Quote:
Originally Posted by California98Civic
I want iron clad proof that such facilities, whatever the industry claims, and in some case whatever regularots claim, is safe and that we know exactly what we will do with all of the almost eternally deadly waste. Until then, I am absolutely opposed to further nuclear plant development.
|
There is no such certainty for any technology to be 100% safe. The reason companies don't have to prove things to us customers, but instead must prove their designs with a regulatory agency is because there will always be people among us that are opposed to something, regardless of how safe or beneficial it is to people. You might be opposed to nuclear, but you basically have no say in the matter, though you're free to move wherever you want.
As you mentioned, every technology poses their own risks. It turns out nuclear has been among the least deadly methods of producing power. The Fukushima meltdown killed 0 people directly, and so far an estimated 0 people due to elevated radiation exposure. 70% of residents are cleared to move back into the city.
This isn't an excuse to allow for poor design in the future, but we need to be realistic about risk when making decisions. Despite these poorly engineered reactors that were based on 1950's technology, we've had relatively minor loss of life and environmental damage. Certainly orders of magnitude less loss of life and environmental damage than fossil fuels and coal.
I agree that any proposal for new nuclear plants should undergo rigorous scrutiny. The problem is that conversation doesn't even happen because anti-nuke sentiment is so strong with people that they don't want to even hear it. That's fine though. CA can continue to have among the most expensive electricity in the nation. Who cares that high utility rates have an outsized negative impact on low income families in the state with the largest population?