Private Controls Of Nuclear Plants

[mrocktor]

If a part of the plane was designed to last for a certain minimum-time-to-failure under normal operation conditions, then, if the conditions of the flight were within the normal range, there is no need to re-examine it; the scientific facts that made the designer conclude that the part will last for time t are still valid and, if there is enough of t left, can still be used to conclude that the part will last for the next flight. (Of course, any regular inspections that the designer prescribes ought to be performed.) Danger arises only if you have a reason to doubt that a given part will last for the next flight, i.e. if the minimum time to failure has been exceeded or the facts on which the designer's prediction of the minimum time to failure is based no longer apply.

I think we have a lot of common ground. The thing is that "t" is not a time where the part is guaranteed not to fail, rather it's a time where it is *statistically unlikely* to fail. In order to be *certain*, microscopic analysis would be required - given our current context of knowlege.

No, no, even the original question was only about whether or not they should be regulated by the government. The subsequent discussion that I triggered has been about whether one private individual has a right to verify the safety of a nuclear plant owned by another private individual (and about whether safety is possible at all).

Myself I see no difference between government ownership and government regulation, in terms of principle. In both cases it's the use of force without provocation as if owning something very dangerous were *intrinsically* a threat.

mrocktor

[Capitalism Forever]

The thing is that "t" is not a time where the part is guaranteed not to fail

Nobody is requiring a guarantee that the part will not fail; that would be asking to prove a negative. Rather, if the plaintiff can prove that a specific set of circumstances will make the part fail and that those circumstances can arise given the way the defendant operates the equipment, then the defendant has to show what he has done to prevent the potential damage.

[Maarten]

That's what I tried to say as well earlier. You can't ask someone to prove that his part will not fail. Should someone obtain reasonable evidence that there might be a problem they have sufficient grounds for an investigation, I think. If, for example it is known that the company uses a certain type of cooling mechanism, and new research indicates that it has a severe flaw; then you have a good basis for acting.

I agree with mrocktor that government regulation before something is going on is a bad, bad thing.

[mrocktor]

Nobody is requiring a guarantee that the part will not fail; that would be asking to prove a negative. Rather, if the plaintiff can prove that a specific set of circumstances will make the part fail and that those circumstances can arise given the way the defendant operates the equipment, then the defendant has to show what he has done to prevent the potential damage.

Discussing concretes is limited, but let me try a specific example:

1. Thermal cycling and vibration can cause micro fissures of turbine blades.

2. A flight exposes turbines to thermal cycling and vibration.

3. A flight may cause micro fissures.

Now, we know that after each flight micro fissures may exist. We know that *statistically* these fissures tend to take X time to develop into actual cracks that are a safety risk, but that they may develop quickly although this is infrequent.

We postulate that an inspection every X/2 is enough for an acceptable level of safety BUT:

After each flight, in order to fly again, you are making the positive claim: this aircraft is safe to fly. The positive claim is that there are no micro fissures, since you have exposed the part to the causes of such fissures. And it is NOT practical - though it is possible - to be *sure* of such a claim, before every flight.

mrocktor

[Capitalism Forever]

After each flight, in order to fly again, you are making the positive claim: this aircraft is safe to fly.

As I said, safety is the absence of danger. Therefore "This aircraft is safe to fly" is a negative claim; it says that there is no danger involved in flying this aircraft.

Under my theory, it is not the airline making a positive claim in order to fly; it is the home owner making a positive claim in order to prevent the airline from flying unless they remove the danger. And he is not making it on a per-flight basis, but rather once, when the airline decides to create a flight route above his home. If he can demonstrate a possible causal chain leading from the thermal cycling and vibration to an aircraft crashing on his home, and the airline cannot provide a solution for breaking that causal chain at any point, then the airline cannot fly above his home by right, only by his permission. Some things will be more difficult for companies to do under capitalism!

(However, if the airline is already flying on that route when he starts building his home, then his new home will not affect the airline's already-established right of way.)