Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermat
Don't forget to add complacency to the recipe - that always seems to be the most dangerous condition regarding high tech operations with so many built in safety features. Still it keeps Enquiry Boards in business writing up lessons learned
|
I was VERY young, but I'm pretty sure that TMI did exactly what it was supposed to in order to AVOID a disaster. Chernoble (SP?) is a different story, but TMI relied on redundant SIS (Safety Instrumented Systems) to shut down to safe mode when it got outside of a pre-defined range. The plant shut down and there was no radioactive discharge.
I'm not stating this as fact, but I'm pretty sure it is right, no?
I'm neither pro nor anti-nuke. It has it's pros and cons like any other alternative, but the arguments made against it in THIS discussion are not very reasonable. (And if SH Plant blows, I hope I've got front row seats!)