Fears over new leak at Chernobyl spark plea for radiation shield We'll go ahead and add this to the "CON" side regarding "Nuclear power" - Pro, or Con? Excerpts:
Bitch, argue, and scream all you want: Nuclear energy is still the most dangerous alternative of all the alternatives to oil. No contest. So when the shills talk about how clean, safe, and CHEAP nuclear power is, know they haven't factored in the future costs of cleaning and re-cleaning Sector 7G mistakes for hundreds of years to come, nor have they factored the human cost for those "fortunate" enough to be in the path of falling radiation.
Adding say, 70 billion on the front end to cover any potential "accidental catastrophe" would change people's minds about the true cost of Nuclear power. Only after putting up some assurance money that they'll actually clean up after themselves, should Nuclear Energy corporations be considered as viable alternatives..
Fears that the destroyed nuclear reactor at Chernobyl could collapse and again leak deadly radiation have prompted European agencies to seek hundreds of millions of pounds to fund the construction of a vast steel building to encase the site.
As the 25th anniversary of the worst nuclear accident in history approaches, there is a funding shortfall of €740m (£631m) for projects to build a "shelter" over the destroyed reactor and to safely store nuclear fuel from the other nuclear reactors at the site.
..In the months after the accident, a "sarcophagus" of concrete was hastily erected over the destroyed shell of the reactor, with many of the workers involved being subjected to life-threatening doses of radiation to get the work done.
In recent years, the structure has become extremely unstable, with experts warning that if it collapses, a catastrophic amount of radiation could be released into the atmosphere. Stopgap stabilising work on one of the walls of the sarcophagus has reduced the chances of collapse and extended its life by around 15 years, but this might not be enough to prevent a disaster.
..The new shelter is designed to be safe for 100 years.
Bitch, argue, and scream all you want: Nuclear energy is still the most dangerous alternative of all the alternatives to oil. No contest. So when the shills talk about how clean, safe, and CHEAP nuclear power is, know they haven't factored in the future costs of cleaning and re-cleaning Sector 7G mistakes for hundreds of years to come, nor have they factored the human cost for those "fortunate" enough to be in the path of falling radiation.
Adding say, 70 billion on the front end to cover any potential "accidental catastrophe" would change people's minds about the true cost of Nuclear power. Only after putting up some assurance money that they'll actually clean up after themselves, should Nuclear Energy corporations be considered as viable alternatives..
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment