4 ms·
“for a decade” There’s the problem, this kind of short term thinking that is just long enough to let someone else deal with it. Also, guarantees on paper don’
by natch 6y ago
“for a decade”
There’s the problem, this kind of short term thinking that is just long enough to let someone else deal with it.
Also, guarantees on paper don’t mean as much as physical reality. Ask any native American or Fukashima resident about how much guarantees are worth.
- EricE 6y agoFukasima was a dumb design from the start, and plenty of people pointed it out before it was built. Holding it up as the poster child for why all talk about nuclear power generation should not even be discussed is beyond disingenuous.
- natch 6y agoWhat you said shows exactly why the point was valid. This is what happens with nuclear power projects: They can take a dumb design, as you said, and people point out the problems beforehand, as you said, then it is built, as you said, regardless. It's important that it was still built even though people said, beforehand, that it was, as you say, dumb. This is a key point really. These things are still built regardless of the quality of the design. And then later, reality and physics have their say. And all the guarantees and promises are broken, and the costs are way higher than were accounted for. Of course some designs are better, and that is fantastic. I'm all for safety and predictability. I have other problems with nuclear, having nothing to do with radiation or safety, but I agree that there are much safer designs. Even though there are better and worse designs, and Fukashima may be a bad design with a bad placement, this lack of full accounting for potential costs is a recurring pattern with these huge boondoggle projects.
- EricE 6y agoSo because we did some dumb things in the past we can never do new things in the future? Great argument.