American preparedness last night, specifically California's predicament (atop the San Andreas fault line and a reactor on the coast at Sante Nofre.)
Two things aroused my cynicism:
Jan Tucker, Emergency Preparedness Officer with the city of San Clemente (which neighbors the plant). In the event of a nuclear accident, her job is to "mail out potassium iodide pills to city residents" (yeah, I'm sure THAT will be effective when everyone's trying to evacuate even if the postal carriers show up for work in an active fallout zone...)
Pete Dietrich, utility spokesman making the case for why the Japanese scenario currently unfolding won't happen at his plant(s): "We have backup generators stationed inland which can be brought to the plant in the event of a power outage." Okay, so maybe you don't want to put all of the eggs in one basket and have the backup generators already onsite for fear of them being damaged too. But in the event of "the big one", it's likely roads and bridges will be damaged so traffic will be a mess. Add in an evacuation because of of a nuclear issue with a reactor and it may be an extreme challenge to bring in the backup generators. Considering the cost of additional backup generators may be minutely small (compared to what Japan is going through now), I would think it wise for the state of California to demand backup generators be both onsite and inland in case of an emergency.
