Skip to main content

View Diary: Thirty-Five USA Nukes at risk of Fukushima-style flooding and disasters (112 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And we are. I think the dam issue (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    has to be looked at. So...what? Seriously...if we TAKE it seriously, we address the issue. But your end game has to be clear: IF there are really any threats against dams upriver from nuclear power plants, what needs to be done to make them safe? Again, if you support real solutions, this means you end up being in favor of continuing nuclear energy from reactors down river from these dams.

    A serious Risk Assessment, publicly available, should be released and I join you in demanding this. However, does this mean you stop harping about it?

    The Ft. Calhoun seen...really, here on the DK it was total and absolute doom and gloom from the usual Doomers here. it was sad.

    Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

    by davidwalters on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 08:56:32 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Personally? I don't believe being downriver from (0+ / 0-)

      a dam in an inundation zone is safe. I wouldn't buy a house below a dam either. It shocks me how many people are willing to do so. The force and power of water is not to be trifled with. And it's not just water that comes when they break: it will roar down river with houses, cars, all kinds of heavy, battering debris.

      Since the plant is there, they need to look at serious, permanent, powerful structures that would protect it from such an event. Not, "Oh, if we hear the dam has broken, we'll go get some sandbags."

      Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

      by elfling on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 01:45:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site