dpb wrote:


I don't minimize risk; what I have noted is that it doesn't seem that
threre is any satisfying a large number of critics no matter what is
done...the shipping cask testing is just one example. A definitive
test that will survive a catastrophic accident and still shipping was
one of the "insurmountable difficulties" raised.

I agree that in any environment, one can never seem to satisfy the critics -
they have their own agenda. I've been trying to be careful to only speak of
things I've read that even the industry advocates have said. They have
openly acknowledged risks. Please do understand - I'm not at all about
trying to leverage the opinions of some fringe antagonist group.


There are some considered critics, granted, but the position I
characterize w/ Harry Reid and the populist politics seems to me to be
the controlling factor in setting public policy rather than actual
cost:benefit risk analysis.

There has been one really severe nuclear accident in the world in the
history of nuclear power; Chernobyl and that it was so significant a
result owed to the design and primarily that the USSR built reactors
w/o any primary containment whatsoever. Because of that, it has no
bearing on any other facility presently operating.

I'll agree to that. TMI was in no way in the same league and it remains to
be seen what level the Japanese incident will fall into. But - that's not
been the underlying thought in my part of the discussion. Mine centers more
around the things we know are going to be issues, but may not have
experienced yet - but predictably will. The incidents to date only serve to
point to the fact that we need to be conscious of these possibilities - or
probabilities.


In the US, TMI caused no discernible injuries and was the instigator
for major revisions in design modifications and upgrades to the
current generation of facilities.

Yeahbut... (and I know - yeahbuts are not really a very solid argument...) -
we got lucky there. Well, maybe not lucky, but in the end we did not have
to face the probable worst case. Granted, it is because a lot of things
worked as planned, and that is good. But again - my statements are not
about operations, but about storage and about unexpected events. TMI -
though I have thrown it out there, is really not the best case to review.
What does matter about TMI is that despite all the official press releases
from both the industry and the government is that the damage was far greater
and far closer to catastrophic than what was revealed to the public - who
was reassured that all was well. That plant was a lot closer to a
catastrophic melt down than was acknowledged at the time. Credibility does
count some.


The Fukushima incident has, afaict, had no personal injuries offsite
and no deaths although some onsite exposures (which, it appears, for
the most part could have largely been avoided).

I think you are correct in that, but that is because people were either
washed out to sea to die in a different manner, or were evacuated to avoid
the impending doom. So, it is not even remotely reasonable to look at this
case as evidence of the safety of nuclear. Yup - people were evacuated.
You're now saying - oh look no one was irradiated. Well hell - of course
not - they were evacuated. Think about it...


As for the tsunami,
indeed it appears the design basis event was under-estimated for the
site; that issue is being addressed all over the world already even
in places that have no chance of ever seing tsunamis for alternative
scenarios.

Point being - lots of plants around the world - including in my area where
geological issues are a concern to some level. In the interest of building
the plants, those concerns were dismissed. Just like the likelihood of the
Japanese plant ever really being hit and severely impacted by a tsunami.
Well - we've seen these things happen. The credibility of the assurances is
gone. I don't care what you were taught to believe over 30 years. The
dangers, the risks of both operation and storage have been foisted on the
consuming public without proper regard for the what-if scenario.


There will undoubtedly be new procedures and safeguards
placed on whichever facilities are in the region you're near. Note,
however, that even w/ the severity of the earthquake in Japan, the
physical integrity of the plants was not compromised other than by
the loss of cooling owing to the tsunami, not the tremor.

Was not compromised???????????????? How in the hell do you say that?
Please - stop trying to bring this to some fine granularity of statement so
that you can prove that there was no safety issue. Just look at the big
picture. Is the plant up? Is it safe? Is it safe to live within 5 miles
of it? When - by the way... do you expect it will be safe to simply walk
through it? The point is that the very real dangers were realized.



Overall, compared to any other major technology in widespread use, the
actual number of deaths and injuries from commercial nuclear power
accidents continues to leave it w/ far and away the best safety record
of any.

I have agreed to this point more than once, but you must also realize that
we're only now beginning to realize the impacts that we had dismissed as a
result of a pretty good service record for 20 years. We became lulled into
assuming that since we didn't have a lot of bad experiences, that we could
now argue for how safe things really are. That's just plain bull**** and
you know it. The risks are real as is evidenced by the very industry
itself - again ... I have not seen anyone within your industry downplay the
risks the way that you do.

That there will continue to be improvements and modifications
is certainly true and reasoned input is always useful but expecting
there to never be any conceivable incident is also unrealistic.

Never suggested that.


My contention remains that nuclear-related perceived risk is ranked
far higher than the realities of the actual happenings.

Yeahbut... The risk of storage for example, is very low when you begin to
store materials. it grows as storage grows.

Surely it is
unfortunate that any of these have occurred but then again, there
could be another large airliner be lost tomorrow over the South
Atlantic w/ multi-hundred passengers to an apparent severe
thunderstorm and yet virtually nobody would choose to not get on
_their_ flight the next day following despite that event.

Agreed - but the scale of risk is completely different. 400 people will not
be exposed to risk in a nuckear accident (whether it is operational or
logistical). As well the post incident issues are much greater in the case
of a nuclear incident. That all just servers to differentiate the two.

OTOH,
there's already movement to close nuclear facilities in places that
have no chances of tsunamis by reacting to Japan; it makes no
comparative sense whatever.

I do agree that some of these decisions make no sense at all - but that
draws back to the fact that I'm not anti-nuke. Focusing on dealing with
waste and looking at the potential accident scenarios are good thoughts, but
in no way do I support the knee jerk reaction to simply close down plants.

--

-Mike-