|
|
|
|
|
|
by effie
1905 days ago
|
|
|
Notice "most" and "not in tsunami endangered areas". By safely I meant following standard practices, not in areas in risk of being crashed by tsunamis. I did not mean no disaster can happen. Nobody can guarantee that for any industrial operation. Yes sometimes people or nature do bad things that result in disasters. Disasters will happen with or without nuclear reactors. I'm saying the serious disasters involving nuclear reactors are rare. Serious disasters because of nuclear reactors are rarer. Chernobyl was incompetence of personnel due to dysfunctional society + cheapest design without containment. It is not indictment of nuclear energy, but indictment of the soviet system. Fukushima wasn't as bad as Chernobyl, but it too shows problems with how government approached nuclear risk. I do not condone building plants like they did in Chernobyl and Fukushima. > What if the government of the future cannot properly maintain their nuclear plants? Based on the past 100 years of history I do not believe this is merely a hypothetical concern. We help them. West did help Russia with decommissioning of old nuclear equipment. I think that is a good strategy. > There will be disasters in the future. You understand this concept, right? Indeed I do. But it would be very stupid of us to stop advancing nuclear energy because we made mistakes in the past. We learn from mistakes and double down. I believe we can do it and we should do it. |
|
|