I suppose I don't have to remember you of Chernobyl Reactor 5 or Fukushima I? If something goes wrong with nuclear plants, folks get severely screwed.
Chernobyl: A soviet system builds a budget reactor, mans it with people who can barely tie their shoes, and expects great things. Is this really the argument you want to stand on?
At the time the soviets could not reasonably run farm equipments, this was not the glory days of Sputnik. They did everything half-a$$ed, and unsurprisingly things went bad.
Dude, you totally forgot to mention Three Mile Island and Lucens!
Nuclear is safe enough, it's clean and we have the facilities to house nuclear biproducts safely. 4 major accidents in the entire history of (civilian) nuclear power is a pretty good track record.
THANK YOU!
While I try to stay away from all caps, it is warranted in this case.
Three Mile Island was a programming failure. The fault could not be traced to a source, because the only thing that printed out was the newest fault in a never ending cascade. This is completely overlooking that a post incidence reports has said there was "an unknown amount of radiation" leaked at the site. Unknown means everything from a couple of hours in the sun up to a couple of chest x-rays. Nothing the average human could not, and does not endure on a regular basis.
Fukushima experienced hell (whether you believe in god or not, this is a fair description) on Earth. An earthquake ripped apart the land, a tidal wave washed over huge amounts of the island, and the cooling system failed completely. The police, fire, and industry were washed away and became ocean based polution. What happened to the reactor? The reactor overheated, released doses of radiation that could be meted out by staying inside on a couple of sunny days, and nothing more.
Reactor design is amazing. They build new reactors (read: existing "upgraded" reactors are less safe than the potential new reactors) to withstand the brunt of mother nature's fury, and it has been proven that they can. Nuclear reactors produce steam and mildly reactive material as a byproduct (read: direct exposure to "spent" fuel rods for short periods of time is acceptable based on current radiation absorbtion guidelines).
What alternatives do we have? Coal, oil, and other hydrocarbon based plants generate tons of carbon dioxide and monoxide, not to mention sulfurous compounds. Wind is only viable on a small amount of areas on Earth. Solar is prohibitively expensive, and not particularly useful in several locations on the planet Earth.
So let's look at the safety concern. The amount of reactors that have gone critical is, let's say 4 for the sake of this discussion. 60+ years of nuclear reactors, and 4 have been problematic, so a problem every 15 years. On the other hand, I have been driving for less than 10 years. I have been hit by 2 reckless drivers (and have luckily never been injured). Objectively, my car poses a three-fold increase in danger for me. I am aware of over 5 train de-railments in the US in the past two decades. Trains represent a 50% greater danger than a nuclear reactor. Heart disease, cancer, and diabetes represent a greater risk to humans than nuclear reactors.
In short, get off your high horse. When the liberal media starts saying nuclear reactors are a good idea (New York Times), you know that there are no other reasonable options. Every hippy that views nuclear reactor, and reads nuclear bomb, is myopic in the extreme. While exercising caution is 110% necessary, disqualifying nuclear reactors as an option is a fools errand until a real and plausible alternative is developed. As yet, we are years away from any real alternative...
