Hacker News Reader

If it's not interesting from an engineering perspective then why did the nuclear community write a post-accident report [1] and then update it 7 years later [2]?

Perhaps _now_ it's less interesting as the faulty design has been studied at least twice with computer simulations (and a lot more skepticism on the initial Russian presentation which blamed the operators).

[1]:https://www.iaea.org/publications/3598/summary-report-on-the...

[2]: https://www.iaea.org/publications/3786/the-chernobyl-acciden...

Because nuclear is not just about engineering?

TMI also wasn't mainly an engineering problem: it was the way the incident reaction guidelines where written and how crisis group was set up that was the largest cause, and as such there has been little engineering changes following TMI but a lot of organizational changes.

The human element is just as much part of the engineering and design. The plants are designed for humans to operate.

It's part of design, not part of engineering. The same way the UX of a website is not engineering.

Like it or not, team dynamics are a part of engineering.

Then everything under the sun is part of engineering too, and now the word has lost any meaning.