Here is anti-nuclear activist Dan Hirsch propagandizing to some locals who live near the San Onofre Nuclear Plant. He is actually pretty polished and he doesn't make the outrageous pseudo-scientific claims of other anti-nukes.
Let's dig in!:
His most glaring argumentative error is focusing on the risk of a problem at a nuclear plant, as if without that risk, no one would be at any risk. He concedes there is only a small risk of something bad happening at the plant. There's also lots of other small risks we incur like driving, eating poorly, dangerous sports, etc. The risks associated with the plant aren't unreasonable.
He scares everyone about terrorist strikes against a nuclear plant. It's possible. But it would be a lot easier for terrorists to do many other things that could wreak havoc. The 9/11 terrorists had nothing to do with nuclear plants, because airplanes were easier to acquire to wreak havoc.
He also states something like "we get the electricity and future generations get the waste". That's true, but future generations also get the benefit of what that electricity provided. All the computer technology that future generations will inherit are the result of inexpensive electricity. Same with sophisticated medical technologies. Those technologies are bringing vast increases in public safety which far outweigh issues with the wastes.
He says, "we're either going to melt the planet through global warming or blow it up by nuclear weapons". That's a switcheroo. The subject is nuclear power, not weapons.
He's correct about neutron embrittlement of reactor vessels. But that is something that is evaluated on an ongoing basis.
He says we don't know how to dispose of high level waste. Sure we do.
We get skin cancer from the Sun (that safe reactor 93 million miles away). If a terrestial nuclear reactor caused that many skin cancers, he'd be complaining.
Yes, something bad could happen at San Onofre. But's it's very improbable.
No comments:
Post a Comment