On Apr 25, 12:19*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
2) "demonstrated threat". We can't predict them all. But we can avoid
making lousy plans when those plans are obviously lousy.

We're back to the same problem -- we _CAN_ and _DO_ design for the
consequences of losing primary cooling; the fundamental threat to reactor
integrity irrespective of how, specifically, it might be initiated. *We
have demonstrated empirical evidence those systems work. We also have a
long history of operational evidence the overall technology is as safe as
or safer than other technologies which we routinely accept.

It comes back again to the points made by Chairman Klein of unproductive
participation. *Did you ever read the text of the full speech?

--

Yes, I read the speech.

You used the term "fundamental threat". Before 9/11, what do you suppose was
considered the fundamental threat to the World Trade Center?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'd say the fundamental threat pre 9/11 was Islamic extremists. That
was evidenced by their prior attempt a decade earlier to bring the
towers down using a truck bomb. Of course to do something about it
requred someone with the ability to realize they were at war with us.