Safety or quality - which of these two objectives is the most important?

To ensure these technologies are safe to run, what objectives should we be aiming to achieve? What damage is caused by an accident or may occur during normal operation of a nuclear power plant? Isn't it true that because of economic developments in certain fields (such as atomic energy production, extraction of mineral resources and other potentially dangerous technologies) the heritage of entire peoples is being plundered without them even being aware of the fact? Isn't this doing irreparable damage to these people? A nuclear power plant at a standstill isn't dangerous at all, but also has no reason to exist. Nevertheless, this is what some populist fractions of the French green party want. It is assumed that the specialists in charge of developing complex technologies, requiring painstaking research and study, know about every aspect of these technologies in the tiniest detail, including the potential danger they represent. However the Chernobyl accident demonstrated that safety measures can be insufficient. Clearly then, to ensure safety it is totally insufficient to just follow working procedures and instructions to the letter. There is no proof that the operator would remember the instructions when he reads the information displayed on the control console. Neither is it possible to guarantee absolute reliablitity by using computers and computerized control methods, in particular systems based on analyses of forecasts and diagnoses by processing information as linguistic symbols or images. The concept of a Safety Culture also applies to population groups who favor the use of electrical energy generated by nuclear power plants but do not want them to be built near their homes, without any thought for others