David Suzuki

[PamW]

11. Even then...

kristopher,

Even THEN!!

First, there have been EXTREMELY few occurrences in which the malfunction of a nuclear power plant has resulted in the release of radioactivity or any harmful effects to the public. The number of such occurrences is far fewer than the number of airliner crashes, for example.

Even then; the amounts of radioactivity that has been released has been rather TRIVIAL except for Chernobyl and Fukushima. The amounts released by Three Mile Island accident were TRIVIAL which is why the judge in the lawsuit following the recommendations of the scientists that wrote the Kemeny report and the Rogovin report; the judge DISMISSED the lawsuits against the owners of Three Mile Island without trial. Even after a decade and a half of study, plaintiffs just didn't have any evidence of harm:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html

As is clear from the preceding discussion, the discrepancies between Defendants, proffer of evidence and that put forth by Plaintiffs in both volume and complexity are vast. The paucity of proof alleged in support of Plaintiffs, case is manifest. The court has searched the record for any and all evidence which construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of their claims to a jury. This effort has been in vain.

Chernobyl and Fukushima certainly had greater effects. However, in BOTH of those cases, we had power plants that had significant known design defects that could NEVER have been licensed in the USA. Chernobyl had an unstable, over-moderated reactor design. Fukushima had backup generators and fuel tanks that were vulnerable to tsunami and flooding. Neither plant could have been licensed in the USA.

While Fukushima got "splashed" by the tsunami, the Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant in the USA on the banks of the Mississippi got flooded with water when the river overflowed; a more challenging event than the splash of the tsunami in Fukushima:

Nebraska Residents in No Danger After Floods Hit Nuke Plant

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nebraska-residents-danger-floods-hit-nuke-plant-waters/story?id=13932406

As a scientist, I treat the accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima the way I do the crash / burn of the airship Hindenburg. We know why the Hindenburg exploded and crashed in New Jersey 75 years ago; it was filled with combustible hydrogen. Would I be afraid to travel on a modern day airship fearing that it would explode and crash like the Hindenburg? Of course not! I know that modern day airships don't use hydrogen gas for lift; so the defect that caused the Hindenburg accident isn't there.

The SAME is true with Chernobyl and Fukushima. As a scientist, I know EXACTLY the design defects that led to both the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents. I also know that those defects are not there in nuclear power plants licensed in the USA. Therefore, why would I be afraid of a US nuclear power plant having a Chernobyl or Fukushima style accident when the design defects that allowed those accidents to occur are not present in a US nuclear power plant?

It would be as illogical as flying on a modern day helium-filled airship and fretting about a potential hydrogen explosion ala' the Hindenburg. It doesn't make any sense, whatsoever.

Of course that is the difference between a scientist that knows he difference between a modern airship and the Hindenburg, and a US nuclear power plant and either Chernobyl and Fukushima; vis-a-vis the average person that doesn't know one airship from another, or one nuclear power plant from another.

Hopefully, we can get more people educated in the sciences.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW