neeroc (neeroc) wrote,

I continue to be less than thrilled about living downstream and down wind from a leaking, creaking, past it's expiry date, old nuclear reactor. It was found to be missing safety measures, it lost power and it leaked a teeny, tiny bit of heavy water - twice! And that's just in the past two years.

I may not (yet) know all the ins and outs of the dangers and concerns surrounding this facility, but I'm pretty good at math. And I know that a 57-year old facility that had a scheduled life of between 20 and 40 years is old. Damn old. And I also know that if the nuclear regulatory group told them to shut it down and make safety changes two years ago, and some asshat politician just decided to overrule them, adding two years to the equation doesn't make it any safer.

Am I the only one that thinks it's strange that the primary reason for keeping it around is that it provides medical isotopes for screening for cancer and other illnesses? Isn't that kind of like manufacturing your own customers? (Okay, the primary reason for keeping it running is that they're making money, but they're doing it under the guise of saving lives)
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment