JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....

All discussions of nuke plant safety are based on WHAT'S EXPECTED.

Not in the sense of which you have raised the red herrings, no, not
exactly. You keep raising the specter of initiating events; in reality
the design is based on mitigating consequences irrespective of the
initiating event.

There is a fundamental difference between how long or how hot a fire is,
say, as opposed to saying an operational system is unavailable. Once
it's unavailable, it can't become any more so--therefore the
consequences of losing that system are bounded. The alternate way
_can_, agreed, produce a longer, hotter fire. But if I have no primary
flow postulated, it doesn't matter whether it was a 50-cent fuse that
propagated a chain of events or somehow the welds all failed
simultaneously and a section of 4-ft diameter pipe just magically fell
out--it's gone either way and the system must deal with the
consequences. That's why the auxiliary systems are there to compensate.
OTOH, there were no auxiliary support systems in the WTC--once the
columns were compromised the buildings were doomed.

And I'll repeat this, since you obviously missed it last time I said it (in
this thread): I am not opposed to all nuclear power plants.

No; I did _NOT_ miss that--we are (or at least I am) discussing why the
perceived need for near-instantaneous evacuation of Long Island was an
illogical requirement for adequately safe operation of Shoreham. And,
in passing, I'm trying to fight the NIMBY syndrome you're
exhibiting--"it's fine for somewhere else, but youse guys do it, not
here" that you're exhibiting by making the statements whether you're
intending that or not.

Secondarily, we are discussing why the comparisons you're making to
other events/disasters are not conducive to logical thinking with
respect to nuclear safety because the same arguments are made by others
and used by activists because they understand and use the fear factor
and also rely on the lack of critical thinking to cause instinctive
reaction that can be turned into public pressure.

Yet again I emphasize Chairman Klein's concerns.

--