Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
This is pretty much the nail in the coffin for any sort of nuclear energy option, isn't it? I just don't see anyone considering this type of technology until we can safely assume that the chances of problems, what they may be, are reduced to nil.
|
It is impossible to reduce the risk to nil, complex systems like this can never be predicted completely, nor can every possible outside event be predicted. But you have to compare the risks of nuclear versus the risks of alternative technologies. Faced with the risks of global warming, or a huge curtailment in our standards of living, maybe we'll eventually decide that the radiation is worth the price. But we really don't have enough information to make that decision right now. We have complex computer models of the long term effects of carbon energy, but we don't have the same models for a long term expansion and proliferation of nuclear technology.
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: The Lessons Of Fukishima
Quote:
|
This leaves us with a choice between walking back from a technology that we decide is too dangerous or normalizing the risks of nuclear energy and accepting that an occasional Fukushima is the price we have to pay for a world with less carbon dioxide. It is wishful thinking to believe there is a third choice of nuclear energy without nuclear accidents.
|