| > cancer rates spiked Still preferable to the amount of people killed by coal. > what would happen if Paris or London or Berlin were contaminated? You can avoid building adjacent to cities. > would you live in Chernobyl city now? Really? I go ahead and say I'll live next to it, so you move the goalpost to living in it? Screw it. Fine. If it will get a lot of large nuclear plants built outside Asia, I'll trade a promise to live inside any disaster zone caused by not only them but any other plant built in the West this century. Is that good enough for you? Chernobyl itself was not an example of modern nuclear power and I'm not going there. > When a reactor can mess up a whole country/area long term you need to take all precautions. Even setting aside the issue of being so cautious you cause harm in other ways, a lot of the precautions don't affect the odds of a big disaster! > So it's not the standards that are the problem. There's so much nitpicking on an individual plant basis, so I think they are a big problem. I didn't see how "there are reactors built with plans to expand" is supposed to show that standards aren't driving the cost? |