Here's something about the real world: Things break. Shit happens. We can sit on a chair now and look back and point out all the things that could've been done better, and I honestly don't see the value in it.
When the World Trade Center was built, it was designed to withstand the impact of a common airplane at the time and remain structurally sound. The engineers didn't envision a 757 being flown into them, and so they fell. Does that mean they were engineered poorly too? 9/11 would've been prevented if we built additional structure around the WTC each year to accommodate newer, larger, heavier aircraft, but at what point do you rule safety cost as too high to be justified?
On the same note, Fukushima survived a storm massively larger than it was ever meant to. It still failed, but it did so in a way that prevented any direct deaths. As nuclear "disasters" go, I honestly don't even think Fukushima should be among them. Considering what COULD have happened, very little actually happened.
How about we just agree to say we got lucky this time and do better in the future?
> As nuclear "disasters" go, I honestly don't even think Fukushima should be among them. Considering what COULD have happened, very little actually happened.
There are hundreds of square miles still in the exclusion zone and some 80,000 people haven't been able to return to their homes.. I'd say a nuclear meltdown that displaces tens of thousands of people and costs several hundred billion dollars to clean up qualifies as a 'disaster'.
I don't think "a traditional disaster" means what you think it means.
The Cerro Grande Fire destroyed about 420 homes and caused ~$1 billion in damages but no one died. The Bel Air Fire destroyed 484 homes but again left no fatalities. Tropical Storm Fay hit Texas and nine counties in Texas were declared disaster areas, but again, no fatalities.
When was there ever a tradition where something had to have deaths in order for it to be called a "disaster"? I gave three counter-examples of events which were labeled disasters but which had no fatalities.
While what you said is (theoretically) true, all evidence is that it's appropriate to use the term "disaster" for something which 'displaces tens of thousands of people and costs several hundred billion dollars', and there's no need to distinguish between 'traditional' and 'modern' definitions.
When the World Trade Center was built, it was designed to withstand the impact of a common airplane at the time and remain structurally sound. The engineers didn't envision a 757 being flown into them, and so they fell. Does that mean they were engineered poorly too? 9/11 would've been prevented if we built additional structure around the WTC each year to accommodate newer, larger, heavier aircraft, but at what point do you rule safety cost as too high to be justified?
On the same note, Fukushima survived a storm massively larger than it was ever meant to. It still failed, but it did so in a way that prevented any direct deaths. As nuclear "disasters" go, I honestly don't even think Fukushima should be among them. Considering what COULD have happened, very little actually happened.
How about we just agree to say we got lucky this time and do better in the future?