Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Financial Times has an article on the anniversary of Chernobyl. One aspect struck me as particularly odd...
Each side came prepared with studies showing that the effects of Chernobyl on human health had been either less severe (from the IAEA and World Heath Organisation) or more severe (from Greenpeace) than popularly imagined.

OK, ok... I acknowledge that the IAEA and WHO are mostly jokes (bad ones at that), but Greenpeace? An article is seriously citing GREENPEACE as an authority on nuclear energy? These eco-terrorism sponsoring goons need as little validation to exist as possible, FT.

Anyway, regarding the article, nuclear power is only as safe as those operating the plants, and the design of the plant itself. The reason that the reactor in Chernobyl failed was human error. The reason it did not contain its nuclear filth was bad design. Nuclear power may indeed be a huge benefit to human society, but perhaps the tradeoff should be military running the plants. It seems they may be the only ones with the discipline to pull it off, and the cost/benefit ratio appears to be beneficial.

Comments on "Chernobyl"


Anonymous honey said ... (10:04 PM) : 

Dear Chucko - I have an environmental scientist buddy who believes that the entire mention of Chernobyl these last few weeks is just a ruse by oil companies to scare away the thought that nuclear is the way to go. He cites that a mere 35 people died in that unfortunate accident. I understand that the problem could be more grievous with more plants but wouldn't that be interesting - nurturing fearful stories and reminders of alternate energy solutions into the minds of your customers so they can run to you with open arms? I think the oil companies should give me a $100+ refund, rather than the government.


post a comment

Go to the source!