No, the fact that there’s another reactor doesn’t mean that an accident could reach farther than it can; no, the probability of core damage at the existing ones hasn’t gone up in the last 25 years (and in fact was way overestimated in the days before powerful computer models); no, the proposed new one isn’t more dangerous (and is in fact safer–because it replaces backup systems with physics–although the old one was good enough); and no, incidents (read: trash can fires in the manager’s office) aren’t indicative of anything nuclear. The article basically uses the old “aging-means-we-shouldn’t-build-new-ones” argument throughout; the good news is that we have at least a chance to be heard.
This isn’t Nazi Germany; we shouldn’t think we’re so marginalized that we can’t act like a counterculture.
Link (hat tip: Know_Nukes).
Filed under Emergency Response, New Build, Non Sequitur, Safety
Posted on April 30, 2007 by Stewart Peterson |
