> The article explains... You're trying to assess the safety of a highly redundant engineered system design (likely paranoidly designed) based on the opinions

> 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.