Dane Sabo
2497bb4aa5
M .task/backlog.data M .task/completed.data M .task/pending.data M .task/undo.data A PLAN_OF_STUDY_111225.pdf R Writing/202510270-Emerson-Pres/SaboOneSlide.pdf -> Presentations/202510270-Emerson-Pres/SaboOneSlide.pdf R Writing/202510270-Emerson-Pres/beamerthemedane.sty -> Presentations/202510270-Emerson-Pres/beamerthemedane.sty R Writing/202510270-Emerson-Pres/beamerthemedane_native.sty -> Presentations/202510270-Emerson-Pres/beamerthemedane_native.sty
44 lines
1.7 KiB
TeX
44 lines
1.7 KiB
TeX
% Safety Imperative
|
|
\begin{frame}{Human operators are the root cause of 70--80\% of nuclear incidents}
|
|
|
|
\begin{center}
|
|
\begin{tikzpicture}
|
|
\draw[thick, fill=gray!20] (0,0) rectangle (12,7);
|
|
\node[align=center, text width=10cm] at (6,3.5) {
|
|
\textbf{FIGURE: Human Error Statistics}\\[0.3cm]
|
|
Top: Pie chart showing 70--80\% human error\\
|
|
vs 20\% equipment failure\\[0.3cm]
|
|
Middle: TMI timeline visualization\\
|
|
100+ alarms $\rightarrow$ operator confusion $\rightarrow$ 44\% meltdown\\[0.3cm]
|
|
Bottom: Human Error Probability chart\\
|
|
HEP: 0.001 (optimal) $\rightarrow$ 1.0 (accident conditions)\\
|
|
Stress factors multiply error rates 10-50x
|
|
};
|
|
\end{tikzpicture}
|
|
\end{center}
|
|
|
|
%SPEAKER NOTES: See comments below
|
|
%
|
|
\textbf{The Human Error Problem:}
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item 70--80\% of events attributed to human error (multiple independent analyses)
|
|
\item IAEA: ``Human error was the root cause of ALL severe accidents'' (TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima)
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
\textbf{Three Mile Island (1979):}
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item 100+ simultaneous alarms overwhelmed operators
|
|
\item Operators shut down emergency cooling based on incorrect assessment
|
|
\item Result: 44\% of fuel melted
|
|
\item Risk assessment was off by 500-fold (5\% actual vs 0.01\% predicted)
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
\textbf{Fundamental Cognitive Limitations:}
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item Working memory: 7±2 items (Miller, 1956)
|
|
\item HEP: 0.001--0.01 optimal $\rightarrow$ 0.1--1.0 under accident conditions
|
|
\item Four decades of training improvements haven't changed the 70--80\% ratio
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
% (End of speaker notes)
|
|
\end{frame}
|