They made a decision to depend upon it many years ago. The technology
can be much safer than it is by choosing a different fuel... thorium vs
uranium. What we do have was chosen in order to produce plutonium for
weapons. That's what produces the really long lived, highly radioactive
waste. Maybe a bit of a stretch but some believe thorium reactors can
be made small and safe enough to be used as neighborhood power sources.
There's no meltdown scenario at all.
Chuck Norcutt
On 3/23/2014 10:05 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
> Let’s face it: Nuclear is clean and reliable and safe enough
> considering the return if sensibly regulated and supervised. Seems to
> me I recall reading that the French are way out front in nuclear
> power technology.
>
> --Bob Whitmire Certified Neanderthal
>
> On Mar 23, 2014, at 2:54 AM, Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> I don't hear many voices against nuclear now, except perhaps those
>> who worry about the Fukushima problem (the flooding risk could
>> surely be protected against).
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|