Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Cloudsweeper99, post: 1128347, member: 3011&quot;]I&#039;m not sure that relative harm is a valid defense.&nbsp; There is going to have to be a debate over the costs and benefits of nuclear energy to decide whether or not the power generation is worth 2-4 catastrophic accidents per century that kill some, injure the health of many more, and render hundreds of square miles uninhabitable with a total economic loss for everyone who owns property within the zone.&nbsp; What if there is another world war that leaves several hundred reactors in the condition of the ones in Japan with no remediation?&nbsp; What if this happened in the suburbs of a major US city?&nbsp; Three Mile Island was a near miss.&nbsp; What if Tokyo has to be evacuated?&nbsp; What if there is an 8.4 aftershock?&nbsp; Another tsunami?&nbsp; Another reactor?</p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t have the answers, but this is something that might not go away soon and could change the rules of the game.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in