>You didn't answer my question.
>If the waste from the older plants is being dealt with "safely" in the
>newer plants, it has to be transported from one place to another. This
>process is not accident-free. You also haven't addressed the issues of
>plutonium mining and transport to the plant, or whatever fuel sources are
>being used these days.
Name one case of a spill of high-level waste. It _can_ be done at least
as safely as any other electricty source.
Your comment about 'newer plants' makes me think there is some confusion.
There have been no new plants designed since TMI. There were a number
of plants in progress that were finished, but they are all the old
design. I said plants _could_ be made foolproof, I didn't claim that
any existing plants are.
>I find it rather naive to assume that just because something works
>perfectly on paper or even in a model that it will work perfectly every
>single time in real life. New plants turn into old ones with time. Parts
>break down. Parts can be defective. Computers can have bugs. And then
>there's human error, both the usual kind and error because of bad design.
The whole point of this design is there isn't anything that can break,
or any human error that could cause a release of radio active stuff.
The test model was a full, working reactor core.
>I would never accept the risks that nuclear power brings. Even if the
>risks are minimal when everything works just right.
Would you rather have minimal risks from nuclear power, or known
dangers from coal-fired plants?
>Nuclear energy is hardly an ecological choice. Nor is it more acceptable
>when compared to other non-ecological power sources like coal and oil.
>These are not the only options.
Alas, they are the only practical options we have.
==>paul
