Posted by
Andrews on Friday, August 15, 2008 9:01:24 PM
In replying to a comment on my blog, one of those posting comments mentioned he would support nuclear power if it were "safe". And it struck me that I have heard many assert they oppose nuclear power because it is not yet "safe".
The problem being that "safe" is not defined.
However, on the face of it, it would seem safe. For example, civilian nuclear power has resulted in absolutely no deaths in the US, where coal power has kille dhundred through steam leaks, fires, and boiler explosions. That would seem to make nuclear power safer than traditional source of electricity in most people's eyes.
But that is not enough for many who claim to want safety. Instead they point to the possibility of a catastrophic meltdown, argue that we "don't know" what flaws may exist in our plant designs, point to "long term" consequences about which we are as yet unaware, and so on. Arguing that there are many possible threats we do not yet adequately control.
All of which creates an impossible standard. It is possible to die from drinking water, but we do not call water unsafe. You can drown in a saucer or trip down stairs and break your neck, yet no one calls saucers or houses unduly dangerous. But nuclear power is being held to this absurd standard of absolute perfection.
Which shows the real reason most argue for such safety standards, not to ensure safety, but to prevent us from building any reactors. Of course many do not have such aims, merely aping the statements of people they believe, but those who create these arguments, they realize the impact. They know quite well that, so long as they hold nuclear power to the standard of perfection, we will be unable to prove nuclear plants are "safe". And, as with any human activity, once we demand perfection, we find it prevents us from acting at all.