4 ms·

And? The system shouldn't be in a steady state of expected failures. These are enormous machines that sometimes carry hazardous materials. Failure cannot be

And? The system shouldn't be in a steady state of expected failures. These are enormous machines that sometimes carry hazardous materials. Failure cannot be tolerated. It's indicative of a rotten culture of safety and mismanagement that ignores the problems.

lazide 4y ago
Uh, that’s completely unrealistic. No large scale system (or any system for very long) has zero downtime. What is the overall percentage any train spends derailed?
- qbasic_forever 4y ago
  Not when the consequence of failure for spilling hazardous material is so great! What are you going to agree to next, that nuke plants are allowed a few minutes of core meltdown a year? Get real.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Nuclear plants have safety incidents all the time. Someone drops a hammer on their toe. That's what most of the 1,000 derailments are; things like this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Minor_Derailment_in_Brooklyn_%2850569880581%29.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Minor_Derailment_in_... or https://tdn.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/amtrak-train-suffers-minor-derailment-near-woodland-monday/article_88804f3d-bbdf-5250-afc6-6925a4687755.html https://tdn.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/amtrak-train-suf... The big problems, for both trains and nuclear plants, are rare.
  - jhugo 4y ago
    "Derailment" sounds dramatic but most of them are minor. It's unrealistic and unhelpful to pretend that all incidents are equally serious: the only way to achieve zero incidents of any severity is to not build the power plant (of any type) or the train system.
  - lazide 4y ago
    Just because the consequences are severe doesn’t mean it’s possible to avoid them - regardless of the cost. For instance, plane crashes are far more severe - and still happen relatively frequently despite all effort to stop them.
mhh__ 4y ago
Failure cannot be tolerated, but mother nature cannot be fooled. Its not a realistic way of thinking about risk unless you don't run any trains. 1000 also feels roughly consistent with the rest of the world considering how big the US is.

lazide 4y ago

Uh, that’s completely unrealistic. No large scale system (or any system for very long) has zero downtime. What is the overall percentage any train spends derailed?

qbasic_forever 4y ago
Not when the consequence of failure for spilling hazardous material is so great! What are you going to agree to next, that nuke plants are allowed a few minutes of core meltdown a year? Get real.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Nuclear plants have safety incidents all the time. Someone drops a hammer on their toe. That's what most of the 1,000 derailments are; things like this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Minor_Derailment_in_Brooklyn_%2850569880581%29.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Minor_Derailment_in_... or https://tdn.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/amtrak-train-suffers-minor-derailment-near-woodland-monday/article_88804f3d-bbdf-5250-afc6-6925a4687755.html https://tdn.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/amtrak-train-suf... The big problems, for both trains and nuclear plants, are rare.
- jhugo 4y ago
  "Derailment" sounds dramatic but most of them are minor. It's unrealistic and unhelpful to pretend that all incidents are equally serious: the only way to achieve zero incidents of any severity is to not build the power plant (of any type) or the train system.
- lazide 4y ago
  Just because the consequences are severe doesn’t mean it’s possible to avoid them - regardless of the cost. For instance, plane crashes are far more severe - and still happen relatively frequently despite all effort to stop them.

mhh__ 4y ago

Failure cannot be tolerated, but mother nature cannot be fooled. Its not a realistic way of thinking about risk unless you don't run any trains. 1000 also feels roughly consistent with the rest of the world considering how big the US is.