h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:40:50 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Mostly because they were so heavily regulated, they weren't really
commercial, and no innovation was allowed. That was the cost of the
Price-Anderson act.

Mostly because the Price-Anderson act lead to the political failure of
the industry, and has absolutely zero bearing on the operator and
designer failures I noted.

It was the direct cause. Once the industry gave up its autonomy in
exchange for freedom from liability, there was no room for innovative
techiques.

Right. And innovation would have prevented Fermi 2 how? (Since that
Fermi 2 was a fabrication error.) How would innovation have prevented
Browns Ferry? (Since Browns Ferry was a management and common sense
failure.) How would innovation have prevented TMI? (Since TMI was a
managment and operational error.) If Price-Anderson prevented
innovation, why is virtually every reactor in the country built to
different designs? Why is there a constant increase in the size of
the plants?

These are serious questions BTW.

We've seen the same thing in the aircraft industry, in
which the FAA tells everyone how to design and operate aircraft.

Even before the FAA, we saw airplanes lost to operator, maintenance,
design, and construction problems. After the FAA, we see airplanes
lost to the same cause. The FAA has changed what exactly?

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.