Except nobody has been killed by this incident and thousands have been killed producing oil and coal. You're complaining about something that has never happened.
I read the news today oh boy! Page 343
Well, it has just happened.
We just don't know how bad it is yet.
There are dozens of news reports and experts are giving their opinions every day. This is bad but nowhere near catastrophic at this time.
At this time being the operative phrase. 
Every expert I've seen has said that the chances of a Chernobyl-like event are almost zero. This reactor design is much safer.
Quote: zooo @ March 14 2011, 12:21 AM GMTHardly as risky as nuclear disaster.
I'm not against nuclear power in general at all.
Just seems idiotic to put a power station right in a regular earthquake zone.
Grrrrrrrr nuclear power is the only option. Coal and oil both lead to wars, massive pollution and will eventually burn up all of our planets resources.
Solar, wind and wave are a lovely idea but no where near practical.
Nuclear is clean, the amount of leakage from modern Mox style reactors is virtually nonexistent.
In the whole of the history of nuclear power there has been one serious disaster which was Chernobyl. A dated, overworked plant that should have been closed decades ago.
The Japanese one had the world's biggest earthquake take place underneath it and it broke down and leaked a little.
Would you choose to live near a nuclear plant in a place that gets constant earthquakes?
I f**king wouldn't.
(Although I wouldn't live in a place that gets earthquakes anyway.)
There's been a lot of interesting work done on creating small, neighborhood-based reactors that could power 20-30,000 homes. The designs are very safe and fairly cheap. And if we ever get fusion reactors off the ground we'll be in good shape and the middle east can go back to being insignificant.
Quote: zooo @ March 14 2011, 1:04 AM GMTI f**king wouldn't.
I f**king did. Twice. It never worried me.
Quote: zooo @ March 14 2011, 1:04 AM GMTWould you choose to live near a nuclear plant in a place that gets constant earthquakes?
I f**king wouldn't.
(Although I wouldn't live in a place that gets earthquakes anyway.)
I would it would be ace, but they don't build them near public transport
Well, who knew there were so many radiation fans on here.
Quote: DaButt @ March 14 2011, 1:07 AM GMTThere's been a lot of interesting work done on creating small, neighborhood-based reactors that could power 20-30,000 homes. The designs are very safe and fairly cheap. And if we ever get fusion reactors off the ground we'll be in good shape and the middle east can go back to being insignificant.
I f**king did. Twice. It never worried me.
The Russians have diddy little ones that power their mega icebreaking ships.
And to date as far as we know none of them have gone critical.
Mother f**king ice breakers, they can take being on a ship that f**ks up icebergs shit.
Quote: DaButt @ March 14 2011, 1:07 AM GMTIt never worried me.
Of course it did. Obviously you decided the positives far outweighed the negatives, but don't pretend it never worried you for a second.
Which one/s was it anyway?
Quote: zooo @ March 14 2011, 1:08 AM GMTWell, who knew there were so many radiation fans on here.
Living without electricity is no fun at all.
Quote: zooo @ March 14 2011, 1:08 AM GMTWell, who knew there were so many radiation fans on here.
Enjoy your carbon monoxide
Quote: zooo @ March 14 2011, 1:10 AM GMTWhich one/s was it anyway?
I lived about 30 miles from this one in the late 80s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant
And then I lived near this one when a few years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station
I was more worried about driving down the freeways in L.A. than I was about meltdowns.