Re: [tlug] silicon cash eater

[dblomber <dblomber@example.com>]

On 2017/06/30 13:34, Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 2017, at 10:08, dblomber <dblomber@example.com> wrote:
> > > And how much money would it have cost to lift those generators up and install them on the roof?
> > Just a thought here. If the generators were put on the roof, and the
> > reactor was leaking radiation, for some reason, there would be no access
> > to the generators for servicing them.
> Every nuclear power plant has several buildings, not only the reactor building.
15m tall buildings? Just wondering if it would really have made a 
difference...?
> > It is always easy to criticize, but I just do not have the
> > technical details on the design to say more than it "Appears" to be
> > poorly planned, to say it was stupid design
> I didn't say it was stupidity. I expressly said it could not have been stupidity.
"Which f***ing idiot would have been so f***ing stupid to put a backup 
diesel generator for emergency cooling on the ground between the beach 
and the plant?

Not the dumbest idiot on the planet would be that dumb."

Sorry for reading that as you saying they were being stupid, I assumed you you were giving them the the benefit of the doubt. My mistake. :-P

> > Even the best
> > designs do fail, was this a systems failure, or was it idioticy in action?
> A design that fails so spectacularly as the Fukushima plant on the backup power cannot possibly have been an oversight nor stupidity. It was deliberate. They knew this would happen in the event of flooding and they simply accepted the risk to save a bit of money.
I am not so sure on this point. I have seen some great designs with 
wonderful oversights over a bit here of there. In the last few years a 
number of system patching sessions over some poorly implemented libs 
causing ssl, bash and other issues. All of these I would call 
wonderfully designed apps, but these were also spectacular failures.
> In fact several experts/engineers have come forward, both foreign and Japanese who had warned TEPCO in writing on a number of safety issues on Fukushima and other Japanese plants and they were ignored. This has been widely reported by reliable news media in the one or two years after the disaster.
>
> The attitude at TEPCO was sloppy, they did not care about safety. It has nothing to do with technical incompetence, oversight or idiocy. It had all to do with negligent and greedy managers.
>
> And this was precisely my point:
>
> It has nothing to do with technical issues. The business side was the problem.\
Much like the Challenger explosion? Sadly, I talk to business types at 
times and I can tell you how the ones I talk to (seem to) think (to my 
exasperation) 10 warnings and documents showing how they have an issue, 
2 or 3 reviews by others telling them they are fine and the risks are 
not nearly as severe as being claimed. The business people "rely" on the 
expertise and then as the do nothing option meets their business 
obligations to their investors and the reports give them an actual (yes 
they generally believe the reports that there is nothing to worry about) 
sense of relief. So in the end nothing is done and trying to prove them 
as being negligent is not likely to get traction - even after a 
spectacular failure - they have reports showing that the other reports 
were overblown (even if later proven to be accurate).  In fact look at 
the laws about their responsibilities to their investors and you will 
find many execs feel their hands are tied and they can't do anything if 
there is anything but universal support, not near but true 100% support, 
for the option that they must do something.  If they spend large amounts 
of funds on something investors cannot be convinced of, they can 
actually be sued.

   Sadly tell these type of execs they are being shortsighted or 
negligent, results in them feeling like they are being attacked and 
called bad people. I have yet to meet a single person who reacts well in 
that situation. Take for instance my earlier reply, I was looking for 
more info or a conversation on this, but the reaction I got seems to 
imply you felt I was attacking your position, rather than adopting a 
convince me, or there may be another view on this stance. As can be 
implied in the above, I tend to think a lot more can be done in many 
situations to make not just this but other situations safer. I am not 
terribly optimistic about it as that would cost money and there always 
seems to be someone willing to put forward a response report claiming 
the fears are unfounded.

I am a pessimist, but not the kind who gives up. I expect failure, but 
keep trying and hoping to be surprised.