Objectivity on Nuclear Energy

I am VERY pro nuclear. I see the Japan earthquake / Tsunami as an opportunity to assess how robust and disaster tolerant our nuclear facilities really are and improve that infrastructure. In any field of engineering, a design gets improved only in the face of failure or intense competition.

If thousands of people were to be sickened or killed by the fallout of the Japanese nuke plants overheating, by all means we should re evaluate current and future implementations.

Does that logic apply to the Hoover Dam busting open due to a terrorist attack or or act of nature and killing thousands in Nevada?

Does that logic apply to the millions of Americans we have living on the coast lines who will be wiped out if a Tsunami hits our west coast?

The facts of the situation on the ground in Japan are that thousands are dead, not because of a nuke plant blowing, but because they lived too close to the ocean, in areas which had Tsunami alarms much more reliable than any of those on our coast lines. The nuke plants, though in dire circumstances, have performed remarkably well considering the magnitude of the disaster. The fact that experts and disaster teams have had a week to triage the situation is a testament to how robust the plant is. Yes, it can and should be better. But the world should look at this objectively.

So death due to a Tsunami is an acceptable risk to take in order to have a good view, but nuclear energy is not because of fear of what has never happened.

Note: Chernobyl doesn't play into this calculation as that plant was not at all of the same design and the Ukrainians had the plant held together with chewing gum, duct tape and poorly trained monkeys.

Here's a link that is a must read (they had me at craptastic MSM coverage) by some people who know a thing or two about nuclear power and radiation.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/03/japanese-reactors-update.html#tp