Since the beginning of the crisis in Japan, and specifically the problems at Fukushima, I've been lurking on many RW sites, mainly the Wall Street Journal . Between those sites (and this one) I think I've gotten the main points of the pro-Nuclear energy argument down (here is a particularly helpful article), and understand completely that I am some form of an "anti-science Luddite" or a "left-wing idiot."
Given these shameful truths about my worthless, pajama-wearing self, I hereby vow to (try to) view the world in Realist, Financial, Market, Military, and otherwise forthright conservative terms somewhere between John Wayne and Milton Friedman.
In that light, I ask these Conservative financial, military and/or nonsensical questions:
1. How much money should each nuclear power firm set aside to deal with the spent fuel rods that will remain hazardous for thousands of years, and should they invest that principle in gold, T-bills, or CMOs?
2. I understand that "the earthquake didn't harm the reactors, the tsunami did." In that light, for all of the reactors in the Midwest I now understand that I don't have to worry about tornadoes. But what about the wind from the tornadoes?
3. Is the design of our reactors (or these modern ones being espoused) sufficiently strong enough to withstand a bomb blast of, let's say, WWII vintage (not the A-bomb, just a regular old conventional bomb)?