It's not a bad piece, but there are weaknesses and small mistakes of fact that tell me that the kind of training this navy officer received doesn't necessarily position him any better than Hansen to see the big picture -- though he has clearly been reading up. Actually there are very few people so equipped, especially not those who loudly pretend they are :-(
So true. I was on a nuclear submarine myself and that didn't give me any special position on the big picture. I thought Hansen should have either addressed his points or not responded at all.
BTW Admiral Rickover, whose organization (nuclear subs) had an impressive safety record, interestingly late in his career expressed skepticism that nuclear power could/would be operated safely by humans -- although it was mostly the weapons side he was concerned about.
Well, I guess it depends on how he defined "safely". If he meant not a single unintended consequence, I'd agree with him. If he meant safe relative to other industrial activities, I wouldn't.
No, it's pretty clear from the link that he meant "reasonable safety" rather than absence of any mishap (though his own record on that came close!); but also that he didn't just refer to the safety of technical operations.
Well, I'd say they've (nuke power plants) been reasonably safe. Any accident is extremely expensive, but in terms of lives lost, the industry is safer than most.
Of course if one nuclear weapon is accidentally detonated, that would change the record for that industry in an instant.
It's not a bad piece, but there are weaknesses and small mistakes of fact that tell me that the kind of training this navy officer received doesn't necessarily position him any better than Hansen to see the big picture -- though he has clearly been reading up. Actually there are very few people so equipped, especially not those who loudly pretend they are :-(
ReplyDeleteSo true. I was on a nuclear submarine myself and that didn't give me any special position on the big picture. I thought Hansen should have either addressed his points or not responded at all.
ReplyDeleteBTW Admiral Rickover, whose organization (nuclear subs) had an impressive safety record, interestingly late in his career expressed skepticism that nuclear power could/would be operated safely by humans -- although it was mostly the weapons side he was concerned about.
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess it depends on how he defined "safely". If he meant not a single unintended consequence, I'd agree with him. If he meant safe relative to other industrial activities, I wouldn't.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's pretty clear from the link that he meant "reasonable safety" rather than absence of any mishap (though his own record on that came close!); but also that he didn't just refer to the safety of technical operations.
ReplyDeleteWell, I'd say they've (nuke power plants) been reasonably safe. Any accident is extremely expensive, but in terms of lives lost, the industry is safer than most.
ReplyDeleteOf course if one nuclear weapon is accidentally detonated, that would change the record for that industry in an instant.
Amazingly, one hasn't.