🚀 go-pugleaf

in article 3A6CEBB4.3CB9DB58@quiotix.com, Jeffrey Siegal  wrote:

> I don't know what you call a disaster, but there was a serious
> *accident* at a fuel processing facility in Japan that exposed about a
> hundred people or so to potentially dangerous levels of radiation.
> 
> Which is not to say that nuclear power is not *far* safer than the
> fossil fuel power industries people take for granted (and releases less
> radiation into the environment, for that matter).

Accidents happen. Every technology known to man has a certain amount of risk
associated with it and nuclear technology is no exception. To say otherwise
would be nonsense. The question revolves around whether the risk outweighs
the the benefits. So far, I have seen no genuine evidence that such is the
case. When you strip away the emotional knee-jerk reactions to the topic,
what you have left is a workable, beneficial method for electrical
generation.

A "disaster" is when large numbers of citizens are injured or killed.
Chernobyl was a "disaster". Three Mile Island was NOT a "disaster". A
"hundred people or so" sounds very serious at first blush...until you think
about how many people have died in just this nation's coal mines.

Interestingly enough, a properly functioning coal-burning generating plant
releases more radiation into the environment than a comparable properly
functioning nuclear fission plant. And then, there are the so-called
"greenhouse" gases! I would welcome a nuclear plant in my backyard. I might
think twice about a coal-burning plant.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS