Re: the article you cite.
These sorts of stories (plant disasters and near disasters) are required reading at any good engineering school so that the people who design these plants understand that workers do not always follow proper procedure. It is not an indictment of the workers, however, as the burden should be on engineers to design these systems right. The shortest/easiest way to do the job should also be safe, if not the safest.
The article you cite basically says that nuclear power plants operate with the same risks and human element of every other industrial facility. The difference, of course, is the higher cost (enviornmentally and otherwise) of a failure. One doesn't have to read case studies to realize this. While the article does highlight the risks involved, it is by no means conclusive evidence that nuclear power is prohibitively dangerous or expensive. (see posts on breeder reactors and the like for safer alternatives).
Slashdot Mirror
Re: the article you cite. These sorts of stories (plant disasters and near disasters) are required reading at any good engineering school so that the people who design these plants understand that workers do not always follow proper procedure. It is not an indictment of the workers, however, as the burden should be on engineers to design these systems right. The shortest/easiest way to do the job should also be safe, if not the safest. The article you cite basically says that nuclear power plants operate with the same risks and human element of every other industrial facility. The difference, of course, is the higher cost (enviornmentally and otherwise) of a failure. One doesn't have to read case studies to realize this. While the article does highlight the risks involved, it is by no means conclusive evidence that nuclear power is prohibitively dangerous or expensive. (see posts on breeder reactors and the like for safer alternatives).