[FoRK] Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power
Gregory Alan Bolcer
greg at bolcer.org
Fri Mar 25 12:42:17 PDT 2011
On 3/25/2011 11:31 AM, Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote:
> But you still don't get it. It doesn't matter how good the design is if people choose to simply ignore critical aspects of it.
I don't think I was arguing that...only that you can design around
stupdity. That doesn't protect you from someone doing something even
In simple terms, if someone doesn't use the lock correctly, you can
design another iteration (and another, and another) to reduce
forgetting. Thus all products in the world incorporate some type of
risk tradeoff. Fukushima argued that the circumstances following the
tsunami were 1-in-1000 year faults. Obviously they were wrong.
You can't use the term "perfect" in your definition; that makes it
circular. Perfect would imply there are no further design changes to
reduce failures by stupidity.
Again, I'm not arguing *all* possible, just that it can be incrementally
changed. I'm arguing induction, you are arguing limits.
> In simple terms: you can put the perfect lock on the door. If someone forgets or chooses not to lock it or sells the key to someone you wanted locked out, your perfect lock doesn't do much good.
> You can design a process which states thou shalt lock the door and thou shalt not sell the key to a thief. But I defy you to design an oversight and enforcement process that will anticipate and thwart all possible incentives for humans to do those things in any case.
> FoRK mailing list
greg at bolcer.org, http://bolcer.org, c: +1.714.928.5476
More information about the FoRK