Nuclear power is not energy solution, say MPs (UK)

[struggle4progress]

Tania Branigan and John Vidal
Friday April 14, 2006
The Guardian

A new generation of nuclear power stations cannot solve energy supply problems in the short term and crucial questions of security, cost and effectiveness remain unanswered, MPs will warn in a report to be published this weekend.

The findings of the parliamentary environmental audit committee raise concerns over the risk of terrorist attacks, but also focus on the full costs of nuclear generation, such as the disposal of waste and decommissioning. <snip>

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/story/0,,1753953,00.html

[Kutjara]

1. It says a lot about how deep we are in trouble...

...when people are seriously debating whether to build new fission plants.

For me, this is the energy industry equivalent of the Russians who get all nostalgic about Uncle Joe Stalin.

[NNadir]

2. Have there been a lot of terrorist attacks on nuclear stations in Britain?

If we say "terrorist" enough times can we justify any dumb thing?

How about an oil war?

How many people have died from nuclear terrorism?

How many nuclear terrorist plots have been uncovered besides the Niger uranium and Jose Padilla?

How many nuclear terrorist incidents have there been other than those "reported" by the Bush administration?

Finally is the risk of terrorism as high as the risk of global climate change?

[5X]

3. How many is too many?

If there is only one, would that be an acceptable risk?

[NNadir]

4. Compared to what?

I get tired of addressing this nonsense.

I answered the question in a relatively recent post, this one the "nuke attack on a nuke plant" scenario, another piece of dopey fantasy that diverts us from the real event, which is global climate change:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x49573#49582

Is it impossible that there will ever be a loss of life associated with nuclear power? No, it is not impossible. Is it less probable that a nuclear powered society would face less risk than a fossil fueled society, socially, morally, environmentally, internationally and economically? No, it is not. Nuclear power is the lowest risk option there is. It's been measured: www.externe.info.