"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
"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.

I think part of the resistance, what you attribute to paranoia, isn't
ignorant at all.
It looks like this....

http://quote.tse.or.jp/tse/quote.cgi...N=T&QCODE=9501

Do you honestly think that drop represents hard analysis of the facts
(which are still not fully known) or knee-jerk reactions?