Personal tools

Argument: Nuclear energy always carries risk of a major disaster

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting evidence

Time for Change - "High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always last. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature (see here , here or here ). The more nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built, the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the world."

"The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008: "The real score: The Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters show the extreme danger that humanity is exposed to because of nuclear power plants. Power plants whose malfunction can cause some of the world’s worst disasters can never be considered safe or reliable since in reality, accidents can never truly be discounted. Unfortunately, given the dangerous nature of nuclear power plants, any accident that happens to the plant creates immediate serious repercussions to nearby communities, as well as to their water and soil. The effects and rehabilitation usually last for decades."

"End the nuclear age." Greenpeace. October 2008: "No reactor in the world is inherently safe. All operational reactors have inherent safety flaws, which cannot be eliminated by safety upgrading. Highly radioactive spent fuel requires constant cooling. If this fails, it could lead to a catastrophic release of radioactivity. They are also highly vulnerable to deliberate acts of sabotage, including terrorist attack."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits