Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
I'm aware of all of this, but the guys that built those reactors thought they were perfectly safe, and it was a human error that caused them to go wrong
|
The Fukushima reactors were a late 50's design built in the late 60's to mid 70's.
They were hit by an earthquake and a tsunami. Even though not all recommended safety upgrades had been made to the 40 year old facility, nobody died.
That's not a catastrophic failure, that's an amazing success.
Pointing to Fukushima as a reason nuclear reactors shouldn't be built is ridiculous. It's like banning automobiles because a 1955 Corvette, built in 1970, crashed into a brick wall in 2011 and the passenger broke their arm.
Surely we can all agree that we'd rather be in an accident in a new car rather than a car designed in 1955. Nuclear plants are the same. The US, Japan, Germany and France has been safely operating reactors designed in the 50's and 60's for decades but newer designs are safer. I believe CANDU reactors are basically idiot proof and un-meltdownable.
But even if the world had only built 1955 era reactors instead of the hundreds of coal power plants, and even if 1 failed every year like Fukushima or Three Mile Island, the world would be a better place.
Millions of air pollution deaths averted, less radiation emitted into the atmosphere and climate change delayed. Those are all wins even assuming the worst case scenario.
Greenpeace (by their propaganda and unscientific opposition to nuclear power) has done as much harm to the climate as the oil industry.