Best price/output ratio there is right now, so it's worth the risk, which itself is quite minor, especially with the huge precautions they take. Only your first case was catastrophic.
>>7
It's the worst nuclear accident ever and it had many casualties, isn't that enough to qualify? Pretty much all other failures except it were contained and didn't affect any large number of people.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-12 1:35
>>9
Are you forgot what evil american jews did to Japan?
>>10
That's a different story. Deliberate/weaponized use is meant to cause damage, it's not an ``accident'. I was talking about non-deliberate accidents, which happened in actual power plants.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-12 2:09
>>11
Then "Stuxnet" isn't an "accident" either. There is a theory, that Chernobyl was also a planned act by world jewry to help disassemble Soviet Union, when it lost its actuality to ZOG. We all now know, that SU was just a big military scarecrow, hollow inside, like a bubble.
>>9
Chernobyl was a nuclear bomb in the shape of a power plant. Anybody with minimal understanding of the issues would never include Chernobyl as part of the discussion because of this very fact. People who refer to Chernobyl within the context of nuclear power problems proclaim that they're too ignorant to participate in the discussion.
Looks like Japan won't have a meltdown after all. Too bad, they could have used the inspiration to start making something other than child-rape cartoons.
There oil refineries have exploded, dams break and flood cities, but there nuclear power stations have suffered very little damage and besides media sensationalism there will be noting close to chernobyl even at worse. Nuclear energy remains safest.
>>19
In the future, no nuclear plant will ever meltdown in the way that happened in Chernobyl. Chernobyl was a bomb, and nobody since that time has ever built a power plant shaped bomb. Nuclear energy remains the safest form of energy generation.