4 ms·
And this is precisely why we can never consider nuclear power to be “safe”. It’s just not worth the risk exposure. The worst case failure modes must be expecte
by zaroth 8y ago
And this is precisely why we can never consider nuclear power to be “safe”.
It’s just not worth the risk exposure. The worst case failure modes must be expected to occur, and they must be economically and ecologically acceptable when they do.
The idea that “this can theoretically happen but we promise it won’t” is simply not acceptable. Versus, “this is extremely unlikely to occur because of these numerous counter-measures, but when it does here’s what we do and what it will cost us.”
If you can do the later analysis on a nuclear plant and come away satisfied, then build baby build.
- dev_dull 8y agoMany countries over the last 3 decades would disagree with this statement.
- tsukikage 8y agoNothing is perfectly safe. The interesting question is, is it safer than the alternatives?
- jakespracher 8y agoYeah I used to work at a nuclear plant. They intentionally use all analog systems currently for fear of this. Almost nothing digital in the whole plant