"Amtrak's Grand Plan for Profitability"

62 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 2,948 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, December 10, 2019 10:11 PM



You challenged the NRC findings.  Why should we believe you?


Certainly not because "I said so".  But it is a matter of common knowledge (and easily backstopped with some engineering calculations) about the magnitude of radionuclides released during the cladding failure, and it is also reasonably easily calculated what the bounds of time over which that release took place.  Where would you say, alternatively, that all this would go?

I didn't challenge the "NRC findings"; I challenged a claim in the NRC public report.  Without checking primary sources I'd have to wonder whether there's an aspect of 'not documented, not done' regarding actual radiological data that were 'not adequately recorded' during the period of the peak release; this would be fairly easy to track down in the primary records once you know what to watch for.

It was a pretty common attitude in at least one of the Columbia classes that at least some of the NRC attitude represented political whitewash.  I'm particularly not speaking to that, but again it would be sufficient to compare the report findings against the primary data, knowing some of the physics, and see whether there is any "careful presentation" or selective data interpretation going on there.

Don't EVER take what I say on a technical matter as 'gospel truth'; if it's right, it will hold up and if it's wrong, I need to change it.  And I admit most of the information I used about TMI is not stuff that has publication citations that are accessible, so it comes down to proof by contradiction in a sense: where did the material go if only 'small' releases took place?  (I said at Columbia, and I say again here, tongue not really as much in cheek as I'd wish, that if they had said 'short' rather than 'small' in the NRC report it would have been essentially fully correct, and semantically near-identical in perceived sense to most people who read the report to find out what happened.)

We know it's the published information that you cite, and I would be among the last people to criticize you for doing so.  The 'controversy' is in shutting down any (admittedly, speculative at best) possibility that Amtrak might be using creative although unquestionably 'legal' conventions to achieve certain of its published figures.  Arguably if we used similar standards of proof in the Seventies, Nixon would probably be looked at today as one of our most successful two-term presidents... Wink      


As to Amtrak accounting, it is of course possible they could be engaging in sharp practices with overhead allocation. But generally wild ass speculation without a scintilla of evidence gets you laughed out of any serious discussion. 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,482 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, December 11, 2019 11:24 AM

charlie hebdo
But generally wild ass speculation without a scintilla of evidence gets you laughed out of any serious discussion.

More precisely it never gets you into any serious discussion in the first place.  (Which is in part why I do try to refrain from commenting on those Amtrak accounting threads, where the relevant information is firmly in the 'can't know' category.)

Concluding with Watergate?  Seriously??

Well, it seemed to make sense when I was typing it.  Since you have a record of it in your quote I can get rid of it for anyone else who has to read the thread.  You're right, no one will miss it.

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 2,948 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Wednesday, December 11, 2019 12:33 PM

Consider it removed!  Never was, like a Stalinist-era photo of the reviewing stand. 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy