On 03/13/2011 08:37 AM, John Berry wrote: > Might be fewer people stupidly insisting Nuclear power is safe now...
I disagree. What happened to this point (always based on available news reports, of course) is a proof of safety, more than anything else. The fact that the containment vessel resisted the explosion of the reactor building and that no major radioactive leaking occurred, even when the reactor core seems to be in a partial meltdown, and after the most powerful recorded earthquake struck really close, says a lot about the level of precaution, planning and safety those plants have. I can be wrong, and the containment vessel will end up not being able to contain the meltdown(or partial meltdown, according to reports), but to this point, the available evidence is indicating that it will be able to do it. The fact they have decided to use sea water to cool down the reactors also seems to strengthen this, because the temperatures and pressures will decrease. Probably the level of contamination and consequent cancer increase produced by the burning of the oil and gas facilities will be much greater than the one produced by the radioactive leaking produced by venting. Not to talk about the diseases and deterioration of quality of life caused by the atmospheric pollution, which results from the burning of fossil fuels regularly. Nuclear reactors have the potential to cause great damage, but just due to that, their level of safety is greater. And that level seems to be adequate, at least in this case, and until this moment. Conventional nuclear power is certainly not a perfect solution, but I think nuclear power and their associated dangers are preferable to the burning of fossil fuels and their associated problems. Regards, Mauro
