So you're saying that the nuclear industry was saying before that "yes, we fully agree that we could have a full blown meltdown at one of the older reactors in very rare cases".
BTW, how it's a tsunami a very rare case on a decades long horizon? There were warnings about the possibility of a big tsunami. It wasn't a black swan, it was a white one.
> A spokesman from the Tokyo Electric Power Corporation [TEPCO] told FRONTLINE that the company was aware of Minoura’s work and was in the process of considering plant modifications in case of a massive tsunami.
Fission fails deadly, and humans are really bad at managing these kinds of things (ie: I don't want to pay 200 mil to build a better tsunami barrier for a 1 in a million chance...)
Like the sibling commenter, I can't parse your sentence and intention except as "we've certainly shown they're not commonly problematic" which is quite a weak statement.
Is your sentence a positive sentence (do you mean we've certainly shown they're problematic essentially never) or is your sentence negative (we've certainly shown they're problematic definitely sometimes - which is unacceptable)?
I was mostly rebuffing the structure of the argument "While in theory we can build safe reactors, practice shows otherwise" which has two different reference classes for reactors (modern safer ones, and less safe fukushima ones).
BTW, how it's a tsunami a very rare case on a decades long horizon? There were warnings about the possibility of a big tsunami. It wasn't a black swan, it was a white one.
> A spokesman from the Tokyo Electric Power Corporation [TEPCO] told FRONTLINE that the company was aware of Minoura’s work and was in the process of considering plant modifications in case of a massive tsunami.
Fission fails deadly, and humans are really bad at managing these kinds of things (ie: I don't want to pay 200 mil to build a better tsunami barrier for a 1 in a million chance...)