I am among the many thousands of people who helped stop the Seabrook and Shoreham nuclear power plants from opening.
As a huge supporter of science I really like the theory of nuclear energy. As an observer of the human condition I am concerned about the danger of concentrating so much risk (safety, economic, political, and security risk.) We (humans) are not very good at assessing and planning for low-probability/high-impact dangers. So my opposition to proliferation of nuclear energy remains, at present, while I acknowledge that our continued burning of coal (for example) is a current and ongoing poisoning that should not be ignored.
I imagine the book is best grokked by thumbing through it while watching all the pro-nuke images of Atomic Cafe
I tend to agree with your concerns, so you might find this film as fascinating and challenging as I did.
What would that be?
The cost of energy, I’d guess.
If not for the antinukies, we could have much more research being done on newer tech (or at least building more new and having enough capacity for decommissioning old) instead of propping up the aging, unsafe reactors and prolonging their life with duct tape and promises.
Molten salt reactors look pretty safe to me, even better than their pressurized-water or water-steam siblings. And even those, the less ancient types at least, have fairly decent passive safety features.
Now compare the impact of nuclear energy with the impact of (say) water dams, and weep.
Anti-nuke fear is the reason we still get most of our power from fossil fuels.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.