This assumes no other forces that could work against developing a better
"design." Perhaps there were political reasons to ignore very high
tsunamis? Perhaps there were economic reasons?
Cheers.
Fil
On 16 March 2011 21:07, Lubomir Savov Popov <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> When we are involved in the project delivery for complex facilities,
> programming/planning is key for specifying product attributes. Considering
> the complexity of nuclear facilities, it is prudent to invest in extensive
> work at the pre-design phases.
>
> The whole situation has emerged mostly because at the programming/planning
> phase the threat of a very high tsunami was not considered seriously. It is
> quite astonishing, keeping in mind that in Japanese history and folklore
> there are vivid images of tsunami waves much higher than the present one.
> With my sporadic knowledge about Japanese tsunami disasters, I would have
> taken precautions for a 100 feet high wave. Practically speaking, the power
> plant should have been designed as a nuclear-powered ship.
>
> I would not blame the engineers. This is not a design error, but a
> programming/planning error. The specifications/problems/requirements were
> not defined correctly. A good engineer may or may not be a good programmer.
> Programming requires different skills that the typical design skills.
>
> This is a good case for empowering the emergence of an autonomous
> programming profession separate from core design. Programmers will have a
> more focused program of study and more experience with the specification of
> product attributes, qualities, and requirements.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Lubomir
>
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|