The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #90532   Message #1718743
Posted By: Bunnahabhain
15-Apr-06 - 11:10 AM
Thread Name: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
And frankly, none of you guys are scientists exactly, How sure are you about that? Or would you like us to post our CVs before we give an opinion on something?

Everybody loves nukes until TMI or Chernobyl happens in THEIR backyard.

Chernobyl was an unsafe design, that was built to produce plutonium for weapons. The authorites in charge conducted an experiment of turning off all the saftey devices, to see what would happen, and when something did, they delyed any response, for political reasons.
Would you go looking for a gas leak with a cigarette lighter, and then not call an ambulence for a few days, in case you look silly?

Three Mile Island was a tiny incident, scientifically. There was an increase in cancer rates in the area afterwards. They increased most in the areas where it was most heavily reported, not the areas which recieved the greatest dose of radiation. Most of the people worried they had been contaminated were recieving more radiation from their television or microwave than the leak.

(From Edinburgh University Procees Engineering( the people who run reactors) course , lectures, case notes, etc covering saftey and pollution)