[Platapus]

A lot has been written here on the risks of nuclear power plants. Let's not forget that other traditional sources of electric power generation are also very risky.

For example Hydroelectric power generation.

In the 20th century we have experienced 43 incidents where a hydroelectric dam has failed (dam broke). Killing thousands of people. Causing many billions of dollars in damage. Causing massive damage to the environment. And this is not not including the damage and risk of just building and operating a hydroelectric dam which is massive in itself.

Look at civilian nuclear power. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has a rating scale they call the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) which is used to rate nuclear accidents. It is a scale of 0 (safe) to 7 (major accident or event)

Let's examine events that rate a 5 (accident with off-site risk) to 7

From 1958 to 2008 we have had eight incidents of a civilian reactor accidents of a level 5 through 7. Some of those here horrible like Chernobyl.

But then the Teton dam failure was not all that great also.

Every power source has its risks. The question is how easy can these risks be mitigated. One of the reasons I am in favour of Nuclear Power is that the risks are understood and can be mitigated. Most of the risks are internal and can be controlled as opposed to a hydroelectric dam which is under the influences of nature.

Using the technology of the 21st century as well as the horrible lessons learned in the 20th century, I believe it is possible to build safer nuclear reactors. I think the solution is to build more smaller reactors vice few huge ones.

Placement of these smaller reactors will improve safety. Go underground!

In 1969, there was an explosion at the nuclear reactor at needed - Lucen, Switzerland . Complete destruction of the containment vessel. Fortunately this experimental reactor was located underground and the earth acted like a secondary containment vessel. No radioactive leaks detected and few people are even aware of this incident.

As long as the right under ground location was selected (isolated from natural water sources and such), an underground reactor would be safer and more easily secured. By underground I am not talking about 10 feet, I am talking about 10,000 feet if necessary! It will be expensive but safer and more secure.

Nuclear power is the near future solution to our electric power needs. It works. It can be made safer. If an unreasonable standard of 100% safety is levied on nuclear power than the same standard needs to be placed on all other power systems to be fair. Nothing is 100% safe. The risks of nuclear reactors is understood and are capable of being mitigated. Nuclear waste is small and there are ways of safely disposing of it. I am in favour of the theory of deep sea crevice disposal. A most interesting idea I hope more investigation is made in this area.

I believe the problem is the fear of nuclear energy. It can be scary. We see movies of Giant Ants and other mutations. You can't see radiation. You might be being hit with radiation right now! In fact you are.

Like airline crashes, nuclear accidents are usually big and scary. Like Airline accidents nuclear accidents are rare considering all the hours that nuclear reactors are operating. If you still fly based on the logic that the odds are so overwhelming in your favour of safe flights why would you be concerned with nuclear accidents?

Your chances of being involved in an Airline crash, no matter how small, are still vastly higher than you being involved in a nuclear reactor accident.

One valid argument is that a large nuclear accident may cause more widespread damage than an Airline accident. This is true. A nuclear reactor does have the potential of causing more widespread damage to people and the environment. But that potential rarely occurs. With the exception of Chernobyl (which was a combination of crappy design, crappy construction, crappy procedures, crappy personnel) the damage caused by INES level 5-7 has not been that much.

And with proper design, proper construction, proper procedures, proper personnel, future accidents (and there will be accidents) can be controlled and contained.

Do I think that Fission nuclear reactors are the ultimate solution. Not at all. But today, with today's technology, I think it is folly to ignore the benefits of safe controlled nuclear power generation in our current situation.