- 2008.03.07, 12:53
- "That is, when people worry about nuclear power, what they worry about is the scale of an accident, not the likelihood. In this regard, nuclear power is just the opposite of the nation’s coal-fired plants, where harm to the environment is both ruinous and certain but comfortingly slow. It may take decades or even centuries for the effects of particle soot, acid rain, and global warming to claim a million lives. By contrast, the nightmare scenario with nuclear power is decades of cheap, plentiful, pollution-free energy—followed by a sudden meltdown that wipes out a city.
For most people, the reality that coal-based pollutants like mercury and sulfur dioxide are killing us every day—taking as many as 24,000 lives per year, according to nonpartisan researchers (that’s a Chernobyl disaster every eleven hours), while nuclear plants have never claimed an American life—is beside the point. The image of a city disappearing in a nuclear haze, however improbable it may be, trumps everything else." - 1 rakstair doma
- 8.3.08 13:34 #
-
Nekad neesmu sapratis cilveeku nostaaju pret nuclear power. Itsevishkji muusdienaas, kad modernie reaktori ir ljoti droshi. Protams shaada veida powers ir totaali neizdeviigs naftas/oglju industrijai. Es, protams, jau galvaa izteelojos lielo konspiraaciju un smadzenju skaloshanu pasaules meerogaa, no naftinieku puses, lai cilveeki baiditos no kodolenergjijas. :)
- Atbildēt
