(October 21, 2018 at 3:02 pm)wyzas Wrote:1. It does not need to effect the whole planet to be worrisome(October 21, 2018 at 1:44 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: It was far from just local as contamination has entered the Pacific ecosystem
causing damage well beyond Japan. And an increase in plant numbers just makes that more likely .
Did it effect the entire planet? Did Chernobyl? Did the hundreds (500+) of bombs?
Let me put it another way, which is the planet (and the human race) more likely to recover from?
To my way of thinking we're going to have to pick. The fear of limited electric power is the greatest fear and a non option. Or maybe global warming isn't the treat I've been lead to believe.
Read about the passive safety developments where Japan would not happen again. There is also micro reactors to take into consideration.
(October 21, 2018 at 2:06 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: I would not be. I do long-term energy market forecast for living. I work with Los Alamo national laboratory On economic assessment of emergent nuclear technology for utility resource planning purposes.
Then you're just the person to ask, more nuclear reactors replacing fossil fuel reactors (as many as possible understand peak demand issues) or not?
2. If it occurs over and over who knows
3. It's not an either / Or both could be a threat
4.I read the safety developments. So far i'm not impressed. And micro reactors a issues of their own which even their own creators ex knowledge
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Inuit Proverb
Inuit Proverb