Is nuclear power safe?

correct...they temporarily asked Russia to increase the energy it sends to Japan, but they cant let themselves be held hostage to Russia as the Europeans have done, whereby every spat between Russia and Ukraine results in the cutting off of gas pipelines...it's just not feasible...the other option is to be held hostage to the middle east or other fossil fuel producers as they have nothing...

they have no other options

One solution for them (as well as the USA to deal with the envirowackos) is to setup nuke plants on off-shore platforms much like oil drillers and the experimentation now going on with offshore windmills....i don't know how feasible they would be, and certainly would be expensive, and have to be built extra sturdy to deal with typhoons/hurricanes and other weather conditions...those with pylons sitting on the seabed would have to deal with earthquakes, whereas floating platforms would avoid that, but be more expensive, but have the option to sever power cables and be moved out of harms way as a last resort in case of very bad weather, or a radiation leak / accident...

The arguments I've heard about the safety of nuke plants is that they are so safe it's OK to build them anywhere. I would think that what has just happened in Japan is proof they are wrong. Considering the consequences, why temp fate and build them on faults, near coastlines, Near liquid petroleum storage farms. All things that have taken place in the US. I worry about the judgment of all involved in letting that happen. If they failed us there what else has been marked acceptable when clearly its not. I also wonder about the lead up to every accident when all you hear is don't worry we have redundant safety backups and all is well right up to the BOOM
My question of safety was more about how and where they have been allowed to be built then how safe they are in a perfect world. When insurance companies won't insure them you have to wonder the risk vs value of them. I didn't even touch on the storage of all the radioactive waste that has to safely be stored some where( that's for another post)

Fear always trumps truth in our media.

What do you think is the solution for our electrical needs?

Who promised anyone safety?

Life is a risk.

Wear a cup.

One solution for them (as well as the USA to deal with the envirowackos) is to setup nuke plants on off-shore platforms much like oil drillers and the experimentation now going on with offshore windmills....i don't know how feasible they would be, and certainly would be expensive, and have to be built extra sturdy to deal with typhoons/hurricanes and other weather conditions...those with pylons sitting on the seabed would have to deal with earthquakes, whereas floating platforms would avoid that, but be more expensive, but have the option to sever power cables and be moved out of harms way as a last resort in case of very bad weather, or a radiation leak / accident...

Fear always trumps truth in our media.

Amen!

In 13 the beast is rising
The frenchman did surmise
Through earthquakes and starvation
The warlord will arise
Terror, death, destruction
Pour from the eastern sands
But the truth of all predictions
Is always in your hands

If you're gonna die, die with your boots on
If you're gonna try, just stick around
Gonna cry, just move along

Fear always trumps truth in our media.

I love how you can post a chart trying to pass of as FACT...

Yet those educated minds who came up with that chart spell Wind.... Vind.....

That doesn't make any sense. This was easily the worst set of external conditions ever imposed upon a commercial nuclear power plant and still nobody was killed and no member of the public was harmed. Yes, it is an economic disaster, but so is the rest of northeastern Japan right now.

By the logic you use, we pretty much shouldn't build anything near any faultline. If the injury/exposure of some workers during a once in a hundred year earthquake is enough to dismiss nuclear power in seismic areas, what does that say about dams, oil refineries, chemical plants, natural gas depots/pipelines, harbors handling dangerous materials, high rise buildings, and anything else that poses any risk to the public?

The New York Academy of Sciences recent report puts the death toll from Chernobyl at closer to 1million WHO only say 4000 not to mention 24 years later it's still off limits and highly contaminated

Nuclear power simply isn't the solution for our electrical needs, because there's no way that local residents will allow enough construction. It's no longer worth considering. Japan will also stop new plant construction and they will develop alternatives.

With the end of the Cold War, many in the area feared a shutdown of Hanford, followed by the Tri-Cities quickly becoming a ghost town. These fears were allayed after the United States Department of Energy switched the facility's purpose from the creation of nuclear weapons to the effective sealing and disposal of radioactive waste. During the 1990s, several major corporations entered the Tri-Cities, which helped to begin diversifying the economy apart from the Hanford sector. In 1995, a sixth public high school, Southridge High, was founded in south Kennewick.

The 2000s saw continued rapid growth as the Hanford site hired hundreds of workers to help with the cleanup effort. Additionally, the Tri-Cities saw a large influx of retirees from various areas of the Northwest. During this time, and the corresponding nationwide housing boom, all three cities flourished and grew significantly. Pasco became the fastest growing city in Washington State (in terms of both percent increase and number of new residents). In 2005, the Census Bureau reported that Pasco's population had surpassed Richland's for the first time since pre-Hanford days.

Despite the economic recession of the late 2000s, the Tri-Cities area continued to maintain steady growth and a stable economic climate due in large part to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which directed funding and jobs to the Hanford site and its various cleanup efforts.

So what? The Hindenburg disaster killed lots of people too - should we ban the Goodyear blimp or maybe have we learned from some of our past mistakes? It might be logical to look at the worst case scenario if no significant time had passed since that event and technology and knowledge hadn't progressed, but it has. There is no way anything remotely resembling what happened at Chernobyl would ever happen today.

This. Nuclear power is safe as long as it's handled properly (of course that doesn't always happen). Like the nukes in the Navy always say, "You always hear people worried about nuclear power on the shore but never at the sea - why? Because they trust us, and we keep earning their trust"

14 people killed in a NYC tour bus accident [yahoo.com]...let's ban tour buses because they are unsafe.
19 killed in a coal mine blast [foxnews.com]...let's ban coal mines too.

sadly, as others have stated, people in the media and (generally) on the left with a blind anvirowacko / anti-nuke agenda don't care about facts...just sensationalist headlines and claims to further their own warped logic.