posted
The question should not be "is nuclear power safe?"
All mass power production of any kind has risks. People have been killed in coal mines, refinery fires and explosions, falling off of dams, etc. etc. Also, conventional power production has made land become unsuitable for food production and habitation as well from things like toxic chemical waste, mining, giant fields of coal slag, flooding of upstream areas from dams, etc.
So the proper question should be, "is nuclear power more or less risky than other types of power production?"
Based on the evidence I have seen in my admittedly limited research, I would say less.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm surprised at you, Glenn. I just reread her posts on the thread (on my mobile, and it's noisy-please excuse me if I missed it), but I don't think that was the gist of her message at all, that it's perfectly safe-and I'm almost certain she never actually said it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I'm kinda surprised at myself too. I've always been somewhat pro-nuclear, but Tatiana has always rubbed me the wrong way.
No, she hasn't said it's perfectly safe. My post is more based on her attitude, in which she assumes a one-sided bias (anti-nuclear fears are biased, while her position isn't), and rejects the notion that the potential for disaster is real, because the danger has somehow been engineered out.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
