5 ms·

Nuclear power is so unsafe, ugh! I mean if it weren't for... - Designing and building reactor that is demonstrably and knowingly unsafe by its own creators and

Nuclear power is so unsafe, ugh! I mean if it weren't for... - Designing and building reactor that is demonstrably and knowingly unsafe by its own creators and other scientists - Building it in the cash starved near collapse Soviet Union in a satellite state - Having technicians carry out tests that are known to be unsafe for the sake of it - Lying and attempt to cover up the issue because your entire power structure is all about saving face What am I saying? Of course Chernobyl would've still happened! I'm not particularly invested in if nuclear power is good or bad but holding up Chernobyl as a snarky "watch as the nerds ignore THIS!" is a herring so unimaginably red that it beggars belief

rriepe 5y ago
What's changed about bureaucracy and decision-making in government that makes it safe now? Should only collapse-proof nations build nuclear plants? If it looks like a collapse is coming, should they decommission them early? I get the better tech arguments-- those are solid. But this idea that they were dumb and we're smart is, I guarantee you, the same exact idea they had at Chernobyl. The whole reason they wanted to save face so much is because the whole thing was built on that idea.
- hedora 5y ago
  By all accounts, the person running Chernobyl was a complete idiot. They disabled multiple safeties (including ones that would have averted the meltdown), then tried to make it output more than it was rated for (directly leading to the meltdown). The same could be said for Boeing, etc., but that doesn’t mean we need to abandon air travel. We just need better leadership in safety critical organizations.
- shawnz 5y ago
  Is it better if those corrupt bureaucracies use coal instead, thus necessitating the consumption and handling of around 1000000x as much fuel?
- Chris2048 5y ago
  > this idea that they were dumb and we're smart The cold war suggests Russia is anything but dumb. And as those bullets demonstrate, they where smart enough to know better - but the problem with the Soviet Union was not that it collapsed (or was unstable), but that it wasn't transparent - it cared more about the image of functionality than actual functionality.
  - orwin 5y ago
    Ahah, exact! To have credit, you have to look good. To look good, you have to hide the bad under the mantle and show how much you can do with so little! In a way, soviet russia was more productivist than any company ever was and will ever be.
- dylan604 5y ago
  I'd imagine military is one of the most bureaucratic organizations one can have, yet the US Navy has been operating nuclear powered vessels for quite some time.

rriepe 5y ago

What's changed about bureaucracy and decision-making in government that makes it safe now? Should only collapse-proof nations build nuclear plants? If it looks like a collapse is coming, should they decommission them early? I get the better tech arguments-- those are solid. But this idea that they were dumb and we're smart is, I guarantee you, the same exact idea they had at Chernobyl. The whole reason they wanted to save face so much is because the whole thing was built on that idea.

hedora 5y ago
By all accounts, the person running Chernobyl was a complete idiot. They disabled multiple safeties (including ones that would have averted the meltdown), then tried to make it output more than it was rated for (directly leading to the meltdown). The same could be said for Boeing, etc., but that doesn’t mean we need to abandon air travel. We just need better leadership in safety critical organizations.
shawnz 5y ago
Is it better if those corrupt bureaucracies use coal instead, thus necessitating the consumption and handling of around 1000000x as much fuel?
Chris2048 5y ago
> this idea that they were dumb and we're smart The cold war suggests Russia is anything but dumb. And as those bullets demonstrate, they where smart enough to know better - but the problem with the Soviet Union was not that it collapsed (or was unstable), but that it wasn't transparent - it cared more about the image of functionality than actual functionality.
- orwin 5y ago
  Ahah, exact! To have credit, you have to look good. To look good, you have to hide the bad under the mantle and show how much you can do with so little! In a way, soviet russia was more productivist than any company ever was and will ever be.
dylan604 5y ago
I'd imagine military is one of the most bureaucratic organizations one can have, yet the US Navy has been operating nuclear powered vessels for quite some time.