[Incogneto]

This was posted on another message lard I frequent...a football message board.

As a former Navy Nuc, I've purposefully avoided the FFA and this discussion. EVen now, I've not read but three or four posts in here...by design.

This much I will say...A HUGE proportion of what's discussed in the media is being discussed by folks who either A: Have a political and/or economic stake in Nuclear power...one way or another. OR B: Have very limited first-hand knowledge and understanding of what Nuclear power is and how it works.

Folks in category B rely on info from folks in category A, and ROUTINELY deduce incorrect answers. It's very frustrating to listen to them. I haven't come here because it would be even more frustrating to debate the topic with folks who have half-formed opinions based on incorrect and often mis-leading data.

I've read the offical, confidential reports on both 3MI and Chernobyl. 3MI was almost a joke. Although serious, it's impact on both the environment and on the surrounding population was virtually non-existant. Chernobyl was a Sodium cooled reactor in a country that placed ZERO preium on safety...an almost completely differant kind of beast.

The problems in Japan are serious, but they do not pose nearly the threat that has been proposed. If a serious threat to the population were to be realized, it would have happened in the first 24 hours. Unlike Chernobyl, these reactors are, and have been, shut down since the quake. MOst "radiation" (I hate the term in this context because it's not strictly accurate) has already decayed away except for the SOLID fuel plates themselves. Plates which do not lend themselves easily into being "atomized" in such a way as to easily be propelled airborne.

Long term cleanup costs and localized environmental problems would be the most serious problems associated with "meltdowns" at this point...not serious exposure to the public. Evacuations are necessary precautions, but don't read too much into them. ANy radioactivity that has reached the public, or would have reached them, was primarily short lived stuff that will not pose a long term risk.

Nuclear power remains a far FAR safer fuel source then any carbon based sources (fuel oil, coal, etc.), and even with accidents like these, puts far fewer pollutants into the atmosphere then the carbon sources.

Look at it this way: We all know traveling by plane is safer than by car. The plane crash, like the nuclear accident...is far more dramatic, and has the potential for more immediate deaths...but the long term statistics don't lie...they're still safer....MUCH MUCH safer. Don't get sucked into the hype.