5 ms·
I was referring to the Oroville dam in the GP comment. The 180k people displaced started returning literally 2 days later with zero casualties. https://en.m.wi
by sfifs 5y ago
I was referring to the Oroville dam in the GP comment. The 180k people displaced started returning literally 2 days later with zero casualties.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oroville_Dam_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oroville_Dam_crisis
Yes two generations ago (that's how old the China disaster you're referring to is) especially in developing economies, there were major dam disasters. You don't really quite see them today - especially in developed largely economies which are also likely to have Nuclear as an option
- nitrogen 5y agoNot just developing economies had dam disasters: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teton_Dam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teton_Dam
- belorn 5y agoIt is only with hindsight that we can say that loosing control of the Oroville dam did not have a catastrophic result. They lost control and issued a evacuation exactly because they did not know what would happen at that point. In hindsight it only caused minor flooding and debris that was addressed downstream, and then the weather improved. I have not heard of a nuclear accident where they lost control of the reaction, issued an evacuation order, and then later managed to regain control with only minor damage. If it happened we should still not describe such accident as acceptable since people could literally return a few days later. Loosing control of a destructive force is unacceptable regardless of outcomes, and anything else would just result in deviation of acceptable risk.