Nuclear Engergy Dangerous?

[Deathridesahorse]

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?

[Deathridesahorse]

A:_ Is probably the most curios theme...

At the end of the night I would vote that Nuclear is dead and would go "all in" if I had, maybe, $10, 000(not more, r u crazy!?!)

tHIS IS BECAUSE THE WORLD IS ALWAYS A DANGEROUS PLACE AND THE HIGHER IDEAL IS TO NOT LET THE WORLD AT LARGE BE ABLE TO USE SUCH POTENTLY CATASTROPHIC MATERIALS!

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

But, were the stories particularly damning of Nuclear, or simply stories relating to Nuclear perseved as riduculous propaganda?!?

The stories were used (incorrectly) to put nuclear in a bad light.
I'm not sure what the second part of your sentence means.

[forfismum]