3 ms·

Because the opposite is a nonsensical way to reason about risk: the fact that going for a drive is riskier than staying at home is not a good argument for remov

Because the opposite is a nonsensical way to reason about risk: the fact that going for a drive is riskier than staying at home is not a good argument for removing the front door. > Why do you think nuclear isn't too safe? It's up to you to give me reasons to think that, because the default position is that a the regulation doesn't seek to require more than is necessary. This is explicitly listed in the legislation creating the NRC: it is tasked with running "A program to encourage widespread participation in the development and utilization of atomic energy for peaceful purposes to the maximum extent consistent with the common defense and security and with the health and safety of the public", meaning the current regulations are written to be just on the right sight of "safe enough" (my emphasis).

Dylan16807 4y ago
> Because the opposite is a nonsensical way to reason about risk Yes, the opposite of that strawman is also a strawman. Neither one is correct. By my view you're advocating for a strawman of near-infinite safety. > meaning the current regulations are written to be just on the right sight of "safe enough" As far as I'm aware, the way the regulation is handled in practice is that you have to be on the bleeding edge of safety innovations at all times. You can't just be much safer than your predecessors and adopt new methods as they become practical, you have to max out safety at tremendous cost. Probably because there's decades and decades of pushing for safety, and it sounds really bad to say "no, the plant should not be safer than this, that's too expensive" even when it's true.