[rsync]

No, I would argue that the shitty reactor designs from the 1960s (and 1950s, actually) never endure even normal levels of competence and systemic corruption. Given a long enough time horizon, those bad designs will fail. They are designed to fail.

Going further, they are designed to fail in the face of "normal accidents"[1] which we can expect to happen. Every single one of the failures will have some kind of unique dramatic human-discerned narrative, just like the two you narrated above, but they will all have their failure in common.

I think we should be in favor of nuclear power in general. I think we should be marching in the streets in protest of the standard model of nuclear plant currently deployed around the world. Like you said, there's 11 more chernobyls out there just waiting for their own "normal accident".

[1] Normal Accidents, Charles Perrow, 1984 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Accidents

[sjwright]

> No, I would argue that the shitty reactor designs from the 1960s (and 1950s, actually) never endure even normal levels of competence and systemic corruption.

That is a statistically impossible assertion. Plenty of these shitty designs managed to endure normal levels of competence and systemic corruption for the entirety of their planned life span and have been decommissioned without catastrophe.