rationalskepticism.org

jez9999 wrote:

Matt_B wrote:EDF have just received a ticking off for safety breaches at UK plants:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... y-breaches

I don't think that'll do their cause for constructing new ones much good.

Oh wow, The Guardian, that unrivaled bastion of non-bias when it comes to nuclear power, decry the incredible danger caused by one pump failure in an array of redundant pumps, and by a seaweed blockage.

But at least they quoted some unbiased experts to back them up, eh? Like the SNP, whose irrational hatred of nuclear power has been held almost as long as their irrational hatred of England and obsession with their pathetic little Scots Gaelic language. Or maybe the non-partisan Mr. Pete Roche,

an Edinburgh-based nuclear consultant and editor of the no2nuclearpower.org.uk website

You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I'm not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.