4 ms·

>Keeping people safe is the primary objective for a state You seem to be confusing "keeping people safe" with "keeping people safe theater". Monitoring the ra

>Keeping people safe is the primary objective for a state You seem to be confusing "keeping people safe" with "keeping people safe theater". Monitoring the radioactivity of European crops and livestock in 2019 is solidly in the latter category. >not allowing private entities to extract the most possible profits while offloading the risks to the state. This it as tangential to a discussion of nuclear safety compared to the safety of any other power source. >We saw this in Japan, it is impossible for any private entity to shoulder the cost of an accident. And this is different than a dam failure, or any other industrial accident of similar magnitude, in a similarly populated/developed location how?

mschuster91 8y ago
> This it as tangential to a discussion of nuclear safety compared to the safety of any other power source. No, it is not. No other power source comes even close in the amount of time that has to be covered by insurances. A dam breaks, a gas plant explodes, that's a couple billions of dollars of damage plus a couple billions in payments for the relatives of the dead. For corporations making billions of years in profits, that's pocket change. (Which coincidentally explains why disasters regarding open "seas" of toxic mining slurry occur so regularly) For Fukushima? That land is inhabitable for decades. Assume the Isar 1 AKW blows up? This is only 100km away from Munich. Can you imagine how much it costs to move an area with over 3M people? And that doesn't even touch the question: where to put the nuclear trash? Germany doesn't have a permanent waste facility and many other countries don't have one either. Note that I'm not against nuclear in general: Inherently safe designs such as MSRs? Perfectly fine. But not the often shoddily maintained stuff that is in use today!
- mikeyouse 8y ago
  Forget Munich (don’t but you get my point) what’s the liability of the 40-year old 2GW Indian Point plant, which is constantly receiving safety citations, being 30 miles upwind from NYC? 20 million people live there..
  - mschuster91 8y ago
    Exactly this. Nuclear power using pressure vessels is simply too dangerous.

mschuster91 8y ago

> This it as tangential to a discussion of nuclear safety compared to the safety of any other power source. No, it is not. No other power source comes even close in the amount of time that has to be covered by insurances. A dam breaks, a gas plant explodes, that's a couple billions of dollars of damage plus a couple billions in payments for the relatives of the dead. For corporations making billions of years in profits, that's pocket change. (Which coincidentally explains why disasters regarding open "seas" of toxic mining slurry occur so regularly) For Fukushima? That land is inhabitable for decades. Assume the Isar 1 AKW blows up? This is only 100km away from Munich. Can you imagine how much it costs to move an area with over 3M people? And that doesn't even touch the question: where to put the nuclear trash? Germany doesn't have a permanent waste facility and many other countries don't have one either. Note that I'm not against nuclear in general: Inherently safe designs such as MSRs? Perfectly fine. But not the often shoddily maintained stuff that is in use today!

mikeyouse 8y ago
Forget Munich (don’t but you get my point) what’s the liability of the 40-year old 2GW Indian Point plant, which is constantly receiving safety citations, being 30 miles upwind from NYC? 20 million people live there..
- mschuster91 8y ago
  Exactly this. Nuclear power using pressure vessels is simply too dangerous.