[ang_cire]

Literally no amount of incident reporting is excessive when it comes to nuclear power. Not just because of the safety of the plant itself, but because so much is reliant on it.

It's important to identify even small defects or incidents so that patterns can be noticed before they turn into larger issues. You see the same breaker tripping at 3x the rate of other ones, and even though maybe nothing was damaged you now know there's something to investigate.

[pembrook]

Aaaand it’s this alarmist attitude which is why we don’t have abundant cheap nuclear energy.

Sea-drilling rigs (oil) have far more potential for environmental damage than modern nuclear plants

Yet they have no federal public register for when a worker falls overboard (an incident far more likely to result in death).

[antonvs]

> Sea-drilling rigs (oil) have far more potential for environmental damage than modern nuclear plants

Key word: "modern". A key aspect of a modern nuclear plant, that supports its high level of safety, is the required incident reporting and followup.

The relevant issue is not really about a single worker being injured or dying. It's about detecting safety issues which could lead to a catastrophe far beyond what a sea oil drilling rig can, at least when it comes to human life and habitability of the surrounding area.

For example, after Chernobyl, much of Europe had to deal with contamination from cesium 137.

The entire planet's geological history shows when the nuclear age started, because humans are irresponsible in aggregate. (See also global warming.)

> Aaaand it’s this alarmist attitude ...

You're providing an object lesson in why humans can't really be trusted to operate systems like this over the long term.

[hunterpayne]

> You're providing an object lesson in why humans can't really be trusted to operate systems like this over the long term.

Ironically so are you. The coal we burn puts far more radioactivity into the environment than nuclear plants do. Yet we make sure nuclear isn't viable and burn coal like crazy. We do this only because of the type of risk telescoping you are doing. If you do a rational risk assessment, you will see that even operating nuclear plants as shown in the Simpsons would have less risk than what we are doing now. There is a risk to doing nothing. You are missing that part in your assessment.

[pembrook]

> It's about detecting safety issues which could lead to a catastrophe far beyond what a sea oil drilling rig can

A worker falling into a reactor pool (which is just room temp water with very little risk) is not a catastrophe, yet due to the absurd safetyism surrounding nuclear it requires a federal report.

We don’t require this level of cost insanity for far more deadly worker events at oil, gas, solar or wind facilities.

There is no systemic risk from worker falls. MAYBE the plant in question should address hand railing heights from pre-ADA construction. It certainly shouldn’t require multiple federal government employees to create a report on it and be publicly listed in federal register and reported on by hundreds of news outlets.

You’re making my point.

[ang_cire]

> We don’t require this level of cost insanity for far more deadly worker events at oil, gas, solar or wind facilities.

This is not saying what you think it's saying.

[ang_cire]

> Not just because of the safety of the plant itself, but because so much is reliant on it.

When an oil rig has an incident, cities and hospitals and food storage and logistics aren't disrupted.