> less steel reinforcement in certain areas than would have been expected from the 1979 design drawings
They address this later, so it's a clickbait implication.
Who cares if it's different to the design, is it not enough? How does it compare to normal.
Given it's a cookie cutter design the workers would notice if it wasn't enough. 20 years of pumping concrete is enough to know if it's significantly wrong.
If the implication is, this might mean other things are wrong. It goes to how normal is this in industry?
When you look at China and their bad concrete, it goes to pushing things to the extreme, like how will they go in an earthquake.
> Engineers said it seemed unlikely that having less rebar would trigger a collapse in and of itself
They address this later, so it's a clickbait implication.
Who cares if it's different to the design, is it not enough? How does it compare to normal.
Given it's a cookie cutter design the workers would notice if it wasn't enough. 20 years of pumping concrete is enough to know if it's significantly wrong.
If the implication is, this might mean other things are wrong. It goes to how normal is this in industry?
When you look at China and their bad concrete, it goes to pushing things to the extreme, like how will they go in an earthquake.
> Engineers said it seemed unlikely that having less rebar would trigger a collapse in and of itself