Nuclear Power Through the Fukushima Perspective

[kristopher]

Nuclear Power Through the Fukushima Perspective
10/09/2013 10:58 am

<snip>

Kan, at the event Tuesday in Manhattan, told of how he had been a supporter of nuclear power, but after the Fukushima accident, which began on March 11, 2011, said, "I changed my thinking 180-degrees, completely." He said that in the first days of the accident it looked like an "area that included Tokyo" and populated by 50 million people might have to be evacuated.

"We do have accidents such as an airplane crash and so on," said Kan, "but no other accident or disaster" other than a nuclear plant disaster can "affect 50 million people... no other accident could cause such a tragedy."

<snip>

Jaczko said that the Fukushima disaster exploded several myths about nuclear power including those involving the purported prowess of U.S. nuclear technology. The General Electric technology of the Fukushima nuclear plants "came from the U.S.," he noted. And, it exploded the myth that "severe accidents wouldn't happen." Said the former top nuclear official in the United States: "Severe accidents can and will happen."

And what the Fukushima accident "is telling us is society does not accept the consequences of these accidents," said Jaczko, who was pressured out of his position on the NRC after charging that the agency was not considering the "lessons" of the Fukushima disaster. In monetary cost alone, Jaczko said, the cost of the Fukushima accident is estimated at $500 billion by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-grossman/nuclear-power-through-the_b_4069712.html

[chervilant]

1. And, still, pro-nuke

sycophants insist that nuclear power plants are "relatively safe." Some adjure us to rage against coal instead. Some belittle our concerns.

Of late, few of the resident pro-nukes refute the catastrophe at Fukushima. And, like many others, I will not change my mind about nuclear power plants, no matter how often the pro-nukes tell me it's "relatively safe."

[Demeter]

2. Relative to what? Do they say?

Or is it the theory that "I'll be dead before anything bad happens"?

[chervilant]

3. Good question.

I've been admonished by certain pro-nukes that the radiation released at Fukushima will be largely dispersed in the ginormous Pacific Ocean, and that the amount that reaches the western coast of the United States will be equivalent to the natural, background radiation one might get from eating a banana.

[Demeter]

4. Guess it's a good thing that I hate bananas, then

[chervilant]

5. I find it distressing that

the pro-nukes who make these assertions seem to think that we should only be worried about the radiation that might reach our shores--a classic example of NIMBY thinking. Sad, really.

[Demeter]

6. Agreed

The capacity to build a solid and convincing argument is a lost art. The ability to ignore factual evidence, however, is in its golden Age!