> I was under the assumption they were relatively save for supervised transports. Relative to what? I recall it's riskier to move than to leave in place, not a

> I was under the assumption they were relatively save for supervised transports. Relative to what? I recall it's riskier to move than to leave in place, not anything about any specific technology. > My point is that such transports are possible and are regularly executed in Europe, just not as normal cargo. There is nothing stops the US from doing the same. Again, nothing to do with overall risk. Incidentally, I think the differences between US and European rail infrastructures (including regulation thereof) is not to be dismissed so lightly. > It is simply not prudent to allow the production of nuclear energy by private entities without a solid plan, how the long term costs associated with it are to be financed. Here, I totally agree. It may well be that it's simply not prudent to allow private nuclear energy at all. As much as I'm generally not a fan of government running anything industrial,