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.
|
Huh
I was going through a list of nuclear accidents since the 50's, and outside of three mile Island, Chernobyl and now the current crisis there haven't been really significant accidents that match up. There have been incidences of course but they didn't seem like they had long lasting massive health or environmental incidences.
On average there have been 4 or 5 accidents per decade at most.
The incident in Japan was a perfect storm or natural disasters.
And beyond that and speaking out of my butt, I'm sure all of those incidences combined have had less of an environmental impact then burning coal or fossil fuels.