I mean, I would assume that the world's initial introduction to nuclear power (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) are a bit more influential. And ok, those don't deal with power plants so let's throw those out. You still have Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and the most recent Fukashima disasters to draw all the negative feeling from...
Pair into that the fact the Cold War happened, where nuclear disaster was a constant stresser day in and out, and I think you can easily see why we have an aversion to the thing...
I guess the important thing in this article is that it points out that the negative feelings toward nuclear power are relatively unfounded. They are based on a few bad accidents that happen very rarely, and the only reason we associate all nuclear power with these disasters is that, well, we don't ever hear about nuclear power at any other time. If everything goes smoothly, as it has in almost every case, we don't hear a thing about it. If something goes wrong, it's front page news...I just think the author mis-identifies the origin of the fear. The fear is based, IMO, on actual events that actually were extremely destructive and threatening, they are just a needle in a haystack when looking at the overall picture...the problem is that we only see the needles while the general-everyday-operating-without-incident-99%-of-the-time hay goes completely unnoticed by the general public.
Lastly, never use a guy from The Green Party or Greenpeace for quotes on any type of energy. It's just laughably biased and inaccurate.
No comments:
Post a Comment