Hacker News Reader

Comment by mfukar | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure what that means. Are you pointing out a severe deficiency that makes their whole operational record somehow moot?

View on HN

It means their design is flawed, cannot be fixed and likely would not pass muster if proposed today.

Whether or not you consider this a severe enough deficit to necessitate a shutdown is a matter of policy.

As to any operation record, just keep in mind that the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant had one dating back to 1971.

I don't make policy. Policy, however, involves risk management. If deficient plants have been operated successfully for this long, the implication to me is that their operators have proven responsible enough to handle it.

If deficient plants have been operated successfully for this long, the implication to me is that their operators have proven responsible enough to handle it.

A lack of air bags is not noticable until your car crashes.

Sure, but what you're claiming is that air bags are missing based on never having seen them operate.

No, they are missing because the car had been built before the invention of airbags. It's uncontestable that currently operating reactors generally lack certain safety measures we'd have added if we built them today.

The question is if we nevertheless deem them 'safe enough'.

> It's uncontestable that currently operating reactors generally lack certain safety measures we'd have added if we built them today.

It is, because it is also a tautology. To me it has no bearing over the point we're discussing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com