dumbasses like you where in charge of Chernobyl and 3 mile island. japan had an excuse, a quake and Tsunami that was right on its doorstep. Chernobyl and 3 mile island had you as the press officer or bullshitter. India and Pakistan last tested nuclear weapons in 1998. North Korea on May 25, 2009. given that it can take 10 years for the fall out to reach earth again and 50 years of radioactive crap to wear off. i think we are far from safe. oh and most are built by the cheapest bidder, they cut corners that why things go wrong.
I think that nuclear power is a bound step for many countries which want to be independent in resource plan. But it's rather dangerous way and the example of Chernobyl's disaster shows us its cruel consequences. So we have a deja vu in 25 years in Japan and due to man's factor, but the nature is guilty.
nuclear power is cheapest way to generate electricity..but it is more harmful if it is spread in environment..it is persistant from generations to generation..lyl in japan..
Nuclear power is a good source but not safe at all. Considering the negative effects. 1) If it lands in some devils hand or terrorists to be precise, the destruction can be mammoth. ( A city can be destroyed with comperitively less feul ) 2) If by accident the reactor breakes down, the entire region is affected. 3) The long term damages from the raditions and waste are even more dangerous and they continue for generations. The safety at present is not at level to the amount of energy reactors are producing. Other sources must be exploited which have been greedely consumed rather than taking a short cut to get electricity.
When the nuclear secrets are kept within, and they keep playing down the danger every time, how are we supposed to find out what we should know? Transparency is required so we can assess the situation on real facts.
@sammy trolly . I feel your love However AFAIK all the recent test where underground tests . @laxman : I never said that nuclear power is 100% . Unfortunately ATM the options are : fossil fuel / nuclear . We're pushing for green energy as much as we can but it's still in it's infancy . The projects that could truly change the face of the planet are either unrealistic or decades away from implementation . So if you want to have energy and not kill the planet you have to expand the nuclear energy sector . @Bush : A network of radiation sensors is not that hard to implement . Also AFAIK there are organizations that routinely tests for the level of hazardous material in the water , soil , air and consumer products . This test aren't very expensive to carry out and some are probably performed by NGOs .
Nuclear energy is the most efficient way of producing electricity nowadays, but possible natural disasters should be taken in consideration when building them.
How safe can it be when a single event has the potential to affect a region for Centuries. At least for this one not safe enough.
Electricity and philosophy don't really mix . I'm guessing that you prefer your comments with a slice of spam ?