Chris, why is it different for any other energy source though? Why is it that nuclear power is consider risky but coal, oil, gas, heck even hydroelectric dams, seem to be considered safe?
If you look at the last 20 years, there have been maybe a dozen or so nuclear related fatalities. Long term damage is restricted to nuclear waste and some environmental damage.
Now look at oil. Just the other day 4 people were killed in an oil explosion in the UK. As someone pointed out above, coal stations produce radioactive waste and coal dust is hazardous to long term health. Hydroelectric dams can fail and flood huge areas.
You say nuclear energy is unsafe because there is always a probability of a big accident, but that goes for almost everything in life, and almost certainly every energy source. If you want to use electricity then you have to accept that we don't have a risk free way of producing it.
To replace nuclear (which has a fairly good safety record) with something like coal (which has a pretty poor safety record and is linked to long term environmental damage) does appear to be a kneejerk reaction.
What are you proposing instead of nuclear? Would it work? Why would it be safer?
|