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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (605126)	3/25/2011 1:20:12 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576592

>> The potential to kill and the probability of that potential. If Chernobyl, TMI and Japan haven't come close to killing as many people as other forms of electric power generation, I'm not quite sure what the real "potential" is.

To: koan who wrote (605126)	3/30/2011 8:39:57 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576592

The probability of truly massive death closely approaches zero. It would be hard to get worse than Chernobyl in terms of radioactive contamination from reactors, and it killed far fewer people than all sorts of non-nuclear power related accidents. It was nothing like en.wikipedia.org And Chernobyl isn't going to happen with new reactor designs. en.wikipedia.org eurekalert.org en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org The problem with nuclear is a combination of politics, regulation and costs. Political opposition, an expensive regulatory process, and high construction costs, and the main reasons we don't get a lot more of our electricity from nuclear power plants. That political opposition is mostly driven by safety concerns, but those concerns, even for older reactor designs and esp. for more modern reactors, often don't reasonably reflect the actual risks.