It's simply not a question of if, it's a question of
when we have one or more catastrophic failures, accidents or terrorist sabotage of nuclear power plants, reprocessing plants or the waste products.
NASA spent billions to ensure safe space flight: it has resulted in two - three catastrophic failures in less than 20 years, and resulted in the death of two NASA crews. The very best of technology, with the very best technologists, closely monitored and vetted, and yet still - two catastrophic failures.
Compare that with the rent-a-cop, lowest bidder, profit driven nuclear industry. It's a nightmare waiting to happen.
Sherlock Google did a diary the other day on this issue, and it got very little traction here in the Dkos community. I was shocked at the number of people who posted in favor of nuclear power, and general lack of interest of the progressive community in general on this issue.
This is about an industry that the insurance companies have refused to insure, since it's very inception. There's a reason why insurance companies don't want to insure it.
This is about an industry that is profit driven, that spends millions [perhaps billions, since it's start?] on lobbyists in Washington. And most insiduously, this is an industry where nearly every 'expert' has a vested interest in furthering the commercial viability of this technology.
With over 100 active plants running in the USA, no solution to taking care of hundreds of tons of highly hazardous waste, compromised Federal Government oversight and profit making organizations at the helm of nuclear power is a recipe for near certain disaster. It's just a question of when.
If {when} an accident or terrorism compromises an Indian Point, Seabrook, Pilgrim, Salem, Millstone, Riverbend, Perry, Lasalle, Dresden, Sequoyah, Zion .. and thousands die and potentailly tens of thousands of square miles or more are removed from human habitation for tens of thousands of years, THEN we will understand the real costs of nuclear power.
You have to love the quote of one of the industry shills I heard on an NPR talk show a while back, that there have been no deaths {yet} .. "if I don't see the dead body in front of me, I cannot make a judgement" simply brilliant [sarcasm] ..
I would say we have been extraordinarily lucky there have not been more accidents, both in spaceflight as well as nuclear power. The difference is, when we have a catastrophic failure or attack related to nuclear power or it's byproducts, we won't be shutting down the shuttles for a couple of years - we will be shutting off the industry. Period.
What is needed for the future is both a national and global re-think about the hidden costs of technology, before it is put into use.
Yes, fossil power results in deaths from cancer, COPD and related diseases - even burning wood causes these deaths, too. The difference? Each individual death as result of pollution is it's own isolated incident, a personal tragedy.
Failure of any of these power plants, and this includes those outside the USA as well, will result in potentially large numbers of deaths all at the same time. Horrible, lingering death, and massive economic disruption, on a scale never seen in modern times.
And failure to discuss this, to try to mitigate this NOW is a failure for us, and a failure for our future generations.
I'm a lousy writer .. so if there are any suggestions for making things more clear, please let me know.
