2011-03-14, 10:14 PM
Anonymous Moose Wrote:Also, I dont see why cost-effectiveness should be used as an excuse to avoid impementing necessary features that could potentially save lives.
You are one to talk about inability to read.
>> not taking that presumably negative cost-effective course of action jussssst because it was ratified that the reactors could go for another decade after inspection.
It was believed to be safe, and guess what, up until now, it has been safe. This is not Italy, we don't change power plants because they are unfashionable.
What was that about the vulnerabilities by the way?
Why was it, again, stated that it was "seriously flawed" and not detailed how? I surely didn't read any of his statements because, frankly, I can make those as well within the time I take to blink my eyes twice. If one is going to claim that the designs for 55 reactors in the most sensitive industry are flawed and will surely cause disasters, he should be sensible enough to at least include an example.