5 ms·
In over 28 years in Nuclear Plant Operations I've never seen, or heard of, an incident that could be attributed to cost cutting. If anything nuke plants could b
by hansthehorse 8y ago
In over 28 years in Nuclear Plant Operations I've never seen, or heard of, an incident that could be attributed to cost cutting. If anything nuke plants could be more profitable if they did cut some costs. Control room operators are, in some ways, over trained after obtaining a licence from the Feds to operate that plant. They then, and forever, spend one week in 6 in 40 hours of training. That could easily be halved after holding a license for 5 years or more. The admin size of each plant has ballooned over the years, in some cases more than tripled. Again, cost cutting is not on the list of nuclear plant troubles.
- zamazingo 8y agoWhen something happens in these plants, it's not like a power line is cut off and so the fridge goes out for a few weeks. You end up with large aread becoming inhabitable for hundreds of years, surrounding land and underground water contaminated, loss of human and natural habitat life from hard to document illnesses, etc. Are you suggesting cutting costs in nuk plants as an efficient population control technique?
- sjwright 8y agoWhen a hydro plant fails, hundreds of thousands of people could die as a direct result. And they have. Where is your outrage?
- codingminds 8y agoThat's bad of course. But after a short time people can live there again. If something like Chernobyl or Fukushima happens the land is lost for decades and has a very huge impact (fallout, radioactive waste, groundwater contamination, etc.). You may argue that these are just two big incidents but with all the old plants with bad condition (e.g. Beznau, Fessenheim, etc.) in mind I'd say we'll see more bigger incidents in the next years. In most discussions the time is ignored. Nuclear power plants already produced waste for many generations which is irresponsible.
- sjwright 8y agoYou're seriously comparing thousands of dead people favourably to thousands of displaced people?
- codingminds 8y agoBoth incidents kill many people. Hydro plant failures in short term - Nuclear plant failures in long term. Both is bad. But additionally nuclear plant failures also make the affected environment for a long time unusable. And I'd say harm more people because of the long term effects.
- sjwright 8y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
- codingminds 8y agoFrom 1: The total number of deaths, including future deaths, is highly controversial, and estimates range from "up to" 4,000 (by a team of over 100 scientists[9][3]) to the Union of Concerned Scientists estimate is approximately 27,000 based on the LNT model[10], to 93,000—200,000 (by Greenpeace[11]). Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, published by the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, but without NYAS explicit approval,[12][Notes 1] is a 2007 Russian publication that concludes that there were 985,000 premature deaths as a result of the radioactivity released.[13] From 3: It has been reported that 90,000 - 230,000 people were killed as a result of the dam breaking. I don't see your point
- sjwright 8y agoI made my point, I can’t help you if you refuse to see it.