3 ms·
Yes, but the original location of site would not be approved today, precisely because of the risk that actualised in the tsunami (even though it is an extremely
by ptaipale 7y ago
Yes, but the original location of site would not be approved today, precisely because of the risk that actualised in the tsunami (even though it is an extremely rare an unlikely occurrence - a tsunami which caused large-scale devastation where the nuclear plant's problems were just a minor issue compared to the huge loss of life and material damage from tsunami itself).
- natmaka 7y agoIndeed, however it doesn't change much the logical conclusion drawn by many: the risk is not adequately managed, not sufficiently "under control", there are configurations leading to a disaster (dangerous material escaping, especially on a large scale). Even if such disasters are relatively rare (given the reactor.year activity), they periodically happen and many think that any new one may be even more catastrophic. Add to this that many, in the public, now know that not a single insurer or re-insurer accepts to cover nuclear risk. As for the impact on health we will only be able to assess it when the last dangerous waste dispersed by the Fukushima disaster will be innocuous, the last induced-cancer known...