3 ms·
Furthermore, neither of those accidents were anything like the worst case scenarios possible. They required heroics individual beyond what was imagined necessar
by rz2k 10y ago
Furthermore, neither of those accidents were anything like the worst case scenarios possible. They required heroics individual beyond what was imagined necessary in their designs to keep the disasters so small.
I think the issue is further complicated by the under siege mentality that many nuclear energy proponents feel. If they think that opponents don't appreciate the benefits and exaggerate the risks, then they will tend to publicly downplay risks, and possibly believe their own rhetoric rather than looking for vulnerabilities to the system and engineering in additional safety measures.
Finally, how many designs that we call relatively dangerous now, were called dangerous while being constructed and put on line?
- rtpg 10y agoWere they not the worst case scenarios? My understanding is that Chernobyl and the Fukushima reactor were both built by cutting huge corners, and that these flaws ended up leading to the disasters. On the other side of the spectrum, things like planes get built and work because we know that planes falling out of the sky is super bad! Would it not be possible to ,for lack of a better word, be more careful?
- toyg 10y agoThat would require money. Energy companies are in the business of making money. Nuclear plants cost HUGE money to build, they deliver terrible value for money henceforth, and after a couple of decades they have to be shut down (in theory), so what's a company gotta do to make money? Cut corners.