Button up, either filter incoming air, or produce your own, and its not rocket science to keep a store of water in tanks to avoid having to use contaminated stuff.
How long will the air filters work? How much water can you store?
The fact alone that you make a bunker in case of a nuclear fallout is something that does not assure me, in many things.
But I come from a family of experts who rather taught me just how things should be done, and how to reconise someone whose a moron at things, and I see a lot of those in the world today.
So you're a self-appointed expert at everything? Or are you saying that people are stupid? In the first case, take a reality check; in the second case, tell me something new.
There are numerious examples of nuclear mistakes (as in any industry..) which fill miles of filing cabinets, thats not so much an issue in itself, its the buck passing and covering up of these events that concerns me most.
Really? I don't know much about this. All three accidents you mentioned I could easily look up.
And what kind of "cover up" are we talking about? Were the spilled materials and/or broken equipment cleaned up and repaired or were people were just given money to forget that there is a problem?
If its the first case, then there is nothing interesting for the public to see, if the second, how are they going to hide high-level radiation?
I read that all three accidents were handled appropriately, and was uninteresting enough for the mass media to find something more interesting, like Paris Hilton. Oh, wait, is THAT the cover-up you are talking about?
Oh, and if there was a "cover-up" how do YOU know about it? What sort of public documentation would mention "cover-up"?
If we just, rather than say 'oh we never make mistakes', say 'oh yeah, something broke last week and leaked a little radioactive stuff, but we cleared it up' people would get bored and see it as a tradional industry with mistakes, rather than jumping up and down when we constantly hide things.
The problem with this idea, is that if a coal power plant blows up with enough sound that you can hear it from 20 kilometres away, and shatters glass enough for few people to get killed, it gets into the news for a few seconds and then switch to something more interesting, like Paris Hilton.
If a nuclear power plant has a outer steam overpressure, or even a contained meltdown (ie, the internationally mandatory steel-reinforced concrete dome contained everything, as it should), or even a burned out LED, people will think it's the end of the world and the mass media will have its orgy of doom-saying.
Other industries don't have entire lobbies of scaremongering politician-wannabes that want to shut down the entire industry as a whole, at the event of the smallest accident so they could get an easy job at [insert high political position of your government] with a humongous payroll and with no more work then mere paper-pushing and being a yes-man. Similar things have happened before, and these people do not, and will not care what damage they do.
I mean, do you really want to hear about waste dumped under an airport and then when someone accidently discovers it digging a tunnel, that tunnel is suddenly aborted and a new route chosen, the people given hush money to keep quiet and the whole thing swept under the carpet..
And how do I know that this is not something you made up? Can you mention the name of the incident, the airport, the people responsible?
I've seen entire systems taken down by the simplist of things, thats why nuclear is problem for joe public, because they are aware how easy it is for humans to make mistakes, and big nuclear mistakes can be on a larger scale than others.
You make it sound as if anything nuclear is built on sticks and designed by a retarded child. While this may be true for some stuff the Soviet Union made, this is not the case of the modern world and technology, for about 30-40 years.
Do I really have to waste my time picking out several hundred tad more serious nuclear incidents for you to sit up and take that cotton wool out of your ears ?
You sound like a few conspiracy theorists I met, always calling me blind or deaf when I don't accept that man in fact did not land on the moon or that 9/11 was an inside job with controlled demolitions.
I can tell them that the Russians followed the Apollo rockets or that 9/11 could not have been an inside job with controlled demolitions because then why the heck would you need to crash a plane into it, but such arguments are ignored.
I don't deny that there are mishaps and accidents, some of them avoidable with more competent operators. But we are human, we screw up from time to time, even the best. What matters is that everything is cleaned up after a mishap or accident. Does this not happen? Do you have proof that this does not happen?
And what the frick is your argument anyway? That we should try to pursue fusion no matter what? Well, lets for a second, assume that no fusion concept will work or not be practical. So what now? We swallow the pill, and take fission or try to go for zero-point energy?
t doesn't matter how safe it is, it doesn't matter how good the containment is, it doesn't matter how good the safety systems are, it doesn't matter how well it's designed, it doesn't matter how well trained the operators are, it doesn't matter what school the nuclear engineers who designed it went to or how good their grades were. People are scared of this stuff, and denying it is ridiculous.
So, the technology, the people that work with this all, all the safety measures and features, the people that designed it are all worthless because its...scary?
The ONLY way to fix it is to be transparent, and stay that way until the current generation has died out and most people have seen nuclear power operate all their lives without a problem.
A nuclear power plant is a complex thing, and any engineer knows that complex things always have a bolt lose or a wheel that needs to be oiled. There is always something to tighten or fix, but most of these stuff is nothing serious. If it was a coal power plant, you'd never hear any of them, because they are uninteresting for the public.
For this reason, it is impossible to always operate a nuclear power plant without a problem. This is like asking Windows not to freeze at least once in 5 years.
However, that's when good engineering and good operation comes in: III generation and IV generation reactors are designed so that if something screws up, an army of safety measures of various kinds kick in and make a would-be-catastrophe into a localized accident. Metaphorically, some heads will roll for whoever frick up, money will be spent on repairs and upgrading the system to prevent the causing problem from ever happening again.
The point is not how big the accident was. The point is, there was a cover-up. Cover-ups are unacceptable, period. Until you admit it, there is no further point in talking about it.
WHAT frick COVER-UP ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WHAT? ALL ACCIDENTS YOU MENTIONED I COULD EASILY LOOK UP ON frick GOOGLE
, HECK ALL OF THEM ARE MENTIONED IN frick WIKIPEDIA!
IF THERE WAS A COVER-UP, THEY DID ONE SHITTY JOB AT IT IF A frick FOREIGNER STUDENT CAN LOOK IT UP FROM HIS HOME.