Interesting.

So, let’s test this safety-of-nuclear-poweer theory of your in the marketplace. I dare you–though there’s no more chance of your taking up such a test than there is a chance of nuclear power from fission ever becoming acceptably safe in fact, as opposed to the fantasy world of denial in which we are literally raised and taught to live:

Make all nuclear power plant owners/operators FULLY financially responsible for ALL economic loss and material damage to life and property–no exceptions, no “liability limits”, just flat out financial responsibility for every single computable loss, those to people, their property, their future lost earnings from death or injury, the economic losses due to degraded natural environment—E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G.

Now, who will insure power plant owner/operaters against such huge potential losses? The short answer: no one, because it becomes quite clear and quite simple: the potential catastrophic losses implied in the exploitation of nuclear fission power plants (no matter what their design) are so colossal as to be beyond the capacity of any imaginable insurer.

You’ll say, “But, but, but, that would mean the end of nuclear power plants!”

Exactly. They are, when viewed fairly and realistically, simply too fantastically expensive and dangerous for the simple reason that “We cannot ‘afford’ to destroy the entire planet ‘even once’.”

I’ll be told that I’m not being “realistic.”

Here is reality for you: you who defend and promote the exploitation of nuclear power are systematically dooming practically all higher life forms to extinction in a time frame which is a tiny fraction of the existence to date of human kind. In short, not only is nuclear power’s exploitation impossible to sustain financially, this reality must and will necessarily be imposed upon us one way or the other (there are only two basic options).

One way

is to respond with a premeditated and chosen plan of action, to face hard facts and accept them and depart from the exploitation of nuclear power in the shortest possible delay–that is, a very few years, adjusting, accordingly, population growth to something within the limits of sustainable power’s availability. And, yes, this means instituting some manner of voluntary population control–for our problem is not “too little safe power”, it’s rather too many people for the safe forms of power which we are so far capable of devisign.

The second way

is wait and to watch, (that is, pursue our present and long-followed course) helplessly as accidents repeat until finally at catastrophic event occurs which finishes off human kind and most higher life forms with us.

The recent disaster at Fukushima could easily have gone much differently–easily have been much worse, much sooner, with, as a consequence, what is simply the human unihabitability of the entire Japanese penninsula, period.

But, no matter that this didn’t happen ‘this time.’ It is bound to happen sooner or later unless we radically change course.