Would a nuke disaster in the US be handled like Katrina or the BP oil spill?

[grahamhgreen]

[aquart]

1. Contamination panic adds that extra something.

[Lucinda]

2. I'm going to say better than either.

And hope I don't have to find out.

[rpannier]

3. Both

It would be one long 24/7 spin about how everything was fine, we'd spend millions keeping the press and others away for their safety and to prevent them from interfering with rescue efforts
And they'd let those people in the area die

[OffWithTheirHeads]

5. +1

Why say it again when you have said it so well already.

[kentauros]

17. Considering our hindsight with regards to how the Katrina fiasco

was "handled", I don't think our government would spend millions to keep reporters out. Honestly, I think they'd just shoot them on sight and worry about the consequences later.

[kristopher]

4. That is an excellent question to ask.

Lets see how it does.

[Scuba]

6. Other. We'd cut funding for feeding children. Only tax breaks will solve this problem. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

11. Of Couuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurse!

[Chorophyll]

13. Don't forget the jobs!

Been out of work for a couple years? Grab yer mop and rejoice!

[AsahinaKimi]

7. I am sure if it happened in California

Republicans, Freepers, Teabaggers and the Religious Right would probably Cheer, that GOD struck a major blow against Liberals.

[ReggieVeggie]

8. you mean, badly?

yes

[grahamhgreen]

10. Yes.

[Rex]

9. It would be different in that the radiation would travel to a much larger

area around America, the oil is at the bottom of the ocean and can be ignored by one and all. Radiation, not so much.

[KittyWampus]

12. a lot depends on who is president.

[Chorophyll]

14. I used to think that.

Now I'm not so sure.

[Urban Prairie]

15. Rethuglicans would apologize to whatever energy company or companies

was directly or indirectly responsible for the disaster, and owned or drew power from the affected reactors.

Obviously more tax cuts for the wealthy would become necessary, so that they can purchase what they need to protect themselves and their families, possessions, property, and real estate investments as well as cutting/eliminating government services and programs in order to divert the funds to assist instead in dealing with the aftermath of the nuclear disaster.

Then they would make claims similar to Ann Coulter's example of how the leaked radiation would be largely benign or beneficial to us, as well as the vastly improved prospects of creating more jobs for companies that make protective clothing/suits, geiger counter manufacturers, lead miners, lead lined caskets, as well as more business for morticians, funeral homes, undertakers, and cemeteries, for those who soon will perish from the resulting radioactive fallout. They might point out that less electricity may be needed in the irradiated areas of the country, due to the potential for radioactive glow emanating from them.

[grahamhgreen]

16. LOL, that's about the size of it,

obviously, the disaster would be due to too many regelayshuns