4 ms·
Fukushima was not a case of unknown unknowns. That style of reactor requires active cooling to prevent meltdown, and the cooling failed. The consequences of the
by didericis 5y ago
Fukushima was not a case of unknown unknowns. That style of reactor requires active cooling to prevent meltdown, and the cooling failed. The consequences of the cooling system failing were known, as were the vulnerabilities of the cooling system. They just didn’t add enough safeguards/didn’t account for the backup failing. There’s an argument that you can’t add enough safeguards to account for all possible ways an active cooling system could fail, which is perfectly reasonable/a good argument. Thats’s why next gen nuclear reactor designs don’t require active cooling.
People citing Chernobyl and Fukushima strikes me as rhe equivalent to people citing the Hindenburg when talking about flying; I’m pretty sure both reactor designs could be thought of as the design equivalent to the hydrogen blimp. People’s minds are stuck on an image of a blimp on fire when thinking about flying even though modern passenger jets exist.
- SEJeff 5y agoClearly we think alike. Glad to see someone else pointing out to Luddites the folly of comparing modern nuclear tech to the tech of the 1970s. Using the Hindenburg vs airplanes is a perfect equivalent.
- k__ 5y ago"consequences of the cooling system failing were known" So the problem isn't unknown unknowns, but people simply don't caring enough about potential consequences? That just makes it worse and nuclear an even less of an option.