[coffee @ Aug 1st 2007 2:38PM]

Yes, all those meltdowns constantly occurring in all the countries with nuclear power are troublesome.

//this is why we're still on coal

[suntiger @ Aug 1st 2007 3:11PM]

My thoughts exactly. I mean, that part about the nukes was just a cheapshot.

Also, to the writer: When nuke plants have an accident, it's usually not quite as severe as "24" would have you believe.

[Ignacio @ Aug 1st 2007 3:21PM]

"When nuke plants have an accident, it's usually not quite as severe as "24" would have you believe."

Of course, when a severe accident *does* happen, the surrounding area becomes inhabitable for a few thousand years, whereas even the worst tornadoes don't last more than a few hours...

[Chris @ Aug 1st 2007 3:28PM]

What the hell are you talking about! Whereabouts are these 'meltdowns' always occuring? What a typical clueless middle America comment!

[SHow @ Aug 1st 2007 3:33PM]

Ummm - Chernobyl anybody???

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmens/is_200604/ai_n16377068

[JD @ Aug 1st 2007 3:40PM]

I think he's referring to Chernobyl, and possibly to the city of Pripyat. But he probably doesn't know about Pripyat......

Anyhow, he probably also doesn't know that not only did Chernobyl have so many things go wrong at one time (on an un-authorized experiment, no less), it was also a cheapie design, called "partial containment", that didn't enclose the reactor in another building, like we (generally, as far as I know) do in the US. Why do you think Three Mile Island wasn't actually that bad? It was sealed off from the atmosphere. Chernobyl reactor 4 was not. End of story.

Also, not many people realize that other reactors at Chernobyl were actually still producing power until the year 2000, and there are still workers there decommissioning it.

Anyway, basic understanding of what you're talking about is good.

[coffee @ Aug 1st 2007 3:41PM]

Chris,

you might want to try a little sarcasm on for size.
Everyone else seemed to get it.

Typical.

[paul34 @ Aug 1st 2007 4:22PM]

Bingo, glad somebody said it. It's the whole NIMBY mentality that causes power problems here in the US - as well as preventing cell towers from going up. Ignorance causes NIMBY-ism, so to speak.

Stat-wise, nuclear power is even safer than coal power plants, if you look at the deaths per megawatt (or some type of measurement).

Properly designed and built nuclear power plants are extremely reliable and have emergency system after emergency system, as well as multiple failsafes that basically make a serious accident just about impossible.

Remember 3 mile island? What happened there - that's right, it fixed itself. Please read that again - fixed itself.

[Danny @ Aug 1st 2007 7:01PM]

Show:
Chernobyl only killed 56 people (plus about 4000 indirectly through cancer and other side effects) and it was about as bad of a failure mode as is possible for a nuclear plant. Sure it was terrible, but imagine if the three gorges dam in China collapsed, we'd be looking at hundreds of thousands of deaths, dwarfing Chernobyl. Or closer to home, what if Hoover dam burst? Would we then abandon hydroelectric power?