Everything.
The point of the unnatural disaster playing itself out in the Gulf of Mexico isn't that BP is a mega-corporation like all corporations and they simply cut corners for profit and then profess "no we don't" when one of their fail safe measures fails and all their system redundancies do little to prevent a catastrophe, but they take credit for averting a "really big catastrophe.
Again with its detractors and those who will argue, NASA is the most prudent, tested, intellectual endeavor known in the history of mankind. They haven't used "fail safe" for years; they've used "acceptable risk."
What are the implications? What's the big story that has yet to be reported.
Sunday, March 30, 2014, somewhere on the eastern coast of the United States a valve sticks and shuts off a critical water supply. The backup system is shutdown due to maintenance and so the third system of redundancy attempts to kick in, but a software glitch only exacerbates the problem. At 10:39 p.m. alarms are triggered and the weekend crew seeing no issues on the board, disable the alarm and dutifully report "non-incident/alarm triggered."
The question I have is what happens when the "fail safe" involves a nuclear reactor? What happens when Three-Mile Island or Chernobyl are to a nuclear catastrophe what a modern day nuclear bomb is to the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
What happens when the "fail safe" involves a nuclear reactor?
I think that's the big question I haven't heard anyone asking.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).