I will revise my comment to say "It is a POTENTIALLY dangerous technology". The chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If it be operator, engineer, or God, it makes no difference to me. Having a nuclear reactor 10 miles from me and having a Nike shoe factory 10 miles from me is worlds apart in risk to my daily life. There is also the the issue with taking something that is not very radioactive like uranium ore and turning it into high level waste. Essentially every bit of fuel that has ever been used in a commercial reactor is still on the planet as high level waste and building up day by day. We are breeding high level radioactive pollutants and there is no way on the planet to get rid of it.
In past posts I have said that it is a necessary evil for electrical power as without would create world crises and world wars. For the record, I am not protesting against nuclear reactors but I think we are lulled into thinking that it is a more fool proof technology and stewardship than it is.
Frank Sanns
Linda Keene and the Chalk River Reactor.
-
Frank Sanns
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
- Real name: Frank Sanns
Re: Linda Keene and the Chalk River Reactor.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Linda Keene and the Chalk River Reactor.
Frank S. wrote:
> I think we are lulled into thinking that it is a more fool proof technology and stewardship than it is.
Yes, I think that is the attempt, and you are right to raise it. It is not the tech that is dangerous, but there are potential dangers associated with its use that those responsible try to dumb-down and dismiss in public, which has roll-over impact on the actual implementation (perhaps they start believing their own claims that safety failures can never happen?)
[I think we agree! ]
> I think we are lulled into thinking that it is a more fool proof technology and stewardship than it is.
Yes, I think that is the attempt, and you are right to raise it. It is not the tech that is dangerous, but there are potential dangers associated with its use that those responsible try to dumb-down and dismiss in public, which has roll-over impact on the actual implementation (perhaps they start believing their own claims that safety failures can never happen?)
[I think we agree! ]