Well. Time for some maths; or at least basic logic.

1) If a nuclear accident is more unlikely than the events we've just witnessed, the precautions taken should be based on the likelihood of these events and their effects
(notice that we are not talking about _possible_ effects; when the water floods land physics (fluid mechanics) will tell us where it will flow).

2) If a nuclear accident is a little less unlikely than the events we've just witnessed, what would logic tell us would be the rational decisions to make about precautions?

3) If a nuclear accident is much more likely than the events we've just witnessed, what would logic tell is would be the rational decisions to make about precautions?

NOTE: we also know the effects of nuclear accidents.


/Stefan

--------------
Stefan Holmlid, associate prof Interaction & Service Design
E: [log in to unmask] | P: +46 13 285633
W: http://www.ida.liu.se/~ixs/ | T: @shlmld
A: IDA, Linköping University, 581 83 LINKÖPING



-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Filippo A. Salustri
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 11:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Why the design profession wouldn't have avoided the Japanese nuclear crisis

Right.  Let's just make everything so big and powerful and expensive that it
will protect us against events that have been calculated to be ridiculously
unlikely.  Two things:
a. there isn't enough money in the world to do that consistently everywhere;
b. most of the time it isn't even necessary.

What would the impact of higher walls - and not just higher but stronger too
- have been on the rest of the situation?  Would it have impeded other,
desirable things?  Would it have scared the local population?  Would it have
interfered with daily commerce?

I'm just saying that "build it higher/stronger/whatever" ignores many very
significant effects.

Cheers.
Fil

On 17 March 2011 06:39, ben jonson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Quote:
> 'Peter Yanev, one of the world's best-known consultants on designing
> nuclear plants to withstand earthquakes, said the seawalls at the
> Japanese plants probably could not handle tsunami waves of the height
> that struck them. And the diesel generators were situated in a low spot
> on the assumption that the walls were high enough to protect against any
>  likely tsunami.
>
>
> That turned out to be a fatal miscalculation. The tsunami walls
> either should have been built higher, or the generators should have been
>  placed on higher ground to withstand potential flooding, he said.
> Increasing the height of tsunami walls, he said, is the obvious answer
> in the immediate term'.
> Read more:
> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11073/1131917-82.stm#ixzz1GmkDVTaD
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:07:46 -0400
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Why the design profession wouldn't have avoided the Japanese
> nuclear crisis
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > 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/