Trantor wrote:Sce-na-ri-os? Sounds kinda "fictional", at least in the undertones. So, how many more Chernobyls and Fukushimas do you need to rethink?fredgiblet wrote:When people base their decisions on doomsday scenarios...Trantor wrote:Nice. "You know your opponent has lost it when he goes "ad hominem"".
Hehe, i´ve seen this before? Smells like Wikipedia, no?fredgiblet wrote:Relevance? None? OK.Because she can think for herself, so she doesn´t fall for, let´s say something like "national superstitiousness" like others?
Exactly this IS failing. A multi-billion-franc facility shutting down for such a triviality? Srsly?fredgiblet wrote:I love it. Shutting down != failingWhile their oh-so safe and and reliable npp´s failed (gosh!!) due to low water levels in the rivers
Actually comparing Chernobyl and Fukushima on a basis of a doomsday scenario is pretty weird. Chernobyl was an old style reactor that had people do something with it that was never meant to be done. Mistake was learned and you don't really see anyone messing around with stuff like this anymore.
For good reason and internation oversight is also stricter.
And once more - Considering what hit Fukushima you can only consider it to be an amazing piece of equipment. On top of that the majority of European reactors are in geostable positions. You don;t really risk a tsunami|Earthquake|Typhoon|Other connecting issues. And again the impact of both disasters on the environment is not very high. Essentially people were forced to move out of the area, but beyond that the environment is healthy.
Compare that to virtually any oil spill and the sheer astounding devastation it causes. Or compare it to the absolutely massive environmental impacts damns bring. Hell those have destroyed more communities and environmental niches than every single radition accident in history.
Or maybe you want to use the use of irradiated material outright? Makes sense right, considering the most accidents are caused by medical equipment as opposed to nuclear power. And probably more people have died due to mishandling those.
I admit I've never heard of the issues plaguing french nuclear reactors. But most renewable energy sources are plagued even more. Solar power tends to provide very little during winters, wind has issues on a lot of days, water is in even more danger from floods than anything else (though damn are usually built to help control floods).
Honestly no power soruce has no environmental impact. Some have different impacts. Some have normal pollution (traditional means), some have long lasting irraditated waste, that is relatively easy to store, others take large swathes of lands (solar) more created noise pollution problems (wind) and others completely reshape the ecosystem and environments - water.