Quote:
Originally Posted by XutvJet
Don't forget about 3 Mile Island. Sure there are many redundancies and safeguards designed into nuclear power plants, BUT in the event of a catastrophe, the result could mass death and destruction. 3 Mile Island was likely minutes away from a full meltdown and possible large explosion which could have killed thousands (possibly hundreds thousands over time) and rendered a massive area surrounding the plant uninhabitable, think Chernobyl, but on an even larger scale. It took 15 years and nearly $1B to cleanup Three Mile Island.
We've had three major nuclear disasters in 43 years. That's not a great track record for a system that is supposed to be "safe", full of redundancies, and ran by high qualified personnel. There are countless small accidents and near misses at plants across the country and world, likely many not reported and/or the risk grossly underreported, as was the initial case with Three Mile Island, Fukushima, and Chernobyl.
Nuclear power is an amazing technological advancement, but a sane person should question the risk vs reward factor when it comes to larger facilities like nuclear power plants.
|
Hey high five! You and me are the only two people on Earth that haven't canceled our netflix subscriptions!
But truly, the 70s (and 80s russia) you took readings from squiggly lines on paper and made adjustments by pulling a rope and spanking the hamsters. Nothing is 100% ever in life but everything is better today than it was 40 years ago w regard to safety and technology. Contruction on Fukushima began in 1967 so even that choice location was from the bone-age.
Have to keep moving forward.