4 ms·

There are some situations where risk may be acceptable. Would I accept a car that blows up when it runs out of gas? No, but things like airplanes can, and hav

by bhousel 16y ago

There are some situations where risk may be acceptable. Would I accept a car that blows up when it runs out of gas? No, but things like airplanes can, and have, killed passengers when they run out of gas. The risk of that happening is offset by the need to occasionally travel faster or farther than a car can take you. I still think nuclear power is worth the risks of accidents, but I don't think that the proponents of nuclear power have been entirely honest about its safety. Up until a week ago I was one of those people who would swear up and down that the technology is safe and would shut itself down in the event of an accident, and that all the previous incidents were due to human error anyway. No more. I actually feel stupid for believing that stuff now.

rbanffy 16y ago
> There are some situations where risk may be acceptable. There are. This is just not one of them. Better: this one involves unacceptable risks derived from inadequate engineering. A nuclear reactor that requires an external source or energy to dissipate the (prodigious amount of) energy it generates after shut down is stupid. Sorry to all engineers involved in this, but I can't find another word. Maybe adequate cooling would make the reactor cost twice as much. Maybe it would take up too much space. Or maybe it would require the reactor to be impossibly compact. Or big. I don't care. If it doesn't work (and it's quite clear this one isn't) it's because the design is not ready. It may not be your fault - it may be so due to what the client demanded, both in cost and space constraints, but that's what professional ethics are for. I have walked out of projects and companies before. This disaster shows not nearly enough engineers did the same.