"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
Sunworshipper wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:34:38 -0400, "Steve W."

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/

Now I'll wait for the doom and gloom crowd to start wailing....

Read that first thing this morning. How thick is the graphite, metal,
and concrete. 4,000 degree F.+ melt for how long? Has it been done
before? Still, that sounds like Air Force and airline pilots wouldn't
make it till retirement. That is if a couple of beers is like tail
gating out at the plant.

You didn't read the article either, did you? Or at least, if you did,
you obviously didn't grasp the facts.

Yeah, nuclear power has risks - so do solar panels and wind turbines
and cars. Cars kill 50,000 people every year - should we ban them too?

There is a big difference Rich.
Automobiles are low risk / small consequence propositions. No car accident
will ever pose a threat to an economy.
Nuclear generating facilities are tiny risk / HUGE consequence operations.
Even a single catastrophe can have large and long lasting impact.

Commercial nuclear power has never had a single mass casualty event in
it's decades of operation. It has not even had a small scale civilian
casualty event. Opposition to nuclear power is based on ignorance and
paranoia, not any science or rational thought.