Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,329
Whilst i think that is a little harsh ultimately I agree with the sentiment. A nuclear power station going TU is a lot more dangerous than say, letting car MOTs slide in the pandemic for 6 months.and you are qualified to say this because you have played Nuclear Power Station Simulator for a few hundred hours on steam right ?
what is it with people with zero operational knowledge of matters thinking they know best ?
if they are already 15 years past the point of needing at least a major shut down and inspection then i guess at some point they have to be shut down. could you imagine the fall out (maybe not the best term here) if there was a nuclear disaster and it was because of a fault which happened due to the station being way past its "service" date which would have been picked up.. there would be hell to pay.
maybe it could go on for another 5 years trouble free.... but if there is even a 0.1% chance of somethign going wrong, that risk is too high imo.
my wife does health and safety and manages servicing on equipement at work (nothing like nuclear but we have a couple of CL3 laboratories on site with some nasty bugs) the paperwork and what not which goes with it seems really annoying but ultimately it is there for a reason. a lot of the stuff they get rid of seems fine to me (and indeed is often donated to other places after decommissioning - presumably for less critical use)..... but equipment has failed out of the blue... but again a -80 freezer or a cold room, or a fume cupboard is not quite as bad as a powerstation
![Wink ;) ;)](/styles/default/xenforo/vbSmilies/Normal/wink.gif)