Can't help it but to want to post thoughts on Clive's email after seeing how
the Japanese community here
felt and how I come to shock of the latest events in Japan. All these,
despite natural disaster has
a strong link to human error in design.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Clive Dilnot <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> In regards to the unfolding double tragedies in Japan, Donald Norman’s
> “leap-to” diatribe in defense of engineers completely misses the
> point. In fact, it is part of the problem (in that, as the subsequent
> replies showed, it diverts the real question in all the wrong
> directions—no Virginia, building a 100-metre sea wall is not the
> answer).
>
Totally agree on this aspect. But unortunately many scientists, engineers
etc
do not think this way. Despite the prowess of what advance science and
technology can do,
the ultimatum is still human factors. I see this tragic event the result of
systemic loopholes.
The other thought that came to my mind is that we over emphasis about
nuclear energy and being
awfully over confident about our abilities to contain such technology. Our
human complacency can
often misquide us to think that advanced know-how is the solution to all,
which unfortunately isn't.
Its often like a problem left to the open thinking that you could swat them
with a large net, forgetting that
the problem may be larger and more powerful in strength. When all these add
up, it mutates into
a snowballed problem that could have been sorted at base point.
Nuclear energy is by far, I think, the most dangerous form of energy to use.
It may be economical from a commercial standpoint, but the opportunity cost
is often devastating. Apparently Fukushimaya had mechanical problems way
back in the 70s. But strangely, they have not been totally cleared off. It
makes me wonder how could engineering problems such as pressure and cooling
systems were solved. I would have thought policies or products to encourage
alternative fuel sources with possible policies to cut down unneccessary
consumption would greatly reduce the need for electrical energy. On many
levels, psychology may well be the most fundamental aspect in solving energy
problems.
The immediate thought was to design a kind of 'lead net' that covers the
entire nuclear plant in several layers before it actually explodes. Damn
thick wall, but I suppose it is better than nothing or leaving 50 brave
Japanese rescuers choosing to risk their lives to look for survivors. I
think its utterly unfair to these people. The persons who design
the reactors and those who allowed the faulty systems to be in place for so
long should be the ones
to take on most of the responsibilities.
> My original post asked two questions. The first was open—what does the
> word “design” mean when it is used in connection with the design of (or
> what I would call the configuration) of the Japanese nuclear plants?
> What is “design” here? What is that in the nuclear plant or as a quality
> of the plant, that causes commentators to talk of its ‘design”?
>
Design here would simply mean to be responsible; be wise & honest to know
the risks; be
intelligent to fit all the demands with a solution that has a backup for
possible accidents despite the
magnitude.
No design is considered even passable, when any kind of problem is
overlooked.
The age of the reactors may be a problem. But I think the system in place is
a greater problem.
The thinking of those people who design the policies and the physical
product are the most
important factor. Everything grows old with age. But why is it that some
products/buildings could last
while some don't? Simply because the strict attention to every design detail
in compliance to
different kinds of human environments & our common natural environment keeps
it good.
Only have this bit of bedtime for the long torso and tail bit of Clive's
detailed thought on the mega accident.
It's actually a wake up call not only for Japan but to everyone of us on
this globe. We have not yet figure out
the pending danger it poses to the environment. Looking at the line of
eathquakes that have happend,will there be a string of other similar
earthquakes waiting to errupt ?
Pretty frighteining stuff if you pile all these up with what Dr Stephen
Hawkings had mentioned that
our future is in space. But instead of lining up to fly to Mars or wherever
into the unknown, we need to solve the problem that is inherent within us. I
see it as a root problem. For if it is not solved by the root, your
evergreen tree cannot grow, and nevermind if it would last.
That's how I see it.
Night night all,
Karen Fu
|
