New posts

Reply to thread

Message

What if there had been a 9.5 earthquake straight under the plant? What if terrorists attacked the plant after the earthquake and tsunami? What if...

Will man never learn that we can not possibly foresee every scenario and that there is always some risk? Indeed that there is always some risk is explicitly acknowledged in the design of such things, it's just that we chose to build them anyway. No engineer designing any complex system will guarantee you 100% safety under all circumstances. It just can't be done.

At the end of the day, it's a power station. Electricity generation shouldn't be this exciting. It shouldn't be endangering so many people. With the outright fortune being spent at this plant, plus all that spent on the security etc of nuclear plants worldwide over the years, I'm sure we could have made some other power source work with that sort of resources available.

With the costs of this nuclear disaster, a combination of wind, solar, geothermal and hydro plus some coal and gas would probably have been cheaper anyway. And it's certainly not going to melt down and scare the **** out of everyone in the entire region.

<blockquote data-quote="Smurf1976" data-source="post: 619632" data-attributes="member: 676">What if there had been a 9.5 earthquake straight under the plant? What if terrorists attacked the plant after the earthquake and tsunami? What if...Will man never learn that we can not possibly foresee every scenario and that there is always some risk? Indeed that there is always some risk is explicitly acknowledged in the design of such things, it&#039;s just that we chose to build them anyway. No engineer designing any complex system will guarantee you 100% safety under all circumstances. It just can&#039;t be done.At the end of the day, it&#039;s a power station. Electricity generation shouldn&#039;t be this exciting. It shouldn&#039;t be endangering so many people. With the outright fortune being spent at this plant, plus all that spent on the security etc of nuclear plants worldwide over the years, I&#039;m sure we could have made some other power source work with that sort of resources available. With the costs of this nuclear disaster, a combination of wind, solar, geothermal and hydro plus some coal and gas would probably have been cheaper anyway. And it&#039;s certainly not going to melt down and scare the **** out of everyone in the entire region. <img src="https://www.aussiestockforums.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/twocents.gif"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":2twocents" title="Two Cents&nbsp; &nbsp; :2twocents" data-shortname=":2twocents" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Smurf1976, post: 619632, member: 676"] What if there had been a 9.5 earthquake straight under the plant? What if terrorists attacked the plant after the earthquake and tsunami? What if... Will man never learn that we can not possibly foresee every scenario and that there is always some risk? Indeed that there is always some risk is explicitly acknowledged in the design of such things, it's just that we chose to build them anyway. No engineer designing any complex system will guarantee you 100% safety under all circumstances. It just can't be done. At the end of the day, it's a power station. Electricity generation shouldn't be this exciting. It shouldn't be endangering so many people. With the outright fortune being spent at this plant, plus all that spent on the security etc of nuclear plants worldwide over the years, I'm sure we could have made some other power source work with that sort of resources available. With the costs of this nuclear disaster, a combination of wind, solar, geothermal and hydro plus some coal and gas would probably have been cheaper anyway. And it's certainly not going to melt down and scare the **** out of everyone in the entire region. :2twocents [/QUOTE]

Verification