[luckylion]

Meh, when major industry things fail, and e.g. a refinery just breaks and releases all of the oil and other stuff into the next best river, it will affect potentially millions of people's health if it's located right.

That's why we're trying to make extra extra sure that it doesn't happen and hire experts, and learn from mistakes (and there were plenty, and I'm sure there will be more).

"If this fails it's just too horrible, we mustn't attempt it" doesn't sound like the most helpful attitude when dealing with large projects that have gigantic benefits but can also cause gigantic issues when they explode.

[bb88]

It seems with Nuclear we have always underestimated the risk in the risk/reward nature.

[URSpider94]

I disagree, in fact, we have more frequently underestimated the reward. RTFA. As the article points out, tens of thousands of people die every year from lung disease directly related to fossil fuel combustion. Furthermore, he argues that more people have died from stress due to being relocated from Fukushima, than would have died if we left most of them in place. It’s the trolley problem writ large.

[bb88]

I did RTFA.

Have you read how:

    TEPCO tried to hide the extent of Fukushima? 

    USSR tried to hide the extent of Chernobyl?

    Russia tried to hide the extent of the latest nuclear sub accident recently?

Why is it when the last three major nuclear incidents occurred in recent memory, people have been not willing to cough up the truth on the extent of the disaster?