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 (605868)	3/30/2011 9:21:20 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1577026

Three Mile Island had a containment vessel and in other ways was a better design that Chernobyl. The radiation release from a full metldown would not have been as great as Chernobyl. The deaths would not have been as great as the Banqiao Dam and Shimantan Reservoir Dam disaster, or as much as many other disasters. And if you just consider "the potential" without considering the possibility of reaching that worse case scenario, then you get the situation I covered with "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". You have to consider the possibility of something happening not merely that its above zero. It was a very low probability for Three Mile Island, and for fourth generation reactors it is essentially a zero possibility (and so wouldn't be considered even under your methodology which seems to ignore the likelihood and only consider how bad the worst case scenario is).