Reconsidering Nuclear Energy

Risk, Trust, and the Arrogance of Numbers

...The coal and biofuel safety numbers don't come with a disclaimer that the greatest number of additional deaths from these fuels are due to indoor use for cooking, not from industrial energy production. Wind and solar energy numbers don't reflect that these are developing industries, without decades of safety standards behind them. (Including development numbers for nuclear would drastically change the picture there, given that it was a technology born out of war.) None of these numbers include the costs of destruction of ecosystems, displacement, and unrest caused by the exploitation of resources required....

Read an interesting commentary about the numbers

Taiwan: The Reassurance of Nuclear Safety is Not Convincing

Following the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, there are calls now for a review of Taiwan's nuclear energy policy, particularly as a fourth nuclear power plant is now under construction.

Lin Tsung-yao (æå®å ¯), member of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant Safety Monitoring Committee, has called upon [zh] the Taiwan Power company to do a thorough reevaluation of construction of its fourth nuclear power plant...


Calif. panel weighs nuclear safety after quake

State senators are reviewing whether California's nuclear power plants and gas pipelines are safe from earthquakes as Japan's scramble to control its damaged reactors brings up uncomfortable similarities to the nuclear plants on America's seismically active West Coast.

"Japan has always been a leader in preparedness," said Sen. Ellen Corbett, the San Leandro Democrat who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Earthquake and Disaster Preparedness, Response and Recovery. "It's time to revisit the safety of these plants in light of what we have learned from Japan," she said at a hearing Monday.....


IAEA concerned, lacks info on Japan nuclear plant

VIENNA - The UN atomic agency said on Tuesday it was concerned that it had not received some information from Japan about its stricken nuclear plant, saying the overall situation remained "very serious."

"We have not received validated information for some time related to the containment integrity of unit 1. So we are concerned that we do not know its exact status," Graham Andrew, a senior official of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told a news conference.


More like this

Another sequence of headlines and news reports, continuation of THIS POST: Fukushima update: No chance cooling fuel can breach vessels: Still nothing to get in a flap about The story of the three quake- and tsunami-hit reactors at Japan's Fukushima plant continues, with indications that one of the…
One of the interesting items we have this week is a study by Greenpeace in which various organisms from the sea near Fukushima were sampled for radioactive isotopes. Let's take a closer look. The data in the table provided (see the first item in Ana's feed for the link) show the amount of…
It has been Just over six months since a magnitude 9 earthquake and ensuing tsunami struck the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. In the hours following that incident, nuclear power protagonists filled the blogosphere, the news outlets, and other media with assurances that little could go…
Perhaps the most interesting single thing on the table in today's update is the revelation that at least one of Fukushima's reactors suffered sufficient damage from the earthquake that hit the region ... prior to the tsunami ... to have likely gone out of control or melted down. This is hard to…

A bunch of grandstanding drama kings & queens who act like nobody has bothered to consider the safety of nuclear power before.
I know there are risks involved and problems to be solved, but it looks like a lot more people died from living too close to the ocean than from radiation. Why aren't we discussing the safety of living on the coast?

It's not clear to me whether the amount of radioactive and toxic shit being spewed into the air from coal plants, or the health effects of airborne particulate matter that coal plants produce a fair amount of, are being considered in those numbers.

It is very clear to me that the health effects, past and present, of mining uranium in the Congo and Nigeria (and elsewhere) are never included in these numbers.

Feralboy, it is my *choice* whether to live within 20 metres of sea level or not.

It is not my *choice* to be subjected to the risk of enduring a shower of radioactive particles, except insofar as I can object loudly and often to the nuclear industry and do my best to point out at every available opportunity the dishonesty inherent in this dangerous, dirty, and uneconomic business that only exists by virtue of secrecy and government handouts..

By Vince whirlwind (not verified) on 22 Mar 2011 #permalink

feralboy12, would you like to point to a particular part of my post that makes me a grandstanding drama queen?

Azkyroth, given that the air pollution numbers are the ones used for coal deaths, I'm not sure why that wouldn't be clear to you if you followed the links.