On 17/02/2021 14:31, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 Feb 2021 at 13:29:09 GMT, Pancho
wrote:



I would really like some real fact and figures and include the deaths
and damage caused by the use of fossil fuels, palm oil etc etc versus
the deaths and damaged caused by the use of nuclear power.

That is what I'd consider to be the bigger picture.


This is a straw man argument. We all know fossil fuels have killed a
huge number of people and there is great doubt about any more than a
handful of deaths from nuclear power.

Despite this there are real concerns about potential damage that could
be caused by Nuclear Power.

Such as?

FOAD I'm 100% in favour of nuclear power, I just think that safety
concerns should be considered and addressed sensibly.

Which safety concerns would those be then, that are not already addressed?


Well the concern would be that a reactor would explode releasing a large
amount a radioactive material into the atmosphere.

It is very hard to list every possible scenario and exclude it.

The problems at Chernobyl and Fukushima were caused by unforgivable
design flaws.

At Chernobyl it was:

AIUI Chernobyl had feedback effects which caused a rapid increase in
power and hence an explosion. It is very hard to defend against such
feedback effects, if they exist. I don't know how easy it is to ensure
they are eliminated.

Yes you can list design flaws, Fukushima in particular seems pretty damn
stupid to me. Although, I wouldn't have been able to point to it in
advance on usenet.

We can and should make reactors safer, we can even tolerate an
occasional **** up. A 30 mile exclusion area is not the end of the world.

However I don't have much sympathy for someone who asserts all risks
have been uncovered and corrected. This just seems to be more of the
same complacent attitude that assured us risk events were 1 in a million
in the past.