Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Krowbar who wrote (46742)	7/23/1999 11:33:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

We "got to the point" of demanding strict safety from nuclear power because of the terrible toll that carelessness takes on humans, animals, and plants. An automobile accident involves a limited number of people, for a brief time. A nuclear accident involves an unlimited number of people, for an unlimited time. I am surprised at what I perceive to be the lack of education behind your question, and hope that I have misunderstood you.

To: Krowbar who wrote (46742)	7/23/1999 11:35:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 108807

Consequence. A nuclear accident is worse than other kinds of accidents, and the prospect scares people more. So they demand higher levels of safety. The perception is to some extent bloated by hysterical propaganda, but it is true that nuclear waste is more persistently toxic and harder to clean up than most substances, and needs to be handled with a greater degree of care. To those living in proximity to a nuclear facility, what is an acceptable level of risk?

To: Krowbar who wrote (46742)	7/24/1999 8:05:00 AM
From: nihil	Respond to of 108807

The reason is that no one would insure nuclear plants, and the opponents required that the government not give private industry the chance to take chances at all. And kind of risk analysis would reach the same result. The idea of calculated risk puts plastic fuel pipes on automobiles because it saves $8.76 and only kills three people at $300 grand a piece. I do these calculations for a living. When the accident reconstruction expert shows that the defendant let a road flood because they couldn't afford to have a crew clean out the drains, I know the plaintiff accident victim will be awarded every thing I can think up to demand. If it is a private defendant, the plaintiff will collect as big a number in punitive damages as the jury can think of. If a government let a company build a nuclear plant that could detonate with any finite probability at all, and it happened, the industry would have to be shut down. Absolute faultless construction and operation under continuous supervision is the price of any nuclear power at all, and the price is too high most countries (such as Sweden) are discovering.