Re: yet more nuclear fuel industry accidents..."pure good fortune nobody dangerously contaminated"


"hummingbird" <ZYLYDWINUSED@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:obfnv11rr5uf06nc925q7mhfos40q1bnj1@xxxxxxxxxx
On 21 Feb 2006 08:20:04 -0800, "Herbie Moon Glow"
<goliethslayer@xxxxxxx>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


Ultimately this is the problem. Plane crashes were unheard of before
1900. Over time more and more aircraft disasters became 'played-up' in
the news. And more and more people died from planes crashing, until the
learning curve caught up, and aircraft of the mid 1930s and after were
deemed perfectly safe to fly in.

Three points:
1.the airline industry goes to quite extreme lengths to avoid
accidents and few occur nowadays.

Define extreme.

I accept the aviation industry generally attempts to minimise risk. You
seem to be implying the nuclear industry does not.

2.when one does occur, at most several hundred people are killed
with negligible pollution.
3.in the case of most nuclear accidents, we see them happen because
of inadequate operational procedures or sloppy work by staff.
This is unacceptable because of the high death and pollution risk.

I would like you to tell us how many radiological incidents have occurred
with the numbers of casualties.

The crux of the nuclear waste 'problem' is in keeping people from
misusing it, by design or by accident.

--
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.


.

Relevant Pages