i for one would be fascinated to read something by proponents of alternative power sources other than nuclear, and what their objection to nuclear power is (and why they assume one plant is the same as another).
Well, they do
have some similarities... if you crack open the fuel containment of virtually any nuke plant,
very bad things can happen. Plutonium (present in the Japanese reactors, not at Chernobyl) burns pretty
much immediately when exposed to oxygen, creating spectacularly toxic smoke... There are safer plants
and less-safe, but all have the risk of very very very bad if a number of everyday sort of things just happen
to go wrong all at the same time - imagine if your house would explode if it ever
ocurred that you had
a blown fuse, backed-up drain, and locked-up computer at the same time.
That said, historically, nukes are safe. The systems that would have to glitch to create a worst-case are
massively redundant, and there are lots of fail-safes, and every time something happens like this Fukushima
business, or 3MI, or Chernobyl, or the ones most people don't hear about, they learn more about what can
go wrong and how to keep it from happening.
Sorry, ah tend to forget that some of our fellows heah are (pardon the phrase) yankees,
shhhh, cee, calm down.....there has been no name-calling. adjectives are not names. frustration is not the same as actual persecution.
and westerners and such, and occasionally use less-civil language in civil discussion.