Re: Causes of the Gran Apagón (Spain), first oficial report

On 7/11/2025 2:58 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-07-11 02:35, Don Y wrote:

On 7/10/2025 5:27 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-07-11 01:20, Don Y wrote:

On 7/10/2025 3:14 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-07-10 23:39, Don Y wrote:

On 7/10/2025 12:00 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-07-10 15:55, Don Y wrote:

Again, which plants?  Was there policy in place that caused this (if so,
why hadn't ALL plants?)
>
"...because ‘some operators’ were not complying with the regulations"
>
Which?
>
"The report, due to a ‘confidentiality obligation’ has “anonymised”
information, ‘on most occasions’ at the request of the actors involved..."
>
Do you see the pattern, here?
>
I.e., "Someone was killed.  We've spoken to the killer -- who shall remain
anonymous and promise not to do it again..."

>
>
Because if not, they would not have talked and the cause would not be known and corrective action not taken fast.

>
"Something horrific happened.  We've spoken to the parties responsible.
We *think* they won't do it again but don't want anyone to know who
was actually responsible (as THEY aren't part of the problem??)"

>
Finding a culprit to sue will take decades (it is another investigation), and we want solutions now.

>
So, let's just keep the "bad actor" in the same position of responsibility
WHILE we are deciding who to sue?

>
I prefer to have electricity than a culprit.

>
But you have no assurance that you will *still* have electricity!
If the same "actors" are in place, what guarantee that they won't
similarly screw up next week/month/year?  What incentive do THEY
have to "perform correctly" -- if the NEXT lawsuit will be years
after the *first* lawsuit?
>
If you hide their identities *now*, that doesn't prevent all the
same "anonymized data" from being subpoenaed and introduced as
evidence in their later *trial*.  They're still on-the-hook
for their responsibility.
>
(Ah, but stockholders can continue to profit UNTIL the trial...)

  If their identities were not anonymized, they would not have talked at all. It would have taken years to have a working report.

So, either the data has been PERMANENTLY anonymized (in which case, no one
can ever be held accountable) *or* it has just been TEMPORARILY anonymized.
When the switchover between using the anonymized data for short term
results vs. use the nonanonymized data to hold someone accountable?
Or, is accountability not a part of your legal system:  "The party agreed
to pay a fine of $X and admitted no wrong-doing" (ah, I guess it was
just FATE that caused the problems so no need to take any remedial action)
We've got ~100 dead kids, here, from a flood whose lives may have been
saved had some penny-pinching bureaucrats opted to install a warning
system (prices from $50K to $1M depending on how it was purchased).
We'll just wait until the dust settles and hope folks forget about it?
Let's keep the same idiots in decision making positions as they have
a great record, so far (NOT!)
Must be depressing to know your kid's life was worth < $10K.

I prefer to have this report now, so that it can be acted upon, and let the courts find the culprits to sue at their leisurely pace in a decade time.