Quote:
Originally Posted by scooper  I think we need to be a little careful about analyzing risk, e.g. with nuke plants. A lot of the discussion seems irrational, because of how scary the worst case scenarios seem. But if an alternative pollutes more or has a greater negative impact on climate change is it really safer? Can't the slow and steady certainty of these effects be just as disastrous as nukes over the course of a century?
We need to compare best guess expected results, rather than how dire the worst case scenarios are. I don't know the best answer, but I have a strong suspicion that people don't give nuclear energy a fair chance. We shouldn't rush into it, but I'd hate to see it off the table because we imagine possible disasters without looking at possible solutions. |
In general, I don't think people are worried about the potential of nuclear explosions. The problem is that the radioactive material doesn't go away, and it has to be stored somewhere for hundreds and even thousands of years. Right now that isn't a huge problem because there's so little nuclear waste in existence. But if we really pushed nuclear power, there would be many times more and we don't have a good way to dispose of it.