Dan wrote...
> One had no deaths directly associated with it. The
> other had 30 (I got that number from anti-nuke websites, so I think it
> isn't low). With Chernobyl, the UN commissioned a very thorough medical
> follow-up, and they have yet to find any increase in the death rate for
> people who were effected by this accident.
Not entirely accurate. There was a report a couple of years after, and there
was no significant increase in general mortality in the affected areas.
Howwever, since then the picture has changed.
There is a massive increase in childhood leukaemias, and the total life
expectancy in the area has dropped.
The story isn't over yet, not by a long way. :o(((
However, as Dan goes on to point out, there were some unusual circumstances
involved in the Chernobyl incident.
No, they weren't playing games. Yes, they were playing chicken with the
limits, under orders. (I have a russian source on that one...)
> And even with these three causes, none of which would happen in the West
> (the first 2 couldn't, the third is virtually inconceivable...someone
> allowed to play with a billion dollar piece of equipment like that), the
> deaths were limited to 30.
Immediate deaths, mainly of firemen. Several of the other firemen are now
dead, also scientists sent in for the clean-up.
> But, these two accidents are listed as proof that nuclear power is
> overwhelmingly dangerous. I don't see the logic in that.
It's not logical, but then people are stupid. I don't like nuclear power,
purely because of the problem of what to do with the waste and with the
reactor when it's decommissioned. I don't really have a problem with
reactors in themselves. If there was a better solution than "find a
geologically stable area and bury it", I'd be happier.
However, fission reactors are here to stay, and they're necessary until we
start generating power commercially in different ways.
Charlie
