3 ms·

> Especially since we don't know how much redundancy is built in to this system. For us to read an article before making dismissive comments isn't merely polit

> Especially since we don't know how much redundancy is built in to this system. For us to read an article before making dismissive comments isn't merely polite--it's essential for us to be able to communicate effectively with each other. The article explains that this plant has two backup diesel generators, both of which have been having problems. (It also links to older articles detailing the plant's long history of negligence in fixing problems after they were discovered--this wasn't the first time.) > People should calm down about calling for license revocations because something turned out to be imperfect. The standard applied to nuclear power safety is excessive. Imagine for a moment that you live in a rented home, and for twenty years, the plumbing has been repeatedly cracking and leaking, and each time you tell the landlord, they wait weeks or months before calling a plumber, who only puts temporary patches on the leaks. Would you be satisfied each time the plumber eventually comes? Or would you like to hold your landlord and plumber to a higher standard than nuclear safety?

roenxi 3y ago
> The article explains... You're trying to assess the safety of a highly redundant engineered system design (likely paranoidly designed) based on the opinions and research of Sammy Fretwell, journalist. That isn't actually a good way to try and engage with the problem - journalists are typically not engineers and frequently aren't in the room when decisions are made. The plant engineers believe the situation is safe enough. The regulator disagrees. The regulator could be reasonable in their disagreement but this particular regulator is famously unreasonable and excessive in their safety demands. Likely by design. And by and large that is what we can glean without doing a lot of research going through primary sources and engineering reports. It is a good article, but it is the regulators opinions are not the end of the story on this one - the problem here is that the regulator's opinions and enforcements are damaging society as a whole. > Imagine for a moment... I like that metaphor because it illustrates how the fluid system continues to work perfectly adequately despite cracks in the piping.
- trehalose 3y ago
  I didn't say that it does work perfectly, but you've got me convinced.

roenxi 3y ago

> The article explains... You're trying to assess the safety of a highly redundant engineered system design (likely paranoidly designed) based on the opinions and research of Sammy Fretwell, journalist. That isn't actually a good way to try and engage with the problem - journalists are typically not engineers and frequently aren't in the room when decisions are made. The plant engineers believe the situation is safe enough. The regulator disagrees. The regulator could be reasonable in their disagreement but this particular regulator is famously unreasonable and excessive in their safety demands. Likely by design. And by and large that is what we can glean without doing a lot of research going through primary sources and engineering reports. It is a good article, but it is the regulators opinions are not the end of the story on this one - the problem here is that the regulator's opinions and enforcements are damaging society as a whole. > Imagine for a moment... I like that metaphor because it illustrates how the fluid system continues to work perfectly adequately despite cracks in the piping.

trehalose 3y ago
I didn't say that it does work perfectly, but you've got me convinced.