4 ms·
So nuclear engineers just aren't allowed to do their jobs, and the safety requirements were never good enough to begin with.
by otter-rock 4y ago
So nuclear engineers just aren't allowed to do their jobs, and the safety requirements were never good enough to begin with.
- ncmncm 4y agoThey certainly were not good enough at Fukushima, in a half-dozen particulars. The next pile of reactors down the coast did not melt down, solely on the strength of a single engineer who succeeded, with enormous difficulty, in upholding standards management objected to, but that he knew were essential. Without him, there would now be two major uninhabitable areas there. He must have known Fukushima would melt down, and must have wanted it held to the same standard as his, but lacked authority to extend his standard so far.
- otter-rock 4y ago> They certainly were not good enough at Fukushima Then why would remaking the part be any better than redesigning the system?
- ncmncm 4y agoEither course would produce uncompetitive power. The best would be stop pouring money into the rathole.
- otter-rock 4y agoOk, so the safety argument doesn't even matter, so why debate it as a proxy for what you really mean?
- ncmncm 4y agoThe safety argument is one of several good reasons to cancel. They do not contradict, but add.
- otter-rock 4y ago