I believe that there are a great many problems with nuclear plants in the United States that we do not hear about. This posting supports my point of view.
Why, if reported at all, are these considered local stories? A nuclear disaster renders hundreds, possibly thousands of square mile uninhabitable for the forseeable future. How much of a disaster do you have to have for the American news media to give it priority over the dissolute royal family of England?
Good article. Thanks to Say It Ain’t So Already.
James Pilant
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
I dont understand why this story is news worthy. The backups worked as designed. Its fun to say “if” when the author is trying to spread fear about something.
No one can guarantee a 100% safe design. All we can do is take steps to minimize the possibility of a system failure. Its just politically correct right now to harp on an energy source that has provided power to millions of people for over 40 years now because of 1 disaster, albeit a big one.
A few years ago, in Greenville, SC (about an hour from my home town), a train carrying a few cars of liquid chlorine collided with another train and the tanks ruptured. It was a huge deal. A lot of people died and when you go through the town, you can still see the white houses and the white streets where the chlorine had bleached damn near the whole town. After that, a lot of people were coming out of the woodworks questioning the safety and feasibility of using trains to transport dangerous materials. The general conclusion that everyone eventually came to was that while no method of transportation is 100% safe, transporting this stuff by train is much safer and cost efficient than transporting it by truck or any other means available.
No matter how good something is, it will never be good enough for some people.
LikeLike
My particular charge was that the larger media does not cover these stories. As for reactor safety I would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, but the industry has a record of PR and dishonesty. I am also deeply concerned with the industry’s governemnt subsidies and indemnification. This is about as far from the free market as one can imagine.
James Pilant
LikeLike
I agree with you there. The energy industry may be more invested in taking better care of their property if they knew that operating costs may actually have to come out of their own pockets.
I agree with taking these subsidies right out of their hands. The government has no business proping these businesses up.
Its a political catch 22 though. No one in Washington wants to be “that guy” who is responsible for the hike in energy costs that would result from the companies not receiving those subsidies. If the masses, all of a sudden, had to pay what our energy is ACTUALLY worth, there would be a huge back lash. One could argue that it would force all of us to better conserve energy, thus making us less dependent on foreign oil, and I’m all for that, but most people want things cheap and easy. Everyone would do what they do best…. cry to Washington to fix all of their problems for them. Thats why we have these subsidies in the first place.
LikeLike