| > Sea-drilling rigs (oil) have far more potential for environmental damage than modern nuclear plants Key word: "modern". A key aspect of a modern nuclear plant, that supports its high level of safety, is the required incident reporting and followup. The relevant issue is not really about a single worker being injured or dying. It's about detecting safety issues which could lead to a catastrophe far beyond what a sea oil drilling rig can, at least when it comes to human life and habitability of the surrounding area. For example, after Chernobyl, much of Europe had to deal with contamination from cesium 137. The entire planet's geological history shows when the nuclear age started, because humans are irresponsible in aggregate. (See also global warming.) > Aaaand it’s this alarmist attitude ... You're providing an object lesson in why humans can't really be trusted to operate systems like this over the long term. |
Ironically so are you. The coal we burn puts far more radioactivity into the environment than nuclear plants do. Yet we make sure nuclear isn't viable and burn coal like crazy. We do this only because of the type of risk telescoping you are doing. If you do a rational risk assessment, you will see that even operating nuclear plants as shown in the Simpsons would have less risk than what we are doing now. There is a risk to doing nothing. You are missing that part in your assessment.