3 ms·

The engineering cost of dealing with Fukushima and Chernobyl are aboslutely eye watering. I would agree that the human reaction is sometimes irrational, but th

• NeutronStar 8y ago
  No one is saying to build 70s era nuclear power plants. New nuclear design are way safer than those old designs.
• acidburnNSA 8y ago
  Ok, but would you agree that we should also expect to not overdo cleanup efforts by several orders of magnitude without reasonable evidence that low-dose radiation is dangerous after collecting multiple decades of data. I don't think infinite-duration irrationality in the face of data is necessary.
  • 7952 8y ago
    A focus of the engineering efforts at Chernobyl and Fukushima are to make sure that higher risk contamination is avoided. So the current radiation impact is not the issue. It is the potential impact that is addressed. I hope that one day Chernobyl and Fukushima can be repopulated, and agree that may be safe. I don't think that makes any difference to the actual cost of the event. Nor, would it be wise to presume that a subsequent event could be safely handled without an evacuation. But that is one for politicians to decide.
• dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  The cost of the status quo where we mostly burn dead dinosaurs for electricity costs a lot more and is not getting any less costly. Given the choice of waiting for wind/solar to become more worthwhile as oil extraction slowly becomes more expensive and prices slowly rise (aka the status quo) or pulling the trigger on nuclear now it shouldn't even be a choice.
  • 7952 8y ago
    I am actually in favour of developing nuclear energy. And I think we should also invest in renewables. And one day I think that another nuclear station is going to fail and will need to be made safe. Those things are not inconsistent.