3 ms·
>I don't know, early reactor designs were pretty unsafe and I'm not sure a lot more of them would have been better There have been what, 5 events in the last 5
by twofornone 5y ago
>I don't know, early reactor designs were pretty unsafe and I'm not sure a lot more of them would have been better
There have been what, 5 events in the last 50 years that released a significant amount of radiation, only one catastrophic meltdown (Chernobyl), out of thousands of plants running continuously for decades? Seems pretty safe to me...
- simonh 5y agoI agree the impact of and response to accidents is often exaggerated out of proportion. Except for Chernobyl. That one was a monster. However if you take the long term impact and costs of those accidents and add them to the cost of nuclear power overall, it's not a pretty picture. I would not have supported significantly more nuclear 40 years ago, some but not massive. I do support it now though. We've learned a lot.
- mdavis6890 5y agoChernobyl was hardly a monster. According to Wikipedia, 30 people died immediately, and probably another 30 due to the radiation aftermath. Maybe a few thousand more someday due to long term effects. Highest estimates are 60k deaths.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoChernobyl could have been so much worse, so much worse. You should look that up as well. We definitely do not want to do more Chernobyl style nuke plants. There are much much safer designs available.
- Krasnol 5y agoSo every 10 years a major accident. How does that sound safe to you? We've been lucky that none of those was in densely populated areas somewhere in Europe for example.
- twofornone 5y agoChernobyl was the only "major" accident, perhaps you could put Fukishima into that category, but again you're disregarding the denominator, thousands of plants operating for decades without issue. That sounds very safe to me, especially when weighted against emissions reduction.
- Krasnol 5y agoWhich one is supposed to work "without issue"?