<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Tycho</author><text>Is it even possible to handle &lt;i&gt;all&lt;/i&gt; contingencies though? I don&apos;t know enough to do the maths, but when you&apos;ve got&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    four different reactors

    an earthquake

    followed by a tsunami

    followed by loss of electricity for the emergency pumps

    followed by parts of the plant blowing up

    followed by tons of dust getting in the way

    followed by possibly more aftershocks

    followed by possibly more tsunamis

    followed by possible injuries to the personnel needed to run these operations

    considering other equipment can break down

    considering political pressures to make certain decisions

    considering some of the physics/chemistry here may be entirely novel

    ...
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
Think of all the different permutations in those variables, just how many scenarios have been prepared for? It has to be more complicated than just &apos;if casing 1 fails, casing 2 will stop it, and if casing 2 fails, casing 3 is there&apos;</text><parent_chain><item><author>forensic</author><text>Whether you like it or not, the beliefs of most intellectual engineer types is that the nuclear power plant dangers have been solved.&lt;p&gt;It&apos;s inconceivable (cue sound clip from Princess Bride) to most of us that extremely extensive and effective contingency plans are not in place.&lt;p&gt;The nuclear risk is obvious, and so any nuclear construction&apos;s main emphasis must be on handling all possible contingencies... right?&lt;p&gt;If Fukushima does end up being a &quot;Big Deal&quot; that is going to forcibly shift the world view of many many engineers and hackers. It will represent a piece of data that is fundamentally at odds with our view of the world.&lt;p&gt;The facts will eventually win out, but for the short term, it is necessary that we go through these cycles of disbelief and then shock. Because that&apos;s just reality.&lt;p&gt;I will be shocked if Fukushima causes serious harm to humans because until now it has been inconceivable to me that people making nuke plants could possibly underestimate the risks. If my inaccurate beliefs are shattered by the harsh reality of nuclear related deaths then... that&apos;s just how it will have to be. I&apos;ll have to eat my hat. I&apos;m not looking forward to it.&lt;p&gt;In the meantime I have to go with what I know. Which is that this should not be an issue that threatens human life.</text></item><item><author>jedsmith</author><text>The information coming out of Japan right now is very piecemeal and very incomplete. We are also depending on an organization without a stellar reputation when it comes to telling the truth[1], and a culture programmed to downplay very bad things. It has really pained me to see people rush to believe that everything is fine.&lt;p&gt;Conclusions at any stage of this crisis have been premature, but HN seems to want a heavy dose of finality to a crisis that isn&apos;t even over yet. Apparently people don&apos;t want it to be a big deal, but it&apos;s slowly turning into a big deal. It just is. Instead of big essays and conclusions about how the powers-that-be have it under control complete with inaccurate depictions of how a reactor works, why don&apos;t we focus on facts?&lt;p&gt;With that in mind, we do not know how bad it is. Anyone who says they do is lying to you. It isn&apos;t over, and it is a basic fact of logic that we will not be able to reflect on how bad this is or was until it is &lt;i&gt;over&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;p&gt;At the risk of a neener-neener I told you so, I presented some of this viewpoint[2] on the self-aggrandizing risk management Ph.D.&apos;s &lt;i&gt;everything&apos;s fine&lt;/i&gt; piece, but my viewpoint was drowned out by people wanting to rush to a conclusion so they can put the crisis out of sight and out of mind.&lt;p&gt;[1]: &lt;a href=&quot;http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/17/tokyo.scandal/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/17/tokyo.s...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2]: &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2319305&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2319305&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Dramatic escalation in Japan (Fukushima Nuke Plant)</title><url>http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Possible_damage_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_2_1503111.html</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>juiceandjuice</author><text>It&apos;s never been &apos;inconceivable&apos; that nuclear plants would fail.  Nuclear energy was a risk nations were willing to take to keep you plugged in, making this post right now.  You&apos;re faulting engineering that predates the microprocessor, at a power plant scheduled to be decommissioned soon, for failing in the two worst natural disasters (earthquake + tsunami) in Japan&apos;s modern history.&lt;p&gt;I just wanted to make that clear.</text><parent_chain><item><author>forensic</author><text>Whether you like it or not, the beliefs of most intellectual engineer types is that the nuclear power plant dangers have been solved.&lt;p&gt;It&apos;s inconceivable (cue sound clip from Princess Bride) to most of us that extremely extensive and effective contingency plans are not in place.&lt;p&gt;The nuclear risk is obvious, and so any nuclear construction&apos;s main emphasis must be on handling all possible contingencies... right?&lt;p&gt;If Fukushima does end up being a &quot;Big Deal&quot; that is going to forcibly shift the world view of many many engineers and hackers. It will represent a piece of data that is fundamentally at odds with our view of the world.&lt;p&gt;The facts will eventually win out, but for the short term, it is necessary that we go through these cycles of disbelief and then shock. Because that&apos;s just reality.&lt;p&gt;I will be shocked if Fukushima causes serious harm to humans because until now it has been inconceivable to me that people making nuke plants could possibly underestimate the risks. If my inaccurate beliefs are shattered by the harsh reality of nuclear related deaths then... that&apos;s just how it will have to be. I&apos;ll have to eat my hat. I&apos;m not looking forward to it.&lt;p&gt;In the meantime I have to go with what I know. Which is that this should not be an issue that threatens human life.</text></item><item><author>jedsmith</author><text>The information coming out of Japan right now is very piecemeal and very incomplete. We are also depending on an organization without a stellar reputation when it comes to telling the truth[1], and a culture programmed to downplay very bad things. It has really pained me to see people rush to believe that everything is fine.&lt;p&gt;Conclusions at any stage of this crisis have been premature, but HN seems to want a heavy dose of finality to a crisis that isn&apos;t even over yet. Apparently people don&apos;t want it to be a big deal, but it&apos;s slowly turning into a big deal. It just is. Instead of big essays and conclusions about how the powers-that-be have it under control complete with inaccurate depictions of how a reactor works, why don&apos;t we focus on facts?&lt;p&gt;With that in mind, we do not know how bad it is. Anyone who says they do is lying to you. It isn&apos;t over, and it is a basic fact of logic that we will not be able to reflect on how bad this is or was until it is &lt;i&gt;over&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;p&gt;At the risk of a neener-neener I told you so, I presented some of this viewpoint[2] on the self-aggrandizing risk management Ph.D.&apos;s &lt;i&gt;everything&apos;s fine&lt;/i&gt; piece, but my viewpoint was drowned out by people wanting to rush to a conclusion so they can put the crisis out of sight and out of mind.&lt;p&gt;[1]: &lt;a href=&quot;http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/17/tokyo.scandal/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/17/tokyo.s...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2]: &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2319305&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2319305&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Dramatic escalation in Japan (Fukushima Nuke Plant)</title><url>http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Possible_damage_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_2_1503111.html</url></story>