".... so was Chernobyl" -- Contessa Brewer on MSNBC

[Flaxbee]

to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Hutchison mentioned that the BP accident was a statistical anomaly (part of her argument to resume deep water drilling). Brewer said "Well, so was Chernobyl".

And that brings us to a huge, very important point: we cannot trust any regulatory body in this country to do its job; we can't trust any industry run for profit to not cut corners if doing so will save money / boost the bottom line and make shareholders happy.

Are we really comfortable having nuclear power plants? One "statistical anomaly" in this country could wipe out multiple states for untold thousands of years. Please, take a moment to imagine what would happen if a similar chain of f*ckups that happened on the Deepwater Horizon rig occurred at a nuke plant. And don't tell me it couldn't happen.

We are absolute fools to think we can safely use nuclear power. The rest of the world joins us in this idiocy. There is acceptable risk, and then there is unacceptable risk, and nuclear power falls very squarely into the unacceptable risk category.

[EOTE]

1. France has used nuclear power for quite a while, safely at that.

The U.S. has used nuclear power for quite a while as well. It's generally determined within the scientific community that Chernobyl couldn't happen again. There are multiply redundant safeguards which make the chances pretty much nil. And nuclear power is regulated to a far greater extent than the oil industry is. None of that "self regulation" bullshit.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. There is absolutely no way

a ship built like the Titanic can sink. There are individually sealed bulkheads and many other multiply redundant safety systems that render it pretty much invulnerable to seagoing threats of any conceivable kind.

[EOTE]

9. Well, I understand that one never can say never.

But, nuclear power has been used in the U.S. for 60 years now and the biggest "event" we've had has been TMI. It's generally excepted that TMI couldn't happen again either, but if it did, it certainly wouldn't be a disaster, certainly not of the order of BP's fuckup, not by a longshot. And, unlike with regard to oil, we have very smart people who assess risks related to nuclear power and the results have been very favorable. People who work in the nuclear power industry realize (unlike big oil) that self regulation doesn't work. So once again, you can never say never, but you have to consider the alternatives. When you consider the alternatives, nuclear power's benefits far outweigh the risks.

[sharp_stick]

12. The Titanic didn't really have independently sealed bulkheads

The doors sealed but the bulkhead walls only went a little over 3/4 of the way to the top in the belief that the ship was too massive to ever dip enough for water to overflow the wall. Once the water was over the first wall everyone knew they were cooked. There were no backups and not enough lifeboats.

All of this was, just like BP, done to save money because they believed there was no way they needed the extra safety measures.

The only safety measure that I believe in is a well organized and really independent regulatory agency with a bunch of rules in place that they can actually enforce. The MMS was pretty much sleeping with the industries for decades. Unless they can be completely gutted and restaffed with new rules in place there are no safety standards.

on edit: Fixing my inevitable typos

[Flaxbee]

4. if you'd like to believe that, fine

Many of our reactors, though, are getting near end of life... and yet the permits to operate them keep getting renewed.

[anthroguy101]

2. That is true.

...but nuclear power is clean energy. It's just expensive to start and operate. Aren't renewables cheaper?

[Flaxbee]

6. how is it clean?

How is it possibly clean, when the byproduct - when the energy source itself - is so toxic we can't find any place safe to get rid of it? It is NOT renewable.

[anthroguy101]

8. I was asking about renewable energy compared to nuclear

Wouldn't it be more cost-effective to just switch to renewable? These plants aren't cheap.

[fishbulb703]

13. Not renewable but it is clean.

The amount of nuclear waste is a politicized issue, it is minuscule.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Nuclear energy has one direct negative output.

Reactors put a whole lot of heat into the environment. You can have a river with a cold-water ecology above the reactor and a warm-water ecology below it after the water has been used to cool the reactor.

[Enrique]

5. i hear nuclear power is very safe

:sarcasm:

[Ichingcarpenter]

10. The Mining Companies in Australia have a 10,000 year responsibility

On the mine tailings .......... yes you heard right 10,000 year.

Yeah its safe after 10,000 years.

[TheKentuckian]

11. I've not been a strong anti-nuke guy but it is hard to have any faith at all

that our government can be trusted to regulate an industry consistently at a high level for the 50+ years we'll need it.

I'm also hesitant to trust the overall technology or industry experts just because France has had a good run. Tomorrow, God forbid, that run could end in disaster tomorrow.

A lot of people were giving the same story about deepwater drilling a couple months ago, including the President.

[EC]

14. Okay there is water shortages in the South and West

Nuclear power requires cooling ponds...big amounts of water..

[uponit7771]

15. EXACTlY!!! This accident has changed my stance on safe nuke power, can't trust deregulating politici

[XemaSab]

16. I know!

Let's plug the leak with spent fuel rods.

Hell, it's not like anyone can ever get down there to steal them. :P