Yeah that is what I'm afraid of. Everyone will be like "look how unsafe nuclear is" and not take into account that:
A) That nuclear plant was build in the 1970s.
B) It was tested to withstand up to a 7.9 earthquake, last reports I heard was the main quake was 9.0 at the epicenter.
Sadly, you know this is already happenning. There always a group who is against something that will use any opportunity to use a tragedy to make their case, no matter how remote or irrelevant the reference.
i.e. - Anti-Gun? Why not use a tragic shooting like Ft Hood to say "See, there you go, all guns need to be outlawed".
Anti Petroleum (Drilling/exp)? take the Gulf Spill - "See, there you go, all offshore drilling must be stopped"
Anti-Nuke - well you get the idea.
These conclusions are myopic, self serving, opportunistic rants put on by those that still wouldn't want Nulcear Power if there
never was an accident.
I'm not saying any of these things are 100% safe, but let's be scientific (as mentioned above) and use these events as learing opportunities and as data points when considering the "big picture". (I don't mean to minimize the severity or loss from any of these events by calling them data points).
Nuclear power is still one of our best mid-term power options. It's still not perfect, but it is viable. So is natural gas. Enviro wackos are always pusing for electric cars - great, but where the h*ll do you think the electricity in the plug comes from? Elves? Wind and solar are still far off from being viable commercial sources for replacement of our power needs. France may not be the world leader in many things, but Wine, cheese, and NUCLEAR POWER come to mind. :yikes:
We need to have a sound, long term energy policy to reduce dependence on foreign oil and right now the two biggest steps we can take (both will take 5-10 years to yield results) is develop more Nuclear PLants, Drill Offshore, ANWR, Shale Oil, Oil Sands, etc.
Steve