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

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.