So since we have not heard about France going through that special type of winter one can assume that maybe just maybe the tech has improved since the early eighties.
Now we all know why nuclear is feared for the most part. I'm not saying we should forget what happened at Chernobyl, I would be annoyed to say the least if lessons where not learned from the incident that has turned seven countries of using that type of power for the for seeable future. Though we should put some of this in perspective. First issue is they where testing for what later become the problem that brought Chernobyl to it's knees. The problem being is that they could not get get the issue under control until two years after it had been open. So how their safety inspectors where OK with the shape it was in to open the plant is beyond me.
So let me reiterate that last part. They the crew building the plant rushed the job so the plant was unsafe by their own standards so they could get their bonus pay. This was covered up until the government went looking into why this had happened. So I'm sorry to say this was a walking disaster waiting to happen.
To be fair, if you see people using this reasoning to tell you that you should be against Nuclear power, you should also ask them if they are against other proven unsafe things. A few quick examples you could ask them is if they are against driving due to the mortality rate each year. Or you could ask them if they also do not fly but take the safer train when they have to travel cross country. My point being is in the greater scheme of things, dying of nuclear winter is much less statistical then dying by plane, car or cheese burgers.
So if you are willing to have an open mind I may just have an answer to powering us in a cheap cleaner manner over oil and coal.
No comments:
Post a Comment