4 ms·

"the nature of the things means that if it suffers structural failure" What actual dam did you mean to refer to there?

• ben_w 8y ago
  The one I linked to in the original post: """Its failure in 1975 caused more casualties than any other dam failure in history at an estimated 171,000 deaths and 11 million displaced.""" Though I could also be talking about the 2,209 who died in the 1889 South Fork Dam incident. (“””Blamed locally on poor maintenance by owners; court deemed it an "Act of God". Followed exceptionally heavy rainfall.”””) Or the 423 in Malpasset dam, France, as recently as 1959. Or the 238 in Canyon Lake Dam, 1972. Or the 1,800 to 25,000 (estimates vary) in the 1979 Machchhu dam failure.
  • strainer 8y ago
    But the one referenced as an example in your original post DID fail - and you wrote "IF it fails". You described a potential failure "in the nature of the things". It is natural to consider the nature of things - apply equal consideration to nuclear power and your comparison will be more valid.
    • ben_w 8y ago
      I literally do not know how to parse your sentence in the way that interacts sensibly with what I wrote.
      • strainer 8y ago
        Interact candidly - don't avoid your error while trying to parse. You wrote "IF it suffers failure..." so the "it" was not the example of failure you gave, "it" was hypothetical . This is why I asked you what "it" was - not so that you could elaborate on what you could have been talking about, I asked to give you a fair chance to realise "it" was yours to define - a hypothetical dam, one defined only by "the nature of things" and a "death toll makes nuclear accidents look like almost nothing"