argumentA line of reasoning from premises to a conclusion. Like a claim, it belongs to no one who makes it.constitution →
The Fukushima counterexample
againstThis argument, if it holds, weighs against 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 the Fukushima Daiichi reactors had plant-specific probabilistic risk assessments predicting core-damage frequencies around one in a million reactor-years before 2011, the three cores that melted there in 2011, the largest single contribution to the modern core-damage record, occurred at plants that were within PRA coverage, so the record is not dominated by designs outside PRA scope.
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 →The Fukushima Daiichi reactors had plant-specific probabilistic risk assessments predicting core-damage frequencies around one in a million reactor-years before the 2011 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.