4 ms·
> Also hidden in the small print, the assumption that future accidents would be "no worse" that previous ones. This is spot on. This is like saying "driving is
by goodpoint 4y ago
> Also hidden in the small print, the assumption that future accidents would be "no worse" that previous ones.
This is spot on. This is like saying "driving is safe because I never died so far".
Besides, it neglected to mention many other problems, including nuclear proliferation, centralization of power etc.
- LorenPechtel 4y agoProliferation? Bogeyman! Power reactors are basically useless for bomb production even if you reprocess the fuel. While it is actually possible to make a bomb from reactor waste it is *much* harder than making it from dedicated plutonium-production reactors. The basic problem is Plutonium isn't all the same. For a bomb you want Pu-239. The desired reaction is U-238 + n -> U-239. Decays (half life 23 minutes) to Np-239, decays (half life 2.36 days) to Pu-239. The undesired reaction is Pu-239 + n -> Pu-240. Not only does Pu-240 not go boom, but it's prone to spontaneous fission, spraying neutrons around. This is a bad thing, making your bomb very prone to being a fizzle. You defeat this by changing the fuel frequently, minimizing the Pu-240 buildup. Nobody has ever used power reactors in a bomb program. While it could be done it couldn't be done without it being apparent to observers.