3 ms·

Trust is about more than casualty figures. The industry did not promise low death rates following a meltdown. They promised no melt downs ever. They promised

by 7952 7y ago

Trust is about more than casualty figures. The industry did not promise low death rates following a meltdown. They promised no melt downs ever. They promised total safety again and again and again. I think the public are intelligent enough to know that a meltdown must never happen. In the same way that they know that an airline must never run out of fuel. Of course that is going to damage trust.

nickik 7y ago
Nuclear would not even be allowed to operate if they didn't claim to be that safe therefore they have to claim it, and the regulators have to claim it. This is because widespread misinformation about radiation in the population and among politicians. Instead of a rational discussion politicians have abused the public trust by spreading more misinformation and making publicity stuns to keep plants closed even after significant security review and alternatives that are far more damaging.
- 7952 7y ago
  Even if all that were true a meltdown is still going to damage trust. You like to talk about rationality. But is it really? Do you have a thorough understanding of the model of reactor in question? Or various complex failure modes? Or the dozens of degree level specialisms involved in safety critical aspects? If you don't then you have to rely on a little blind faith. Even an aerospace engineer has to trust when they step on a plane. Breaking that trust is going to damage your industry.
  - nickik 7y ago
    Yes. But if a plane falls in Japan. Germany doesn't stop all planes from flying. At most you look at the specific model and ground that for a while. You do review and try to improve. Nuclear is simply treated differently then anything else. Nuclear in the 'western' exemplary history of safety in the last 40 years and most of these plants have operated without fail for a long time. The failure mode is not actually a mystery in this case and stopping plants where the same failure mode is impossible makes little sense for plants that have proven to run perfectly for 30+ years.

by 7952 7y ago

nickik 7y ago

Nuclear would not even be allowed to operate if they didn't claim to be that safe therefore they have to claim it, and the regulators have to claim it. This is because widespread misinformation about radiation in the population and among politicians. Instead of a rational discussion politicians have abused the public trust by spreading more misinformation and making publicity stuns to keep plants closed even after significant security review and alternatives that are far more damaging.

7952 7y ago
Even if all that were true a meltdown is still going to damage trust. You like to talk about rationality. But is it really? Do you have a thorough understanding of the model of reactor in question? Or various complex failure modes? Or the dozens of degree level specialisms involved in safety critical aspects? If you don't then you have to rely on a little blind faith. Even an aerospace engineer has to trust when they step on a plane. Breaking that trust is going to damage your industry.
- nickik 7y ago
  Yes. But if a plane falls in Japan. Germany doesn't stop all planes from flying. At most you look at the specific model and ground that for a while. You do review and try to improve. Nuclear is simply treated differently then anything else. Nuclear in the 'western' exemplary history of safety in the last 40 years and most of these plants have operated without fail for a long time. The failure mode is not actually a mystery in this case and stopping plants where the same failure mode is impossible makes little sense for plants that have proven to run perfectly for 30+ years.