Hacker News Reader

The post tsunami Fukushima disaster usually comes up as an example of nuclear disaster. And it is, but how much of the disaster was nuclear vs bureaucratic? I changed my perspectives on it, a little, after hearing this podcast episode, highly recommend: https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/cautionary-tales/a-tsunami-o...

View on HN

So what if the cause was bureaucratic rather than technical? That's worse in many ways. It means countries can't be trusted with making nuclear technology. All the flaws in the design and location of this plant were fully known and simply ignored. It's a fallacy to expect this won't happen in other places.

I think you're missing the distinction. It's not that bureaucracy caused the meltdown, it's that the bureaucratic reaction to the meltdown was the source of the damage.

All the pollution was not a result of the administrative response. It was a really serious contamination event.

Deaths aren't the only way to classify a disaster.

wkat, please, in the context of the resource (a well cited podcast episode) you're arguing against your own point. If this is important to you, check the research. If this is not important to you, well, ok.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com