[lukan]

"Nuclear Safety is extremely risk averse "

That list of incidents is pretty long, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident...

So like I said, maybe the Linear No Threshold Model is wrong(I will have a look into the video as well). But it was presented here as something obviously flawed to get rid of .. while a short dive into it, showed it is still debated among the experts. Sp that approach from some people also does seem ideological motivated and not fact based to me, not just the anti nuclear crowd.

[cartoonworld]

Sorry to double reply, I forgot to mention what is likely the source of this interest. Recently, Kyle Hill produced this 30 minute video explaining why we may want to re-examine the LNT dose model https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzdLdNRaPKc

[cartoonworld]

This is why they are so risk averse, there indeed are incredible dangers and if varies per place.

Operators, manufacturers and service have spent a long time making what we have very reliable in what are now pretty old designs. If a new pump manufacturer appeared in the scene, everyone making decisions needs to assess the reliability vs a well-known quantity of reliability.

This is what I mean when I say risk averse, and the mortar in the bricks are the suppliers and services. The record doesn’t show worse and worse throughout time, everyone in a nuclear safety related industry knows what to expect and what is expected of their production. Changing even this linear no-threshold model would incur a LOT of engineering, process development/improvement and risk analysis, which none of them want to do.

If you’re the one that screws up, it can be a nasty stain.