Uh, why exactly are you arguing ad hominem about "Cringely" rather than about what "Cringely" (and most everyone else) concluded about TMI? So Cringely points

Uh, why exactly are you arguing ad hominem about "Cringely" rather than about what "Cringely" (and most everyone else) concluded about TMI? So Cringely points out widely acknowledged problems at TMI, including human factors and operators acting "inappropriately. I'm also not sure why you're fixated on "the operators", but Cringely's observations there are not in dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Human_factors:_Confusion_over_valve_status http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Huma... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Investigations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Inve... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island:_A_Nuclear_Crisis_in_Historical_Perspective http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island:_A_Nuclear_Cr... You and the parent for some reason also want to vehemently argue a really strange, irrelevant point, that Chernobyl was worse than TMI. Is that in dispute? So what? The Apollo I fire was not as bad as the Space Shuttle disasters. Your point is....what? Apollo I, Challenger, Columbia, Chernobyl, and TMI came about in large measure precisely as a result of the kind of silliness that Feynman decries, and that you and the parent for some reason don't want to address.