[Sosfbay-discuss] "No Nukes"

[Cameron L. Spitzer]

I wish the well-meaning opponents of modern commercial nuclear
fission would just quit mentioning Chernobyl.
That case is only indirectly relevant, and it gives the
proponents an easy hook to hijack the conversation onto the
many differences between that disaster and the modern disaster.
Three Mile Island is a much more relevant case.

Chernobyl remains indirectly relevant because the scale of that
plant made its operators more politically powerful than the
public agencies that were supposed to be regulating them.
Which is the same here for the same reasons.
Projects as big and risky as nuke fission plants, and with
such a huge profit available to the operator who manages to
externalize his construction and waste disposal costs, just
punch a hole in the fabric of civil society.
That's the root of the problem with nuke fission power,
we don't know how to manage a project like that safely
and accountably under "the free enterprise system."
Of course fission power run properly would be so absurdly
expensive compared to any other way to make electric power
that it's out of the picture.

Enough alarm about the safety.  Focus on the enormous rip-off
that it takes to make fission power cost-effective.


-Cameron in San Jose


Gerry wrote
>Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 06:39:35 -0800
>From: Gerry Gras <gerrygras at earthlink.net>
>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US;
	>rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011126 Netscape6/6.2.1
>To: sosfbay-discuss <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
>Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] "No Nukes"


>Ralph Nader explains why nuclear power plants do not
>make sense, even when considering global warming.
>And also how the U.S. governement is doing its usual
>games around the issue.


>"No Nukes"
      >http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/13

>Gerry