Nuclear power stations

[bunn]

Have I missed something? Has there been some change in the technology that means that putting new nuclear power stations on a small crowded island that is a target for suicide bombers is a good idea?

Why is it better to make radioactive waste than carbon dioxide?

I thought the whole idea had been more or less written off after Chernobyl.

Comments

[king-pellinor.livejournal.com]

What have suicide bombers got to do with it? As far as targeting power stations goes the IRA's mortars would be more effective, or rather less ineffective. The combination of massive security and large lumps of concrete over the sensitive bits makes bombing a pretty minor threat.

I think the thing about radioactive waste is that the volumes are pretty small and so are easier to look after. So long as you pay attention, at least. And the lesson of Chernobyl is to pay attention.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

The bombers are an afterthought really (though I do wonder what would happen if someone flew a few planes into one).

'Pay attention' is not good enough for me. People are stupid, lazy and forgetful and I don't trust most of them to sell me a car, let alone run a thing that could go bang so spectacularly.

*Have* there been any changes to the technology that make it safer? It wasn't intended as a rhetorical question: I don't know the answer to it.