24th-April-2008, 04:52 PM
|
|
Eco Nut
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 227
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Besoeker
Few man-made endevours are without risk. Perhaps you remember Bhopal?
But just limiting this to power generation we have, for example:
Machhu II, India, hydro-electric dam failure, 2,500 fatalities
Hirakud, India, another dam, 1,000 fatalaties
Asha-ufa, Siberia, LPG fire, 600 fatalities.
To name but a few.
Proscribing nuclear would not avert risk.
Given the stats for RTAs, I am more likely to be killed by a truck than its contents. Should we ban road transport?
Nobody can predict what will happen in the intervening 10,000 years. It isn't a very sound basis for rejecting nuclear power.
What you have highlighted are potential negatives. Other power generation has actual negatives.
|
A:_ nil
B:_ Nuclear could be used as a/for a terrorist statement such as 9-11...(contents!?!!!!!!)
C:_ That was even scarier than the groundwater comment...
D:_ We have to evolve, don't we?
__________________
Attack is invisible. Awareness is no escape.
"ROAR LIKE A BOAR!"
Don't lick the earth. (Tesla???)
"I would far rather be happy than right, any day."
"And are you?"
"No. That's where it all falls down, of course." - Douglas Adams
|