4 ms·

> I mean if you just compare what best practices there are in security, like openness especially when it comes to incidents. So many incidents came out through

by cjslep 8y ago

> I mean if you just compare what best practices there are in security, like openness especially when it comes to incidents. So many incidents came out through detours and sometimes only after years. You're going to have to be specific about claims like this, because this comes across as FUD in the US given the stringent transparency requirements the NRC holds licensees accountable. To see current events: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/en.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/... Edit: Also your argument about the failure of Chernobyl is not compelling as you provide no evidence of how the existing analog systems failed in a way that digital systems would not leading to an an aversion of the accident. It is generally accepted that it was a combination of [lack of] system redundancy (analog or digital does not matter), inherent risk with the beta reactor design coefficient, and poor operator understanding of the neutron poison buildup from the low power excursion.

blablabla123 8y ago
Chernobyl was discovered through measurements by western states, not by disclosure. In fact worse happened for accidents that happened in the west. Even in the recent years, just read about them, no need to reference. It's not "my argument" but you can read it for instance on Wikipedia. I'm aware that the official requirements are stringent but that means not much I'm afraid.
- cjslep 8y ago
  > Even in the recent years, just read about them, no need to reference. I have studied lots of nuclear accidents because I studied Nuclear Engineering. While Fukushima was happening, for that matter. Telling me to "read up" and "no need to reference" comes off as extremely intellectually lazy at best and condescending at worst. > It's not "my argument" but you can read it for instance on Wikipedia. If it isn't your argument then why bother even bringing it up, except to spread FUD? I'm not going to seek out something you don't even care to advocate for. I will stick to my primary sources within the industry. > I'm aware that the official requirements are stringent but that means not much I'm afraid. I am glad you are self-describedly aware. But your (lack of) argument and vague handwaving generalization is not compelling me to reach the same conclusion. I've met a lot of anti-nuclear proponents who have made much more informed arguments, and I respect them, but I don't have much patience for vague "read Wikipedia" "arguments". Either stand for something, or please stop spreading FUD.
  - blablabla123 8y ago
    I have studied Physics and been member of ecological groups. So let's say I have a viable interest. So you need references, here you go. Obviously this is going to take some minutes to google: - Chernobyl: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Delayed_announcement_of_the_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Delayed_ann... - 3 Mile Island: "Twenty-eight hours after the accident began, William Scranton III, the lieutenant governor, appeared at a news briefing to say that Metropolitan Edison, the plant's owner, had assured the state that "everything is under control".[58] Later that day, Scranton changed his statement, saying that the situation was "more complex than the company first led us to believe."[58] There were conflicting statements about radioactivity releases.[" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Voluntary_evacuation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Vol... Fukushima might have had a more direct communication to the media. But it puzzles me how long it took to accept help from foreign countries... did they actually ever? I think the core problem about this discussion is that you have on the one side really left ecological group and on the other Nuclear industry, engineers. Both groups are perceived as very biased by each other, sometimes with reason, sometimes irrational. In any case there aren't so many topics there the depth of argumentation sometimes goes into ridiculous depths. Sometimes arguments themselves sound very ridiculous because it seems to counter-intuitive. It's already 10 years ago that I betted with someone from a neoliberal party a box of beer that there were Nuclear transports you could throw an egg on and it got baked. It took me hours to find that stupid article - from a reputable German news magazine. Of course he didn't admit that I won, he just stopped answering my mails. Honestly, this is making no sense.

by cjslep 8y ago

blablabla123 8y ago

Chernobyl was discovered through measurements by western states, not by disclosure. In fact worse happened for accidents that happened in the west. Even in the recent years, just read about them, no need to reference. It's not "my argument" but you can read it for instance on Wikipedia. I'm aware that the official requirements are stringent but that means not much I'm afraid.

cjslep 8y ago
> Even in the recent years, just read about them, no need to reference. I have studied lots of nuclear accidents because I studied Nuclear Engineering. While Fukushima was happening, for that matter. Telling me to "read up" and "no need to reference" comes off as extremely intellectually lazy at best and condescending at worst. > It's not "my argument" but you can read it for instance on Wikipedia. If it isn't your argument then why bother even bringing it up, except to spread FUD? I'm not going to seek out something you don't even care to advocate for. I will stick to my primary sources within the industry. > I'm aware that the official requirements are stringent but that means not much I'm afraid. I am glad you are self-describedly aware. But your (lack of) argument and vague handwaving generalization is not compelling me to reach the same conclusion. I've met a lot of anti-nuclear proponents who have made much more informed arguments, and I respect them, but I don't have much patience for vague "read Wikipedia" "arguments". Either stand for something, or please stop spreading FUD.
- blablabla123 8y ago
  I have studied Physics and been member of ecological groups. So let's say I have a viable interest. So you need references, here you go. Obviously this is going to take some minutes to google: - Chernobyl: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Delayed_announcement_of_the_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Delayed_ann... - 3 Mile Island: "Twenty-eight hours after the accident began, William Scranton III, the lieutenant governor, appeared at a news briefing to say that Metropolitan Edison, the plant's owner, had assured the state that "everything is under control".[58] Later that day, Scranton changed his statement, saying that the situation was "more complex than the company first led us to believe."[58] There were conflicting statements about radioactivity releases.[" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Voluntary_evacuation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Vol... Fukushima might have had a more direct communication to the media. But it puzzles me how long it took to accept help from foreign countries... did they actually ever? I think the core problem about this discussion is that you have on the one side really left ecological group and on the other Nuclear industry, engineers. Both groups are perceived as very biased by each other, sometimes with reason, sometimes irrational. In any case there aren't so many topics there the depth of argumentation sometimes goes into ridiculous depths. Sometimes arguments themselves sound very ridiculous because it seems to counter-intuitive. It's already 10 years ago that I betted with someone from a neoliberal party a box of beer that there were Nuclear transports you could throw an egg on and it got baked. It took me hours to find that stupid article - from a reputable German news magazine. Of course he didn't admit that I won, he just stopped answering my mails. Honestly, this is making no sense.