Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Presidential Election Polls
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="helmut" data-source="post: 75526088" data-attributes="member: 206559"><p>Fake news by the company that owned three miles island. The amount was not much compared to Chernobyl, but is was enough to be threat locally.</p><p></p><p></p><p>A technology that does not allow human errors without leading into catastrophe is not safe in practice, whatever "theory" may say.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The team was well-trained. In a sense, too well - they began to think they could master anything, and so made a rather dangerous experiment.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It was the result of a scenario almost no-one ever anticipated. Before that, the nuclear plants of japan wre considered to be of most highest safety level - sounds familiar?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Until there is a scenario that no expert has expected ...</p><p></p><p></p><p>Those little reactors are not a big problem. Even the worst scenario would be a rather small incident. This has the advantage a "normal" incident could be covered up smoothly, like the 2009 incident at three miles island.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="helmut, post: 75526088, member: 206559"] Fake news by the company that owned three miles island. The amount was not much compared to Chernobyl, but is was enough to be threat locally. A technology that does not allow human errors without leading into catastrophe is not safe in practice, whatever "theory" may say. The team was well-trained. In a sense, too well - they began to think they could master anything, and so made a rather dangerous experiment. It was the result of a scenario almost no-one ever anticipated. Before that, the nuclear plants of japan wre considered to be of most highest safety level - sounds familiar? Until there is a scenario that no expert has expected ... Those little reactors are not a big problem. Even the worst scenario would be a rather small incident. This has the advantage a "normal" incident could be covered up smoothly, like the 2009 incident at three miles island. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Presidential Election Polls
Top
Bottom