Howard Shaffer
Those of us who work in nuclear power know that “safe” doesn't mean “perfect,” and “reliable” doesn't mean “never has a problem.” Opponents demand perfection as a political tactic. We are always working to improve.
Edward Jaffe
I'm sorry, Howard, but for certain situations zero failure is what is required, because the consequences of certain failure modes are beyond unacceptable. You are dealing with massive spent-fuel storage and an old, hot-rodded plant.
Not every failure leads to systemic problems, but at some point, given a fleet of more than 100 very old plants with very long license extensions - and a very lax Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) - in the U.S., the odds will catch up with us. Multiply 10 years by 103 really old plants.
If you want to build new, safer nuclear plants, make the case and accept how bad the current situation is.
Look at what is going on in Japan (a much more orderly society than ours).
And when I toured VY last (2002), workers there were trying to impress my group with all the “security” they instituted since the 9/11 attacks.
What a laugh: Village police who are used to wife-beaters and drunk drivers along with some private guards. Ten ready-to-die commandos with a good plan could take VY. Maybe our nation's enemies will evolve to more sophisticated attacks than a “failed underwear bomber.”
Entergy plus the NRC plus General Electric plus the rest of the industry running old plants equals our “insane risk posse."
If you all think the plant is so safe, let's have VY sell Vermont homeowners and landowners some insurance. Every homeowners' insurance policy in the United Statees allows or requires the insurance company to offload that risk to me.
The day my house has solid insurance against radioactive damage? That is the day you guys will have some credibility with me.