
Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tlug] silicon cash eater
- Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 15:27:06 +0900
- From: Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [tlug] silicon cash eater
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On 2017-06-29 21:33 +0900 (Thu), Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> And Fukushima is a good example of cost cutting without any concern
> for safety whatsoever.
>
> 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?
I'm not buying this. My understanding is that the size of the tsunami
wave exceeded their design parameters. Thus you can't call them idiots
for a design that appears to have been adequate to handle the given
design parameters; you can only claim that they were wrong to go with
those design parameters.
> Very evidently, they were more concerned about saving 50.000 to
> 100.000 USD and not concerned with safety at all.
Wrong on two counts. They clearly had some concern about safety; that
they had backup generators at all shows that. And _every_ engineering
decision is about cost-cutting because you can _always_ spend more.
There's a point to this: as a society, every dollar you save in one
place can be spent on safety somewhere else, or spent on things more
important than the additional safety. We're prefectly happy as a
society to live with thousands or tens of thousands of traffic
fatalities every year for the convenience of being allowed to drive
our own automobiles, for example.
> It was blatantly obvious that any flooding from the beach would
> flood the generators where they were....
Sure, but it wasn't blatently obvious that a flood of that level would
happen.
On 2017-06-30 13:34 +0900 (Fri), Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
On 2017-07-03 09:56 +0800 (Mon), Raymond Wan wrote:
> I'm somewhat late to this discussion...but all this talk about
> Fukushima and Tepco's management failure and we rarely talk about the
> successes.
Ok, let's talk about a success: Fukushima.
When you consider the hundreds or possibly thousands of people that
would have been killed by an equivalant coal-fired power plant over
the course of forty years, it's looking pretty good. (Unless, of
course, you for some reason consider it "okay" to die in a coal mine,
in a vehicle carrying coal to the power plant, of lung disease caused
by the emissions of a coal plant, or whatever.)
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com> +81 90 7737 2974
To iterate is human, to recurse divine.
- L Peter Deutsch
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index