argumentA line of reasoning from premises to a conclusion. Like a claim, it belongs to no one who makes it.constitution →
Composition of the accident record
forThis argument, if it holds, bears in favour of the claim.constitution →The historical core-damage record is dominated by early-generation and Soviet reactor designs outside the scope of most probabilistic risk assessments
The argument
Because core-damage events before 1980 occurred almost entirely in experimental or first-generation designs, and because the Chernobyl RBMK had no probabilistic risk assessment before the 1986 accident, most entries in the historical core-damage record, including its most severe, occurred at reactors no published PRA modeled, so the record's composition matches the claim.
Does it work?
Not yet evaluated.
Premises
- UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →Core-damage events before 1980 occurred almost entirely in experimental or first-generation reactor designs
- UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →The Chernobyl RBMK reactor design had no probabilistic risk assessment before the 1986 accident
Where it is made
Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.
No source is recorded as making it.