4 ms·

Lets take your car that is smashed, upside-down in a ditch. When you bought the car, did you think it was safe? Did it pass the government tests, even ones you

Lets take your car that is smashed, upside-down in a ditch. When you bought the car, did you think it was safe? Did it pass the government tests, even ones you think might be a bit ridiculous? Were you under the impression it was designed to withstand being upside-down in a ditch? In all reality, the car was safe when it was new. It simply wasn't designed to withstand such an accident because such a thing is pretty rare in everyday vehicles, although it happens. Some vehicles have such safety precautions, but only when the situation seems to warrant it (a Jeep, for example). The nuclear plant was the same. It was safe when it was built, only it wasn't designed to handle that magnitude of earthquake because that strength is rare, especially for that area. This is despite designing it to withstand stronger than ever recorded earthquakes. Sure, afterwards the plant was unsafe, but so are many cars after accidents.

hrktb 9y ago
What this car comparison is missing is that people accept cars getting crushed into flat metal sheets. Agree or not, as a society we have accepted that traffic accident is a problem we don't want to pay the price to solve. A "safe" car is just a mildly safer death trap. In comparison, people haven't accepted that reactors would go shit and somewhat kill hundreds of people and trash whole regions for hundreds of years. That's a risk that developpers have included in their plans to some point, but that the general public has not fundamentaly accepted.
- _Tev 9y ago
  You have your facts wrong. Fukushima didn't kill even ten people, let alone hundreds. The region got so small radiation dose it is already basically harmless ... Decontamination efforts will make it pass even irrational radiation safety levels within 10-20 years. "hundreds" of years is therefore stupid hyperbole. Public has not accepted nuclear risks because it is ridiculously misinformed. Don't spread pointless fearmongering, please.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Fukushima didn't kill even ten people, let alone hundreds. By official counts, 34 killed directly in the evacuation, 573 total, including indirectly, due to the disaster,and estimates are even with the evacuation, additional long-term cancer deaths due to the release could be in the 100+ range as well.
  - lispm 9y ago
    Why design robots to work in the wrecked reactors, when there are people without this irrational fear of radiation?
com2kid 9y ago
> In all reality, the car was safe when it was new. It simply wasn't designed to withstand such an accident because such a thing is pretty rare in everyday vehicles, although it happens. Except that cars now days do undergo rollover tests and are required to support 3x their weight when upside down. > Were you under the impression it was designed to withstand being upside-down in a ditch? I just read that some experts believe the standard should be increased to 4x. My previous assumption about my safety was a bit off, I am safe, but I could be safer. Sadly enough, the increased rollover standards have created huge A pillars that impede visibility. Citation: http://wardsauto.com/news-analysis/new-pillars-enhance-safety-impede-visibility http://wardsauto.com/news-analysis/new-pillars-enhance-safet... So in this case, illogical worry about rollovers causes an actual measurable increase in pedestrian accidents. Kinda like our worries about nuclear safety ended up causing even more radioactive pollution from burning coal.

hrktb 9y ago

What this car comparison is missing is that people accept cars getting crushed into flat metal sheets. Agree or not, as a society we have accepted that traffic accident is a problem we don't want to pay the price to solve. A "safe" car is just a mildly safer death trap. In comparison, people haven't accepted that reactors would go shit and somewhat kill hundreds of people and trash whole regions for hundreds of years. That's a risk that developpers have included in their plans to some point, but that the general public has not fundamentaly accepted.

_Tev 9y ago
You have your facts wrong. Fukushima didn't kill even ten people, let alone hundreds. The region got so small radiation dose it is already basically harmless ... Decontamination efforts will make it pass even irrational radiation safety levels within 10-20 years. "hundreds" of years is therefore stupid hyperbole. Public has not accepted nuclear risks because it is ridiculously misinformed. Don't spread pointless fearmongering, please.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Fukushima didn't kill even ten people, let alone hundreds. By official counts, 34 killed directly in the evacuation, 573 total, including indirectly, due to the disaster,and estimates are even with the evacuation, additional long-term cancer deaths due to the release could be in the 100+ range as well.
- lispm 9y ago
  Why design robots to work in the wrecked reactors, when there are people without this irrational fear of radiation?

com2kid 9y ago

> In all reality, the car was safe when it was new. It simply wasn't designed to withstand such an accident because such a thing is pretty rare in everyday vehicles, although it happens. Except that cars now days do undergo rollover tests and are required to support 3x their weight when upside down. > Were you under the impression it was designed to withstand being upside-down in a ditch? I just read that some experts believe the standard should be increased to 4x. My previous assumption about my safety was a bit off, I am safe, but I could be safer. Sadly enough, the increased rollover standards have created huge A pillars that impede visibility. Citation: http://wardsauto.com/news-analysis/new-pillars-enhance-safety-impede-visibility http://wardsauto.com/news-analysis/new-pillars-enhance-safet... So in this case, illogical worry about rollovers causes an actual measurable increase in pedestrian accidents. Kinda like our worries about nuclear safety ended up causing even more radioactive pollution from burning coal.