Re:Making Nuclear Energy Smaller, Cheaper And Safer
by AstralStorm on Wednesday May 08, 2019 @04:32PM
(#19862607)
Come on. You can drive nearly to the reactor itself and not even get a yearly background radiation dose now. There are a few hot spots where contaminated gear from decommissioning is stored, that's it.
People got cancers at increased rate, which is limited to less than two generations of damage. The range had expired a bunch of years ago.
Going into high mountains is a bigger radiation risk today.
As a bonus, you can just drive to Fukushima on a bike today and not even get a daily dose of some inhabited places in the US.
Re:Making Nuclear Energy Smaller, Cheaper And Safer
by v_lisivka on Thursday May 09, 2019 @06:09AM
(#19866811)
Cancer rate continue to grow here at steady rate. My neighbors died because of cancer, my brother has tumor. Tell your nice story to someone else, please.
Re:Making Nuclear Energy Smaller, Cheaper And Safer
by smileysteve on Wednesday May 08, 2019 @04:49PM
(#19862772)
> However, if you like it, you can create similar exclusion zone near to you. Just vote for nuclear power and wait until next nuclear disaster.
Reminder that coal has more radioactive waste over a decade than a nuclear plant does in its worst failure mode; and that worst failure mode is very unlikely with modern reactor designs (unlike Chernobyl and Fukushima)
Wildlife is thriving in my area too, because people abandon homes and move to cities instead.
However, if you like it, you can create similar exclusion zone near to you. Just vote for nuclear power and wait until next nuclear disaster.