|
|
|
|
|
|
by ephbit
1731 days ago
|
|
|
> ... appallingly high safety standards are expensive. Not an expert on probability/statistics ... but wouldn't lower safety standards have meant, not 1 Tschernobyl and 1 Fukushima but most probably like say 10 such events in the last 30 years? Yeah no, something tells me that having lower than "appallingly high safety standards" isn't a deal I'd want. Not at all. |
|
|
Arguably the accident wasn't due to lax rules, but rather to lack of observance. The rules weren't followed. If that argument is correct, then the key isn't to make the rules stricter or looser, but rather to change the rules and/or environment to eliminate violations. Thus, IMO it's not a statistics problem, but rather a matter of how to design rules and the organisations to which the rules apply.
Germany, too, failed at designing rules for nuclear power: All of the nuclear operators disposed of contaminated waste without permission and without keeping records. How much? Probably not very much (or else it wouldn't have gone on for as long as it did), but there are no records.
Germany and Japan are good at rules. If those two failed, this task can't be a simple one.