3 ms·

How many bridge failures are likely to dirrectly affect people in another state or country with different laws and standards for construction without their know

by kurthr 9y ago

How many bridge failures are likely to dirrectly affect people in another state or country with different laws and standards for construction without their knowledge? Which nuclear accident affected all of Europe? How many bridge failures are there per year? How many people die on average? Can you name one with greater than 150 casualties? Let me help: https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster Now if you want to talk about tsunami, that's a different topi, but it's pretty clear why the design, review, and construction of nuclear power plants are more restrictive than even the largest and most expensive bridges (or other civil engineering projects with the possible exception of dams).

rdiddly 9y ago
As I tried so hard to point out, "which accident is worse" is not the point. They are both unallowably bad. You are correct that a serious nuclear accident is likely worse than a bridge collapse. The question was how and whether mistakes in nuclear design are treated differently from other engineering fields. You brought up bridge collapses, which is a bad example because mistakes aren't tolerated in bridge design either. Or in structural engineering in general, which includes the design of nuclear plants by the way. You now bring up frequency of bridge collapses per year, which doesn't seem relevant either. Or if we somehow decide it's relevant, it's actually a counter-indicator to your point. Because if it's a low number, that means the bridge field probably takes mistakes very seriously and ferrets them out successfully. And if it's a high number, that starts to weaken your point about "which is worse." But the number would have to be pretty big to compete, and we would stop building bridges long before reaching it, and again it's not about which is worse. You finally address the point in the last line. Educate me about those design/review/construction restrictions if you like.
- kurthr 9y ago
  I am not certain you will find the equivalent of the NRC, the IAEA, the NEPIO, or various international treaties involving most (any?) other construction projects. https://www.iaea.org/topics/construction-and-commissioning-of-nuclear-power-plants https://www.iaea.org/topics/construction-and-commissioning-o... Why wouldn't you want a random state, local, or national business design and regulate a unique nuclear power plant? What could possibly go wrong? LOL! To be clear the number of unique (because looks are important) bridge designs proliferates and the suppliers change regularly while every new nuclear reactor is a close derivative of one that has been built and tested for decades. That's not because it's the easiest or highest profit, but because international regulation and public fear are real.

by kurthr 9y ago

rdiddly 9y ago

As I tried so hard to point out, "which accident is worse" is not the point. They are both unallowably bad. You are correct that a serious nuclear accident is likely worse than a bridge collapse. The question was how and whether mistakes in nuclear design are treated differently from other engineering fields. You brought up bridge collapses, which is a bad example because mistakes aren't tolerated in bridge design either. Or in structural engineering in general, which includes the design of nuclear plants by the way. You now bring up frequency of bridge collapses per year, which doesn't seem relevant either. Or if we somehow decide it's relevant, it's actually a counter-indicator to your point. Because if it's a low number, that means the bridge field probably takes mistakes very seriously and ferrets them out successfully. And if it's a high number, that starts to weaken your point about "which is worse." But the number would have to be pretty big to compete, and we would stop building bridges long before reaching it, and again it's not about which is worse. You finally address the point in the last line. Educate me about those design/review/construction restrictions if you like.

kurthr 9y ago
I am not certain you will find the equivalent of the NRC, the IAEA, the NEPIO, or various international treaties involving most (any?) other construction projects. https://www.iaea.org/topics/construction-and-commissioning-of-nuclear-power-plants https://www.iaea.org/topics/construction-and-commissioning-o... Why wouldn't you want a random state, local, or national business design and regulate a unique nuclear power plant? What could possibly go wrong? LOL! To be clear the number of unique (because looks are important) bridge designs proliferates and the suppliers change regularly while every new nuclear reactor is a close derivative of one that has been built and tested for decades. That's not because it's the easiest or highest profit, but because international regulation and public fear are real.