3 ms·
I suppose we can all have differing opinions on what an acceptable level of risk is, but leaking radiation, fuel storage ponds on fire, and a situation volatile
by jeffreyrusso 16y ago
I suppose we can all have differing opinions on what an acceptable level of risk is, but leaking radiation, fuel storage ponds on fire, and a situation volatile enough to warrant a 30km exclusion zone says to me that the plant clearly was not designed to handle this kind of situation.
If the problem is the lack of power, then so be it - even more of a preventable problem that wasn't properly assured against.
I'm hopeful for the Gen 4 reactors (don't know much about them, but what I've read gives me the impression that they are a significant leap in the right direction in terms of safety.) But I don't think that this particular article is right in holding Fukushima up as some shining example of nuclear safety, especially so early.
- krschultz 16y agoThe level of leaking radiation here is nothing. How does it compare to a dental x-ray? Should we ban dental x-rays? The exclusion zone is a precaution. You could be running around nude in it right now and you wouldn't get cancer.
- gsmaverick 16y agoIs dumping millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico an acceptable level of risk for you? I don't see you saying we should stop drilling for oil.
- OpieCunningham 16y agoYou can't fault him for not saying we should stop drilling for oil - this discussion is not about oil. But since you brought it up, we should stop drilling for oil, particularly sea bed drilling, while operating with lax regulatory bodies and marginal penalties for non-compliance.